Hi -Exammy.... me in the Gay Mardis Gras ? :) yes yes..I'll be there with a large sign quoting Leviticus 18 :) and I wonder how long they would let me live eh?

Foxy..excellent point.. and that's why I rephrased the question further down.

I suppose I could have scraped through with "Are socialists who subscribe to the doctrine outlined in that link".....seditious?

As most would have tweaked to now.. I am very much on the "If you say you believe this or that....let's see where it will take us" kind.

So.. if any scripture or ideological book says "we must rule the world" then.. I would take it that people who claim to follow that book or ideology will be open to the claim that they "are" such and such in terms of the ideas in the book. This applies also to Christians, but in each case the place of the various ideas must be understood in the totality of the book concerned.

So the physical punishment for homosexual behavior in Leviticus would not apply to us today as Jesus clearly said he came to "save" not to Judge. But judgement will come..for sure.. but only after death.

Dear Steel..the issue of 'rights' is relative to the prevailing morality of the day. There is no inherrent 'right' for homosexuals to marry.. rights do not exist outside a power structure. If they do, then we have all manner of rights such as "I don't like your ideas, they threaten me.. so I have the right to kill you" ... yes.. an extreme example.. but that's where the idea of 'rights' outside a moral framework will take us.

Now..that extreme example could equally apply to a homosexual as to a heterosexual.

Like I said.. "revolution" as described in the SA rag... that's what I regard as 'seditious' myself.

Examinator's point about them possibly being a fringe group is possibly true.. I know the Socialists tend to have more doctrinal splits than even the Brethren :) So, it would be quite unfair to cast all those claiming the label as equally seditious.

Polly, you say Jesus was a communalist?

Perhaps we need some definitions:

A)
Communalst
1. An advocate of communal living.
2. One who is more interested in one's own minority or ethnic group than in society as a whole.
3. One who is deeply concerned about the quality of community life.

B)
Socialist - very big topic Polly. So I have given my ideal of socialism.
Modern social democracy advocates the formation of a democratic state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices. Allowing the innovation of competition regulated by government and equality of opportunity for all irrespective of (monetary) wealth - provision of infrastructure.

Whereas the old version of socialism was to replace capitalism, thus stifling innovation and competition.

C)
Capitalist
one who owns working capital including machinery and makes money by letting others work on those machines in the past.

More recently refers to someone who supports deregulation of the market as in a free market ideology.

I think we can be very sure that Jesus never owned a business or stock shares. However, in my early bible classes, I don't recall Jesus setting up any communes either, in spite of the Jewish tradition of the kibbutz. He wasn't really into agriculture much.

I think Jesus was more in favour of equality of opportunity for all - in that respect he thought far more broadly about society than one would expect of a communalist - tended towards the big picture I think.

I am a best of both worlds type of person. Therefore I would call myself a social-democrat.

Does this make me seditious? A terrorist? These are labels you have applied to socialists, Polly. I do believe that if Jesus were alive today you would be the first to condemn him as a subversive, seditious hippy.

Ellpus “Without Socialists there would never be any 'rights' for those except for landowners.”

I doubt that could ever be proven as true but am always happy to hear opinions.

I would note, early “rights”, enshrined in such legislation as the Truck Acts, which go back around 600+ years, well before "socialism" was even a word, made no reference to ones landholding status.

Fractelle Jesus was a capitalist, it stands to reason

He was a “fisher of men” which is more akin to selling Amways than to ranting on about Marx and universal equality.

Of course he also told the parable of the “talents:, criticizing those who leave theirs under a bushel, rather than putting them to use, like a capitalist merchant banker.

Then he turned three fishes and five loaves into a feast to feed 5,000 is an exercise in entrepreneurial catering on a grand scale, something which Jamie Oliver would be proud of.

If he had been a socialist we would still be waiting for the committee to report back on the agreed programme for the fairest distribution of food.

Finally the story of the good Samaritan is an expression of individual philanthropy, one person helping another, directly and without the services of the state.

“Philanthropy” is something which is beyond the legislative comprehension of socialists. Something which mere individuals must not be allowed to afford.

“Explain reasons for your choice”

I always find your style of “terse command” deserving of contempt and trust me, your ‘contempt quotient’ is growing by the day.

Fractelle,

You can't make up your own definition of socialist. The word is already commonly understood to mean a person who supports the ideology of socialism. What you have described is the definition of a social democrat. Social democrats are by definition NOT seditious.

If, on the other hand, you believed in the overthrow of capitalism, and the replacement of our gov't, then you would be seditious.

At this point in time our country is strong enough to ignore this type of behaviour, even though it is seditious. Thankfully, due to the OBVIOUS FAILURE of communism/socialism globally, there are very few real socialists left. Those few diehards who are left pose little threat. All the talented, intelligent people who were once socialists were able to learn the lessons that history has taught and have left the fold. Only the conspiracy theorists are left.

Are Socialist Alternative seditious? I think a bit of context would be useful here. Socialist Alternative is s splinter group of International Socialists, itself an Australian branch of International Socialist Tendency. IST is a Trotskyist offshoot of the Socialist Workers Party (everyone with me so far?).

I had a bit of contact with Trotskyites in my uni days. The main danger was the possibility of dying of boredom while listening to them blather about world revolution and the glorious workers state that would arise thereafter (a bit like Godbotherers and the promise of heaven). The turgid bilge in the link that Polycarp provided is typical Trotskyite drivel.

If you take Trotskyites seriously then yes, they are plotting sedition; they intend nothing less than the overthrow of Western captitalist democracy. My understanding is that the International Socialists were a driving force behind the S 11 protests in Melbourne. But, as seen in my first para, Trotskyite organisations are endlessly splitting and conniving against each other. Many of these organisations could meet in a phone box. If you're familiar with the Judean People's Front skit from Monty Python's Life of Brian you'll get the right idea.

Here's the International Trotskyite anthem (sung to the tune of the Mickey Mouse Club theme song)
Who's the Leader of the gang
That's right for you and me?
L-E-O-N-T-R-O-T-S-K-Y
Leon Trotsky! Give him an ice-pick!
Leon Trotsky! Give him an ice-pick!
Forever we will burn our banners
High, High, High, High!!
So come along
And throw a bomb
Destroy democracy!
L-E-O-N-T-R-O-T-S-K-Y

Col

Quite frankly I don't give a damn about your "contempt Quotient".

Very funny, yes, but 'give a damn?' Nada.

For your edification it was Gordon Gecko who said "Greed is Good".

Not Jesus.

He was more into the warm and fuzzy love one another thang. Never owned a boat, nor paid anyone a wage.

Paul L

Social Democracies are alive and well in many Northern European countries, as they are more into caring for each other, they cannot by any definition be considered terrorists. BTW As I stated Socialism is a big idealogy. I prefer to use an example that is very real and actually works.

Thanks for the laughs, fellows - I couldn't have done it without you.