Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.

Positioning Christians in politics

Note: First published 30 October, 2007

Hello. Does being a Christian determine how you vote? Yep, but it depends on which Christian values you prioritise. The right wing 'Australian Christian Lobby' published answers from political parties to its election questionnaire yesterday, at http://australiavotes.org/index.php. It's a nifty website, where you can call up responses to issue to compare. Only trouble is The Greens did not specifically answer the questions, so you get a blank for them. According to the Sydney Morning Herald's report, Greens refuse part in Christian survey:

The Australian Christian Lobby has expressed dissatisfaction with the Greens over the party's refusal to complete a national survey dealing with issues ranging from climate change and abortion to same-sex marriage.

The lobby's managing director, Jim Wallace, said the Greens had shown they were not concerned about the Christian vote and he expected this would influence where these voters put their preferences.

There's a lot of history between the ACL and The Greens, as the latter has campaigned strongly against the party in the past and will do so again this time, mainly on the issue of same sex relationships and other matters of personal morality (see here).

Given the distrust,  The Greens responded to the survey questions with a letter, as follows, which the ACL refused to publish on their website. It reads:

"Thank you for your follow-up email in regard to the Australian Christian Lobby survey. We would ask that you publish the following response on your website.

"We are, of course, aware that many Christians vote Green because they recognise the Greens’ commitment to peace and non-violence, social justice and the environment and to participatory democracy are consistent with Christian values.  The Greens have an ongoing dialogue with the established Christian churches with a long association with faith traditions and demonstrated commitment to social justice and to the Gospels.

"The Greens oppose discrimination in any form. We regard all issues and legislation as having a moral and ethical dimension which is reflected in our policy platform. Our position is well expressed in the inaugural speech of Senator Christine Milne in August 2005:

It used to be that every political party could be defined by values, by the values it prioritised in the hierarchy, but it is no longer clear which values underpin main-stream politics.  
 
Every political decision is a values-based decision, from tax cuts, which prioritise individual self-interest over the common good, to the slashing of incomes for single parents and people with disabilities. This is a matter of justice and justice is something that you either value or you do not.  
 
The abolition of student unionism is being dressed up as an issue of freedom of association, but isn’t it more an issue of equal opportunity for young Australians?  
 
There has been a concerted effort to quarantine the values debate to matters of private and personal morality, deemed ‘family values’, in order to avoid a values debate on public economic and social policy. The prosperity gospel has been adopted to legitimise consumerism and materialism and to advance the economic rationalist agenda of conservative governments. The notion of ‘family values’ is confined to a narrow range of values to suit a particular agenda. Where I grew up, honesty, kindness, respect, justice, fairness, tolerance, love and forgiveness were family values. Discrimination against and vilification of minorities, lying, misrepresentation and meanness of spirit were not family values.  
 
This quarantining of the values debate in such a narrow way is designed to do two things: firstly, to send a signal to the electorate that the government has a strong values base; and, secondly, to declare that all other issues are value free, so that it seems possible to have strong values and at the same time trample the very values of honesty, equality, freedom of speech, compassion, tolerance and a fair go which Australians hold dear and which are at the heart of all the world’s great religions and humanist philosophies.

"All the Greens policies are on our website and we would encourage your members and others viewing this site to reflect on the whole body of our policy platform and make their own choices. 

"At the 2004 election the Australian Christian Lobby campaigned solely to stop the major parties from agreeing to civil unions between same sex couples, even though this is now recognised by the President of the United States as an issue of social justice. After the election it was the boast of Australian Christian Lobby that it had succeeded.

"The Australian Christian Lobby has never spoken out on the values behind Federal Budgets that give tax cuts to the rich and which deny Indigenous communities the funding to maintain their languages or to provide even the most basic health and education services. At no stage in the last 4 years has the Australian Christian Lobby ever commented on the Howard government inaction on climate change or refusal to recognise environmental refugees. This, in spite of calls by the World Council of Churches to act on climate change to protect God's Earth and to support the millions of people in developing countries who will be first and most dramatically affected. 

"It is apparent that whilst belatedly the Australian Christian Lobby has included issues of public morality and the common good in this survey, the main agenda remains that of the fundamentalist Christian Right relating to private morality. It is offensive that the Australian Christian Lobby legitimises the very idea that it is acceptable to vilify a person because of their religious beliefs."

The ACL wants to position the parties to run its political agenda, not let the parties position themselves. How unChristian of them!

Some Christians have got a bit hot under the collar that the ACL is claiming ownership of the Christian vote, hence the rise of another Christian lobby group, which like the ACL, has sent out its own questionnaire and is holding its own candidate's forum for the election. This one is called The Centre for an Ethical Society, and I recently attended its Canberra candidates forum, opened by the Anglican Bishop of Canberra George Browning, with Greens Senate candidate Kerrie Tucker.

The CES has given the political parties until November 8 to respond to its survey - The Greens are the first to respond, Labor and the Democrats have promised to respond by the due date, and guess what - this time the Coalition has stayed silent and may well not respond at all!

So in the interests of free speech and balance, I've published the Greens' response to the CES survey here.

You know what? I reckon the Greens will top the CES survey for Christian values. Bottom to top, top to bottom - what's it all about?

left
right
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not Proving, Actually


Evan
, an older meaning or connotation of the verb "to prove"? Do tell!

To have any credibility you need to elaborate. Your bald statement just won't do.

In regard to etymology, according to the OED the word simply comes to us from Latin, through French. It has remained the same, and has been in use in the context "The exception proves…" since the early 17th century. Cicero, who is in some circles credited with originating the phrase, used it in similar context 50 years BC, using the Latin word "figit" which is directly equivalent to our "establishes", as distinct from "probat", which may be translated as either "proves" or "tests".

By the way, Jesus did not speak Hebrew. He spoke Aramaic.

Fiona, I have to disagree. The idea that an exception proves the veracity, or more properly the existence, of a rule does accord perfectly with logic, insofar as you can't have an exception without a norm (a rule) from which to deviate. Also, it doesn't matter what people believe it means, or what you assume them to believe. What matters is what it does mean. And you can't use a phrase with the word "rule" in it without at least some metaphorical reference to legalism, however unconscious that might be.

I dislike the spelling "judgment" because 3 consonants in a row look ugly and un-English. It must break some rule, because there is nothing in it to soften the "g" in pronunciation. As for orthography, there must have been no such thing in Shakespeare's day. He even spelt his name differently on different occasions.

English is more efficient these days, in a nuts and bolts sort of way, but is it better?

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks to those who have engaged with me, it seems to have been a difficult thing to do for some.

I think the passion shows we are dealing with what is quite important to us.  

I also think we are talking past each other.  Perhaps due to different ideas about what 'activism' means and what an 'activist' is.

It's clear we disagree, but I do want to say that I am glad we are engaging with the issue and doing this with respect for the other people. 

Point well made Margo

Point taken Margo.  I wasn't thinking of the financial aspect.  I can see why someone would vote Green only to second preference Labor. The Greens generally don't get business or union support so it does leave them at a disadvantage.  I hadn't thought of the financial value of a first preference vote.

You only have to look at North Sydney Council to see how much this area cares about the environment.  They have some excellent initiatives underway and the mayor has been around a long time.  It's worth remembering that this electorate once returned the highly ethical Ted Mack, our mayor who was not in fact a Liberal.  This electorate is unique on a number of levels.

Small l indeed.

You know my position on the environment.  I always cared about it but the years I spent in Switzerland were a revelation to me about how it can improve rather than detract from daily life to act in sustainable ways.

WTF!!!

Hi DD,

Always good to hear from you, but are you in the right thread? We were having a discussion about Jesus, last time I looked. You seem to be a little off topic, not that really matters I guess...

Fiona: Ian, I am probably equally guilty - but the thread is also relevant to voting, and preferences, and all that jazz...

No worries

No problem. Good to have you both.

Geez DD, does this mean I won't see you at North Sydney School, struggling under the weight of an "I'll die for Joe Hockey" life-size, romanesque sculpture for display in the foyer?

Damn. I was looking forward to that, he said (grinning from underneath his forlorn Greens for North Sydney leaflet. The Greens, of course, don't have the money for sculptures)...

Jesus says "Vote Early, Vote Often"

Roger, like you, I’m not going to argue black as white.  But I’m also not going to accept the crude readings of the Gospel that say Christ has only “one” message – personal salvation.

As I understand it, Jesus had quite a few things to say “God is Love”, Love your Enemy”, “the Kingdom of Heaven is imminent on Earth”, “Blessed are the meek, peacemakers, those who are persecuted etc”.

I’d also suggest that we have the record of what Jesus said, and of what he did.  He certainly was an activist – heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry – that sort of thing.

How you can say that a Christian ought live the pious life while ignoring the structural injustice of tyrannical government is something I just don’t understand.  I guess the martyrs had it all wrong.

Like I said, on the Christian Activist group there are plenty who advocate for pious disengagement with the world.  I’d rather be grateful to God for the miracle of this world, and the opportunity to live it in ways which embody and develop the love and free will God so generously gave us.

I’m not exactly happy clappy, but I celebrate the joy and beauty God has put in my life.  And I vote.

Jenny, what an interesting family you have.

Jesus Says???

Bryan, don't read into my statements what is not there. I have not said anything about pious disengagement. In fact I have said the exact opposite. 

A Christian is to live a life of service. Not vicariously, by supporting missions or giving to someone else's charity but by doing everything that is required within your own circle of family, friends, acquaintances and neighbourhood and perhaps even in the wider world. There is an imperative handed down by Christ to do just that. If Christ is God then he knows how to fix the world's problems and his prescription has nothing to do with activism but everything to do with selfless action.

Your characterisation of the gospels as "crude readings" seems bizarre to me. The whole edifice of Christian theology is based on nothing but those same gospels. Doctorates are awarded and people enter into a lifetime of service based on those "crude readings".

Perhaps you are just being provocative but there is no doubt that based on 2000 years of study, Christian theologians agree on at least one thing. The central message, the only message that is posited through the gospels is that each person can enter into eternal life only through Christ. However, I would like to know what makes you think otherwise. Perhaps you have valid reasons for disagreeing with orthodox theology and I would like to hear them.

Christ did say many things but all are ancillary to the central purpose. Now to glean this, you do need to know something about scripture. But the following is probably the best thing to consider. Christ said this "what does it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world but lose his soul". From his own mouth, crude reading or not, Christ delivers the central message, life is not as important as eternal salvation. Of course, we have a propensity to hear that the other way around.

If you start from this point and if you live a life of selfless service, even to the extent of giving up your life for another, then you can help transform the world. This is a true Christian perspective, to do what is required for salvation.

Now isn't this how you achieve your own stated goal to be "grateful to God for the miracle of the world and the opportunity to live in it in ways which embody and develop the love and free will God so generously gave us"?

Like I have said, the political activism engaged in by the Australian Christian Lobby is unChristian and a perversion. It has nothing to do with what Christ asks his followers to do. It has nothing to do with a response to the miseries of the world by our own personal action. If each person in the world loved their neighbour as themselves we would not have any problems. There would be no wars, no rape of the planets resources, no crime and none of the other horrors we heap on each other.

The fact that we vote has nothing to do with a Christian response to life. Voting is "rendering to Caesar". You do it because it is your civic duty to vote and you are obligated to make the wisest choice which often would mean voting against your own self-interest of you are a Christian. Now isn't that a radical idea; "Dear government don't give me tax cuts but instead fix the mess over there and help those people". If the ACL gave any credence to what Christ says they would refuse to vote for a government that did not do that. Instead they want to create a league table of who are the most "Christian" politicians. They would not know a Christian if they fell over one.

Fiona: Worse still, the wouldn't know a Christian if one bit them (and I hope - piously - that one day one does).

PC or PC?

The 5 year old child from Ashburton Primary School asked Peter Costello yesterday: "Who made cactuses?" and PC  answered with: "God made everything, so God made cactuses." I wonder if the poor child has been scarred for life by that PC (politically correct, not Peter Costello) answer. I do feel sorry for God, who is getting the blame for everything.

God made everything wrong

Hi PF,

Nice post. God does seem to get the blame, mostly.

OK, let me rant a bit here. I believe in God. That came to me clearly after a big long addiction to the booze. I prayed for help and it came. I went 12 steps and turned my life around.

What did I learn? God is not a she or a he. God is an IT. I learnt that it was not what I had done that was the problem, it was I had left undone. Once I knew that I knew I could fix it.

People talk about same sex marriages, and garbage like that. God doesn't care about any of that stuff. This a God of love, not a God of hate, resentment and repression.

The problem with people is that they don't realise Jesus changed everything. George Bush wouldn't have a clue. He will go to hell as surely as John Howard will join him.

Boy, I wish people would really read the new testament instead of trying to interpret it, and lay some sort of bogus claim to it. Jesus had it right.

I can't live the life, and I don't claim to, but the Sermon on the Mount makes me weep every time I read it. It truly is one of the most spectacular pieces of moral and spiritual philosophy I have ever read.

Letter...

Hi. I wrote my first letter to the editor yesterday - the Canberra Times did not publish it, so I know know how that feels, too. Here is is, followed by the Greens press release on the matter.

Dear Sir,

It is true that the Greens did not respond to the Australian Christian Lobby's survey in the form the lobby wanted (Christian Lobby challenges Rudd on same-sex marriage, 30 October, page 7). A trust issue, perhaps? Instead, it replied by letter detailing its values, which the ACL refused to publish on its survey website.

The Greens did respond directly to the survey of another Christian Group, The Centre for an Ethical Society, supported by Canberra's Anglican Bishop George Browning. It seems that this time the Coalition will not only fail to answer the survey questions, but will ignore it completely.  

So, Mr Jim Wallace of the ACL, if the Greens have 'showed the party's contempt for Christians" by answering your survey in a form you disliked, what does the Coalition's silence on the CES survey say about that party?

Margo Kingston

Australian Christian Lobby does not represent mainstream Christianity

Canberra, Monday 29 October 2007

Australian Greens Senator Christine

Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne rejected the Australian Christian Lobby's claim that the Greens did not respond to their questionnaire.

Senator Milne said "There are many Christians who are Green voters and party members. They support the Greens because of our strong commitment to peace and non-violence, social justice, anti-discrimination, inclusiveness, participatory democracy and protection of the environment. These are fundamental Christian values.

"It is completely dishonest of the Australian Christian Lobby to claim
that the Greens ignored their questionnaire. We responded by making the attached statement, asking that it be posted on ACL's website as the Greens response. It is apparent that ACL did not want a critique of its agenda to be exposed.

"The Australian Christian Lobby does not represent mainstream Christians in Australia. None of the four men who run the ACL have a long-standing attachment to any faith tradition.

"The Australian Christian Lobby is a front for the religious right in
Australia. It has shown no interest in the values which underpin the
Howard Government's budgets after 11 years. It has never condemned the cuts to funding for indigenous Australia. It has never questioned the
gap between rich and poor, the lack of access to education and health
services, the low levels of funding to disability services and homelessness. Where is its criticism of WorkChoices and what that has
done to entrench poverty, particularly for migrant women?

"Instead, ACL has focussed its entire agenda on issues of personal
morality, choosing to run the line that they are the only issues which
are 'value-laden'.

"The fact that the Australian Christian Lobby objects to legislation
which makes it illegal to vilify people on the basis of religion
suggests that it supports discrimination against any religion other than
Christianity. Indeed, ACL was associated with the recent prayer meeting conducted by Pastor Danny Nalliah, who was charged with vilification of Muslims when he was number 2 on Family First's Senate ticket in Victoria at the 2004 Federal election.

"I do not know of any Christian who would think it was appropriate to
vilify a person of a different religious faith.

"The newfound interest of the ACL in climate change, when it has never
made a single statement on that issue in the past 11 years, is an
attempt to greenwash its extremist agenda.

"Australians already concerned at Prime Minister Howard's support for
the Exclusive Brethren cult will be further concerned at his adoption of
US-style religious right election tactics.

"The Greens have responded in detail to an array of election
questionnaires from Christian groups including the Uniting Church,
Geelong Catholic Social Justice Committee and the Student Christian
Movement of WA. The Uniting Church boycotted ACL's recent Rudd-Howard broadcast because the Uniting Church recognises the big picture interest of Christianity in social justice, environment and public policy."

Christian leader of the "Free" world is world's biggest bully.

The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to urge the United States to lift its four-decade old embargo against Cuba in a resolution adopted for the 16th consecutive year.

The resolution entitled "necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba" was passed with 184 votes in favour, four against and one abstention.

The US continues to try and bully Cuba into submission. The UN has again urged the US to lift its embargo. Only four countries voted against the resolution, of course the US and its puppet state Israel were two of them. How can this so called Christian leader of the "Free" world behave so appallingly.  The Australian government should cut all ties with the US until the US agrees to the demands of the United Nations.

The Leader

How can George Bush behave like this and claim to be a Christian.  Because he is a liar, a bully and a hypocrite.  Jesus had some things to say about this.

The world was not created soley for our use.

In a short paper which appeared thirty years ago in the journal Science, historian Lynn White, Jr., suggested that in "the orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature" may be found the ideological source of our contemporary environmental woes. The Christian doctrine of the creation sets the human being apart from nature, advocates human control of nature, and implies that the natural world was created solely for our use. The biblical text that best exemplifies this view is Gen. 1:28: "And God said to them 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.'" In the Christian Middle Ages, according to White, we already encounter evidence of attempts at the technological mastery of nature, and of those incipient exploitative tendencies that come to full flower in scientific and technological revolutions of later eras. All of this is attributed to the influence of Judeo-Christian conceptions of creation. Christianity, White concludes, "bears a huge burden of guilt for environmental deterioration."

A failing of the Judeo-Christian belief system is that we are told that humans are separate from nature. As we are soon to find out, we are not. The world was not "Created" solely for the use of man. One of the main problems with global warming is the continual growth of the human population. Some Christian churches are still against contraception.

The world's population is now 6.7 billion, roughly double what it was when I was born. If I live to be in my mid-eighties, then it will have trebled in my lifetime.

The UN last year revised its forecasts upwards, predicting that there will be 9.2 billion people by 2050, and I simply cannot understand why no one discusses this impending calamity, and why no world statesmen have the guts to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.

How the hell can we witter on about tackling global warming, and reducing consumption, when we are continuing to add so relentlessly to the number of consumers? The answer is politics, and political cowardice.

 The current policy of encouraging Australians to have more babies by the use of a baby bonus is a foolish policy.

TREASURER Peter Costello has claimed credit for another increase in the nation’s birthrate.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics says 265,031 babies were born in 2005 — the highest number of births since 1971 and the second highest since 1960.

The soaring birthrate, along with migration, has pushed Australia’s population past the 20.5 million mark, the bureau says.

Mr Costello says his baby bonus, a $4000 payment to new parents following the birth of a child, is partially responsible.

We must face the fact that Global Warming is a real threat to the planet and that the growth of the human population growth is main cause. The the problem is worse when the growth is in the first world because of our carbon footprint. We can no longer "Go forth and Multiply". 

Ecology

Hi John. Many Christians believe this line - that is unfortunately true.

They need to read their Bible.  People too are regarded as 'creatures' and Israel suffered judgment for not giving the LAND its sabbaths.  The heavens declare the glory of god, the trees clap their hands, the creation longs for the revealing of the children of god . . . I could go on but this is enough to make the point.

If the Christians are responsible for ecological disaster what of the officially atheist states?  They aren't exactly ecological superstars (except in negative terms).

 Greek philosophy was far more influential in the separation of mankind and nature than the Judeo-Christian part of the western tradition.  Read the Bible, then read Plato and Aristotle, which has more reference to nature?  Who uses man as the measure of things?

Sorry if I sound impatient, but I have been frustrated by this line of argument for years.  Why not argue that the West gave birth to the Romantic movement which led to the Green movement so that Christianity is inherently ecological?

And I do agree that we are facing ecological disaster and that increasing our population is suicidal stupidity.

Thanks Antony

I believe this quote from Antony Green sums it up: "The more the Greens campaign, the more votes they take off Labor, but the more of these votes go straight back to Labor." It's an absurd process isn't it? What, precisely, is the point of voting Green in the first place? A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor.

Margo: David, that is just not true. Please re-read the new last chapter of my new book. Every voter has $4.20 tol invest on the day. Each party who gets your first preference vote gets $2.10 in the lower house and $2.10 in the Senate. That means if you vote Green they get your cash, not the big two, who both suck the public tit AND pocket huge corporate donations to boot. So you can level the playing field, just a little, by voting Green 1. Secondly, a big Green vote puts pressure on the majors on climate change. Big pressure - witness Turnbull's troubles in Wentworth. A party needs 4 percent of the vote to qualify for public funding. Tye Gereens got that for the first time in the 2001 election, because many former Labor and Liberal voters voted Green for the first time in protest at Tampa and its aftermath. Including me. For the first time, the Greens could employ someone at a national level and do a bit of advertising to get their message across. Before that they were amateur only. Then, in 2004, more Labor and Liberal voters defected in protest at the invasion of Iraq, and the Greens went up to 6 percent. Are you seriously saying their votes were wasted? My understanding is that the Greens are the fastest growing party in Australia in terms of membership - ie Australians are getting involved in grassroots democratic politics again. Is that good? In Canberra, Kerrie Tucker has 1500 volunteers! This means she can letter box every home, hold stalls just about everywhere in Canberra, and door knock many homes. Is that bad for democracy? In addition, a third voice in Parliament has to be good, doesn't it? To get all the issue aired, and demand answers to questions both sides don't want asked? Witness Gunns' pulp mill, for example.

Editorial policy / Greens are Labor

When I write something, I can cope with a spelling error being corrected but I strongly object to the order of paragraphs and sentences being changed. I note when I wrote for that book edited by Penguin, the editor there never had such presumption as it seems one of the editors here does. That sort of thing is totally uncalled for. At Pengun, they didn't suggest a single paragraph order or sentence order be changed. Here of course is different.

Fiona in your case you are voting Liberal. Thanks Dylan for bringing up some statistics from Antony Green. Generally it is true that a vote for Greens in the lower house is a vote for Labor. The statistics prove it. It is overwhelming. I am not interested in some philosphical argument about birds. It's not only the statistics but also a question of political philosophy. Greens are anti-business and have all the typical left wing characteristics. It's only natural that voters attracted to such a party are going to find Liberals objectionable. Generally that is the nature of the beast. They're socialists.

Dylan are you able to pull up the percentage of people who vote Green first and Liberal second? That would be an interesting one. I imagine it would be a very small number! Laughably small. Other than Labor what else would Greens voters second preference? Assorted socialists, communists, Democrats and other freak show parties I expect. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor. Generally Greens are disconnected and cranky Labor folk so it is natural their sham vote would go back to their spiritual home after preferences are distributed.

Margo: David, I do know that in NSW, where preferences are optional, many Greens vote Green 1 and leave the other boxes blank because they strongly disapprove of the State Labor Government.  I also understand that in small l Liberal seats like yours in Sydney, there is a trend to vote Green 1 and then go Liberal. This is what Kerrie Tucker is hoping for in the ACT Senate. If NSW had a credible opposition I'd do the same at the NSW State election if I lived there. Actually, if I'd lived there at the last state election I'd have done that anyway. That Labor government is truly disgusting - witness the latest rush to online betting. It's a tragedy for democracy that state Liberal parties are in a mess around Australia. I wonder why.

Jo Valentine

I was pleased to meet Jo Valentine in Perth earlier this year as a Christian activist group met there to plan direct action.  Jo was an active Quaker before she was a Green Senator, and she remains a woman of powerful faith now.

Bob Brown is I believe a presbyterian.

The Christian Activist list has Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals and even, I believe the Salvation Army.  I identify as a pagan Christian.

I believe we are seeing the rise of Christian activism in all spheres of life, and this election gives further evidence of that.

Our Pine Gap action group was called Christians Against ALL Terrorism for a reason.  Our next action at Pine Gap is ANZAC Day next year.

Call me apostate if you wish.

Cousin Jo

Bryan: So you've met my cousin Jo to whom I have just this moment written a letter. I admire her greatly.

You say she is a woman of powerful faith. That does not surprise me. Her (and my) great grand uncle, or maybe a couple of greats more, the Rev. David Welsh was a powerful force as Moderator in 1842 who led the walkout of 400 Ministers from the General Assembly to form the Free Church of Scotland. The precipitating issue was his support for the will of the people to choose their own minister, rather than have one imposed by patronage. It was called the Disruption. Jo entered Parliament committed to trying to advance the will of the people.

To this day Welsh's descendants have been prominent members in the Presbyterian Church here, in the US, and back in Scotland. And most of us remained Presbyterian after amalgamtion with the Methodists and Congregationlists to form the Uniting Church.  We bought back our church in Goulburn and it continues as Presbyterian to this day. I've attended it for over fifty years.

Just reflecting on a bit of family and church history. May not interest anyone but there it is.

Cheers

The Missing Link

Moslems too!

This link to an article in The Australian yesterday about voting perspectives in Australia’s Muslim communities.  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22663661-5013871,00.html

This link to Muslims for Peace, the organisation cited in the article as opposed to voting.  I had a read of the Tahwid-talk-transcript, which says some good things.

Jesus will vote Green IMHO

Hi groovers,

What a pleasure to see this topic opened up.  I’ll take Roger Feydik as my starting point because I’ve been having a discussion on a “Christian Activist” discussion list where Roger’s view has been one powerful limb of the discussion.  (Albeit one I disagree with).

The central issue has been to vote, or not to vote.

I’m more on side with Pope Benedict and his encyclical Dues Caritas Est (God is Love) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Particularly section 28 where he talks about the relationship between God and State.

A short quote (Popes tend to be longwinded)

“Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God's standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just”.

Another quote - from Dr King

“What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love”.

The best thing about the list is that everyone on it tries to live Christian and Gospel values everyday, in everyday life.  A bunch of my direct activist mates are on it.  The election will pass.

Christians are all around you, and are diverse.  There are many in Parliament, as in all walks of life.  They will make up their own minds, after reflecting upon their conscience.  What could be better than that?

baffled!

David Davis, as  I type this I listen to John  Howard on Latteline, ducking and weaving concerning Kyoto and the fact of global warming.

Now, you say, "Greens is just cranky and disconnected labor". If "cranky and disconnected" is the criterion for "green labor", from what I'm listening to John  Howard is representing the wrong party.  In fact, from where I'm sitting I'm listening to as big a crank as I've ever  listened to: deep in denial and incapable of an intelligent response beyond trying to blame  Rudd, as to the real- life problem of the age, judging by Howard's responses to Tony Jones' questions.

However, I do believe on the evidence that the Greens have every right to be"cranky", if by "cranky" you mean "angry". Neoliberal denial in the face of ever-mounting evidence concerning ecologically-critical problems would be enough to drive a saint mad.

Like Fiona, I will vote Green since it is closer to reality compared to Labor and particularly the Coalition and exhaust down to the ALP as the only default offered. Like Fiona (I suspect), this is not my ideal choice, but being disempowered yet willing to pay homage to reality, "I can do no more".

How Would Christ Vote?

Christians can and do vote and there are no issues on that score. The real question is whether as part of their voting strategy they have a mandate to try and change society to reinforce Christian values.

I am a follower of Christ and my own opinion starts and ends with an unequivocal NO.

My reasoning for this is uncomplicated and clear. The gospels show a Christ concerned only with providing eternal salvation and a call to loving service. He was no political activist and time and again reinforced the point that His kingdom was His father's and was not of this world. What could be clearer?

Christians trying to make heaven on earth are wasting their time and calling. Surely 8 years of that unmitigated "Christian" disaster, George W Bush, is an overwhelming reminder of what Christians should not do, namely endorse someone who mouths "Christian" platitudes. 

Change yourself because that is all you have any real influence over. As a Christian you are called to do the following:

  •  Trust in Jesus, not in yourself!
  •  Trust in Jesus, not in the Law!
  •  Trust in Jesus, not in the world i.e PMs and Presidents!

It is clearly explained in the gospels, something that Jim Wallace has not only lost sight of but repudiated.

What sort of Christian life are you championing Jim, Christ's or your own?

Unfortunately It's Not Possible

Hi Roger.

Christians either vote of they don't (a la the Exclusive Brethren).  Either choice is political.

(Most) Christians vote for someone.  Surely this is influenced by their ethics and their faith.

The Christian ethic is communal (as John Wesley said: there is no righteousness but social righteousness).  Justice is a collective concern and Christians should be concerned for justice.

There is no way that Christians can not be political.

Misunderstanding of Christ Abounds

Evan, Ian and Bryan (and others):

You have an opinion and you have expressed it. Fair enough, Australia is a "democracy" (except that it isn't).

I'm not into arguing that black is white or any other shade. I'll make this really plain; read the Gospels and show me exactly where Jesus behaved or spoke as a political activist (hint: there were no political parties) or even as an activist (second hint: don’t play biblical lotto, context is relevant). The New Testament speaks about the divine in the person of a man. Jesus' life was a testament to the eternal truth. Jesus said nothing about a relative truth about whether party A or party B encapsulated the necessary wisdom to lead a nation. He said a lot about salvation and said and did a lot about hypocrisy which is not the same as being an activist.

You are expressing a personal opinion about the Son of God. Of course, if your own opinion is based on the idea that Jesus was just some non-divine guy doing good, speaking good and getting up the establishment’s nose then maybe your ideas are a logical extension of that.

However, Christians are obligated (no, it is not optional)  to acknowledge and believe in The Son of God, the Personal Saviour (“no one comes to the Father except through me”) of everyone who wants to have eternal life.  The Son of God was here. He had the power to remake the world into a Christian Utopia. He did not. So what does that tell you? Either he was not the Son of God which makes all of us Christians look pretty stupid or he had another agenda.

If Jesus is mankind’s saviour and is the eternal God then labelling him as a political activist is pretty silly. According to that kind of thought process, we are saying that the creator of the whole universe is bogged down in the minutiae of what political party is good for 20 million people in a world population of 6 billion. It is not a well-thought out proposition unless you are writing your own gospel.

This is exactly what all the “Christian activists” are doing, writing their own gospel. They somehow believe that Christ screwed up and left us to fix the mess. I believe that is hubris and not discipleship.  Christ did not fix the world and he is not asking you or anybody to do that either. He just wants you to fix yourself (in the 70-80 years allotted to you) and the rest will follow.

The character of God

Hi Brian. Now I don't like to be argumentative, but I have a different view to you. Jesus WAS a dissident and an activist. He stood up to Rome and he stood up to the church. He let his followers know that they had to pay their tax, but nothing else. He let the church know that he held them in contempt. He was the ultimate dissident.

Now, was Jesus the son of God? That's a question that will be debated until the end of time. The Witnesses believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael, which makes some sense if you believe the Hebrew myth, because at least it gives some meaning to his place in the story.

What is God? I don't know. All I know is that God is there if you pray for the right reasons. If God does exist, therefore, and is not a human (or personal) delusion (of mine), God is probably incomprehensible to most tiny human brains.

Where I do agree with you is I too do not believe Jesus came and went and "left us to fix the mess". What he did do is give us some absolution for the past and confidence for the future. It's not what we have done that is important, but what we are going to do!

Whether or not he was the true son of God is not my business, and it makes little sense to debate the issue. However those words of his got on paper, by divine intervention or otherwise, humanity is better off for it.

Action Not Activism

Evan, the essence of becoming a Christian is not to save the world but to save yourself for eternity. This is Christian orthodoxy which is confirmed by every theologian and by every mainstream Christian Church. This is what is taught and understood at every seminary and Christian theological college in the world. There is no other purpose to being a Christian except to ensure your salvation. Christ came with one message, death has been overcome and he is The Way. So the question becomes what is The Way, what does Christ require of us individually?

I know that there is a social dimension and obligation to our lives as citizens and as community members. However that has absolutely nothing to do with our reason for being a Christian. If you follow the golden rule laid down by Christ to "love God and to love your neighbour as yourself" then all things fall into place for you. Christ did not come to make sure that you made your neighbour love God and then love you. Christ said at one time that "the poor will always be with you". That does not mean that as a Christian you can take a callous attitude towards the poor. Your life has to be based on Christ's own commandment which says that you have a personal obligation towards the poor. Note the emphasis! For example, what this means is that giving to the Salvos does not discharge your obligation. Becoming a Salvo and working on the streets and in the neighbourhood is closer to what you must do as a Christian.

The use of Christianity as a political tool is a perversion. All of the good things that we imagine can be implemented if only we could make society more Christ-like by electing "Christians" does not discharge our personal obligations.  Christ did not say to start or join the Australian Christian Lobby or the Moral Majority or Amnesty International. What he said amongst some other very hard things was “Sell everything”, “Do not store up treasure on earth” and “Take up your cross and follow me”.

Do you think that this what the Jim Wallace movement is advocating? Where in the words of Christ is the call to activism, political or otherwise? We are, instead called to action on behalf of all who we come in contact with. We are encouraged to be humble, frugal, non-materialistic and to even give up our own lives as a testament to our love for our fellow man. Tough call isn’t it? It is nothing like the wishy-washy nonsense that gets sprouted about Jesus. Like I have written before elsewhere, the Rolex and the McMansion are not what Christ died for.

Christian political activism takes the low road. It encourages its supporters to live their lives vicariously. It replaces Christ the Saviour with Christ the money-grubbing politico. Jim Wallace is no Christ and Jim Wallace cannot be trusted to be anything more than the oh-so-human and oh-so-fallible person that he is. His position is not elevated just because he uses the word “Christian” in the name of his political organisation.

Ian, according to the gospels, apart from the last days of his life and his meeting with the centurion, Christ had almost nothing to with the Romans. He certainly never stood up to them. His reply to an enquiry about what was required of a Jew in Roman-controlled Judea was really instructive. “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. That was an acknowledgement of the reality on the ground. He did not advocate sedition and he did not advocate armed action. He tried to make his disciples understand that the kingdom that he came from was not of this world. That can’t be too hard to understand, can it?

He did not come to be the rescuer of the Jews, which would have been a political action. He came to be the saviour of the people of the world because he was God and fulfilling his Godly mission. He did not even stand up against the Jewish establishment. He stood calmly by and let them take him and then execute him. Have we forgotten that? He let them kill him. He gave his life, not as a political statement but as a forfeit for all mankind and then he proved that he was God and that death had no hold on us by rising again. That is what the Good News is!  Christian political action? Not by any Christ that I ever heard of.

One final point to other WD contributors. I have not written what I have as an exercise in Christian apologetics for non-believers. There is no point in turning this forum into another debate on whether Christianity is true or whether God exists. I write purely and solely for Christian believers in what I see as the totally misguided and futile initiative that underpins the Australian Christian Lobby and other like-minded organisations.

So if you want to take issue on any other grounds I won't be replying.

What Jesus was

Hi Roger,

Don't get anxious about this. This is the first time I've talked about my views on God in this forum, and I'm a bit nervous too. I haven't talked about having an alcohol problem and needing God's help anywhere, let alone here, so stay with me.

Ian, according to the gospels, apart from the last days of his life and his meeting with the centurion, Christ had almost nothing to with the Romans. He certainly never stood up to them. His reply to an enquiry about what was required of a Jew in Roman-controlled Judea was really instructive. “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. That was an acknowledgement of the reality on the ground. He did not advocate sedition and he did not advocate armed action. He tried to make his disciples understand that the kingdom that he came from was not of this world. That can’t be too hard to understand, can it?

OK, you can take that view. But "render unto Caesar" was clearly a political statement, for me. Jesus was a living test of the Romans' power. Everything he stood for was a test of their control. He stood for another kingdom, other than Rome, a celestial kingdom they did not control or understand. It's my contention that Jesus was not just a moral, but a political figure. It's more than a little ironic that the Romans stole the idea from Jesus and made it into the Catholic church!

He did not come to be the rescuer of the Jews, which would have been a political action. He came to be the saviour of the people of the world because he was God and fulfilling his Godly mission. He did not even stand up against the Jewish establishment. He stood calmly by and let them take him and then execute him. Have we forgotten that? He let them kill him. He gave his life, not as a political statement but as a forfeit for all mankind and then he proved that he was God and that death had no hold on us by rising again. That is what the Good News is!  Christian political action? Not by any Christ that I ever heard of.

Yes and no. Jesus originally came to save the tribes of Israel. Matthew 10:5...

"Jesus sent out these twelve. He said to them, ‘Do not go to the people who are not Jews. Do not go to any town of the Samaritan people. But go to the people of Israel. They are like lost sheep.'

But then in Matthew 15:21...

‘Sir, you are the Son of David. Help me! My daughter is being troubled very much by a bad spirit.’ Jesus did not answer her. His disciples came to him and said, ‘Send her away. She keeps calling after us.’ He said, ‘I was sent only to the people of Israel. They are like lost sheep.’ But the woman came and bowed down in front of Jesus and worshipped him. She said, ‘Sir, help me.’ He said, ‘It is not right to take the children’s food and give it to the little dogs.’ She answered, ‘Yes, sir. But even the little dogs eat the food that falls from the tables of their masters.’ Then Jesus answered, ‘Woman, you believe very much. The thing you want me to do will be done.’ And her daughter was healed at that very time. Jesus went on from there along the Sea of Galilee. He went up on a hill and sat down there.

This, and little else I can find, seems to be what the the western world is pinning its hopes of salvation on. It doesn't look conclusive to me, and it certainly doesn't look like a fait accompli for the evangelical set. What makes you so convinced that this is somehow a religion for all of us, and not just the tribes of Israel?

God, for me, is much bigger than this idea. Yet this stuff has started wars and killed millions. It's good that the subject has come up, not that I can claim to have many of the answers...

Maybe we can debate it or you can close it down. If you think this is the wrong place for the discussion, so be it. I won't argue the point further.

He Was The Son of God

Ian, I not sure when is not a good time to discuss Christ but you raise some very good points.

Theologians have spent a lot of time examining the importance of Matthew 15:21 and what point Jesus was trying to make. At the outset, it needs to be acknowledged that Jesus did not set the salvation landscape to include anybody else except the twelve tribes, as you say. Paul was the one who made the case for the Gentiles. This can be attributed to some nifty paradigm shifts by a Roman citizen who also happened to be a Jew but it's validity is in fact enhanced by Jesus' response to the woman. His message was clear, faith in him transcends all barriers.

Jesus' message also fitted with the accepted historical emergence of a Messiah. The message would first come to the Jews. However as you can see in the gospels Jesus did not exclude any one, including Romans, Samaritans or sinners, who called on him in faith. The reluctance to expand his ministry needs to be seen in the light of the challenges that he faced. He was reluctant to do miracles as the wedding at Cana shows. He told his mother that his time had not yet come but she swept that aside and merely told the servants to do as Jesus requested and water was turned into wine.

There is a real problem with miracles because they mask the nature of the problem being confronted. Miracles mean that we do the pleading and God does the doing. When Jesus taught, he focused on what we are required to do not on what he could do for us.

God can't be a bigger idea than Jesus, they are the same if you are a Christian. We are responsible for the wars and the fact that supposedly these wars were done in God's name only proves what we already know; namely that having earthly power and being a liar go hand in hand.  I don't care which leader, in which century, you want to nominate, they are all liars including all the ones we have now and will have in the future.

The relationship between Jesus and the Romans as you understand it is not supported scripturally. Pontius Pilate was influenced into action by the Jewish elite. He was not concerned or scared about Jesus' impact on the people. He was prepared to let him go. In his own words, he declared "I can find no fault in this man". The priest howled him down and pressured him into signing Jesus' death warrant. Pilate's last action was to wash his hands of the setup in which he was placed and told the priests "May his blood be on your heads". If you are Christian, Jesus is not an activist. He is not a political figure. That whole idea is a very modern invention bearing in mind that universal suffrage is a very recent phenomenon. He is the Son of God who actions the plan for salvation.

As to the Romans purloining Christianity, that happened three hundred years after Christ's death and the irony is palpable today.

I applaud your courage in your self-revelation. Perhaps when the time is right you might consider writing about your journey. I don't believe that we have ever discussed alcoholism. I know nothing about it myself. 

The question of Jesus

Hi Roger,

Just getting back to this. Busy day... :)

 

Ian, I not sure when is not a good time to discuss Christ but you raise some very good points.

Theologians have spent a lot of time examining the importance of Matthew 15:21 and what point Jesus was trying to make. At the outset, it needs to be acknowledged that Jesus did not set the salvation landscape to include anybody else except the twelve tribes, as you say. Paul was the one who made the case for the Gentiles. This can be attributed to some nifty paradigm shifts by a Roman citizen who also happened to be a Jew but it's validity is in fact enhanced by Jesus' response to the woman. His message was clear, faith in him transcends all barriers.

OK, I can see where you're coming from, but I have reservations about the merits of a religion that uses racial reasoning to select its winners. Revelation is another good example. It is littered with 12s. Twelve doors, twelve fruits, 12 tribes. This is my favourite though. The old 12 x 12 argument:

Revelation of John 14:1

The song of the 144,000. Then I looked and saw the Lamb standing on a hill called Zion. With him were one hundred and forty-four thousand people. They had his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. I heard a sound from the sky like the sound of much water flowing, and like the sound of much thunder. The sound I heard was like people playing music on their harps. They were singing a new song in front of God’s chief chair, in front of the four living beings and the leaders. No one could learn that song but the one hundred and forty-four thousand people. They have been bought from the earth. They are the people who have not had sex with women. They are clean. They are the people who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They lived among people on earth. They have been bought from the earth. They are the first among men to have been bought for God and the Lamb. They never told lies. They are found to be without any wrong ways as they stand before the throne of God.

Here we have a group of people who abstained from sex, therefore could not have been parents, and will live with God in heaven, while the rest of those who have been saved will live on a revitalised earth. That knocks out a lot of the prophets for a start. The implication is that they are Jewish, although that's not entirely clear. If this is not selective reasoning at work, they should probably be a mix of all the people of the world. Yet that is not what the Bible is about. It is about the twelve tribes of Israel, and their jealous guardianship of their own God...

I realise that apocalyptic writing implies that this information is coded and meant to be hidden, but the underlying meaning appears to be selectively biased.

Jesus' message also fitted with the accepted historical emergence of a Messiah. The message would first come to the Jews. However as you can see in the gospels Jesus did not exclude any one, including Romans, Samaritans or sinners, who called on him in faith. The reluctance to expand his ministry needs to be seen in the light of the challenges that he faced. He was reluctant to do miracles as the wedding at Cana shows. He told his mother that his time had not yet come but she swept that aside and merely told the servants to do as Jesus requested and water was turned into wine.

I'm not suggesting that Jesus was mean-spirited, but the Jewish religion at the time certainly was. When you say "the accepted historical emergence of a Messiah" I take it you mean Daniel's prophecy within Jewish theology and the Jewish community?

God can't be a bigger idea than Jesus, they are the same if you are a Christian.

Well, I don't mean to be rude, but God and Jesus are not the same being. You might consider them spiritually connected, but they are clearly distinct characters, both in the narrative and in what I believe to be reality. If a creator indeed exists, there is obviously only one. Two creators would be a bit of a stretch...

The priest howled him down and pressured him into signing Jesus' death warrant. Pilate's last action was to wash his hands of the setup in which he was placed and told the priests "May his blood be on your heads".

I think that your point supports my contention, that Jesus was politically significant. If he could annoy the Jewish establishment enough to create a political furore with Pilate, he was a political force.

I applaud your courage in your self-revelation. Perhaps when the time is right you might consider writing about your journey. I don't believe that we have ever discussed alcoholism. I know nothing about it myself.

I'll have to mull that one over... :)

The AA Big Book is a spectacular piece of reasoning, and covers the issue far more thoroughly than I ever could. Download PDFs here. And here it is in HTML. I recommend Chapter 5 as one of the most incredible pieces of pieces of spiritual reasoning I have ever read. Right at this point I can't imagine how I could improve on it.

It's also the primary reason I believe that God and Jesus are not the same entity. AA stay out of partisan religion. They go straight for the "higher power". And it works. I have felt it and seen it occur. I have seen it mend people.

Some Thoughts

Ian, for the record (I have written about this extensively in other posts) I don’t believe that the concept of religion, in its worldly incarnation of Catholicism or Anglicanism etc., has any merit. I believe that the gospels clearly show that judgment/salvation is personal and not collegial. If there is a judgment you will not be required to justify your choice of church but need to answer to your own personal actions. 

 

I believe that there is a valid human need for like-minded believers to band together but not to promote certain dogma as orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the language of theology is both pervasive and useful. It is easy to borrow from it to explain certain personal beliefs. It does not mean that I am in agreement with much of it.

 

I am ambivalent over the Trinity doctrine but accept enough of it, at this time, to say that the Catholic catechism definition is very useful, Three Persons in One God. So to me, Jesus is not a separate being. 

 

In any case none of that is important on a day-to-day basis. One does not act from a theological basis but from deeply held belief in the goodness of a life following Christ. The empathy required to act asks no dogmatic questions. 

 

I realise that the following sounds judgmental but it is clear to me after studying what Christ is reported to have said that there can be no rich Christians, no powerful Christians, no Christians whose life’s work is to harness the energy of other Christians. I think that Jesus’ instruction to Peter to “Feed my sheep” has been corrupted. To me, it is a call for Peter to live a life of service. Instead it has been used to justify the human propensity of lording it over others by building the organised power structures of churchdom. 

 

The Australian Christian Lobby falls into the same category. Here are a group of people whose one clear aim is to force their beliefs on to others. Their own justification for this is that believe that they are doing what Jesus requires of them. They are deluded and dangerous.

Re: Some More Thoughts

Hi Roger,

 

I realise that the following sounds judgmental but it is clear to me after studying what Christ is reported to have said that there can be no rich Christians, no powerful Christians, no Christians whose life’s work is to harness the energy of other Christians. I think that Jesus’ instruction to Peter to “Feed my sheep” has been corrupted. To me, it is a call for Peter to live a life of service. Instead it has been used to justify the human propensity of lording it over others by building the organised power structures of churchdom. 

 

Yes, there is a lot of "interpretation" out there. There are a lot of similarities between the early religions, many of whom had a saviour who had striking similarities to Jesus. Certainly, there is also a debate over the extensive astrological content in the Bible, and contradictions over the resurrection, with a young man in a white robe in Mark, Matthew with a flying angel and John with two angels. They can't all be right. That said, I am drawn to Jesus' teachings.

If you are interested in the astrological content, which may have been an influence from the earlier religions and the basis of the consistent references to 12 in the Bible, I found this Google movie instructive, although quite agnostic in tone. The first third or so is dedicated to the early religious saviour figures and Jesus.

Zeitgeist, the Movie - official release

The Australian Christian Lobby falls into the same category. Here are a group of people whose one clear aim is to force their beliefs on to others. Their own justification for this is that believe that they are doing what Jesus requires of them. They are deluded and dangerous.

They're not the only lot. IMO, the conversion process can only be performed by a teacher, not a lecturer or a bully. :)

Nobody's fault but mine

Apologies. That last post should have been directed to Roger.

Activists

Hi Roger, I'm not sure what you mean by activist.  I've never said Christ was a political activist - and he obviously couldn't be in the modern sense of the term.

What I mean is that people are a 'political animal'.  We are political whether we vote or not.  Salvation has implications for how power is handled - there is much about this in the gospels and epistles.  I don't want to play text-scoring games either: I think they demean all involved.

Paul laid down principles of economic justice among christians that to my way of thinking are quite in line with the gospels. 

Jesus did do things to improve individual's lives. 

On a philosophical bent.  The eternal truth is manifested in many different situations.  This is the meaning of the incarnation.  For instance, Jesus spoke Hebrew not Swahili.  This doesn't diminish the eternal truth - it makes it real.  Opposing wife burning in India is another example.

Jesus' agenda has social implications.  Some of these are spelt out in the gospels and epistles with a clarity that often puts us christians to shame.

It's your "and the rest will follow" that I disagree with - and is utterly without biblical foundation.  The gospels and epistles have a very great deal to say about how we treat others.  As Basil, in a possibly cynical mood pointed out: how will I learn patience if my brother doesn't annoy me?  If social consequences flowed so easily then America, with its very high number of christians, would be a paradise on earth.

My argument is not about what is in the gospels but about the nature of the people who are to follow Christ.  It seems to me that people are inevitably social and that this is the way god wanted it.  This has many implications, one of which is that we can't not be politica.

Trust this long rant makes sense.

Utterly confused and torn

Well, I for one am utterly confused and torn as to whom I should vote for. I am a CDP person at heart, but also a Green at heart, yet the two are always in conflict on some social issues. Maybe I just won't vote at all. I do not even know the name of the electorate I am in any more since they dispensed with Gwydir, but I do know it covers a huge area of the north west, so I doubt I will ever get to see our rep anyway.

That neighbour from the Shooters' Party will no doubt bale, or is it bail, me up again trying to infuence me over those hordes of roos of mine who dine on his crops, such as they are. One wonders why he bothers.

Of course there is a big band of rain coming, just when everyone was trying to scrape up what what there was of their crops, so that will be the end of it completely. Someone might like to tell ABARE since they are usually six months behind in seeing what is going on out west.

Ian my treasure, I think we agreed to abandon our crop, so come back please as soon as you've stopped that leaking tank. Let the farm take care of itself. Heavy rain is on the way so don't wait till you get bogged in.

Cheers everyone. When is the election again?

There are no Christians in politics!

Are you guys for real?

There are no REAL Christians in politics, because if they truly were Christians, they would have to resign, rather than do their jobs. The scumbags that are left after Iraq are not Christians, they're hypocrites, pure and simple...

Abbott is a Christian? Rudd is a Christian? Howard is a Christian? Bullshit. They're all lying scumbags...

If you're going to do Christianity, I'd suggest you don't mess with the sermon on the mount. Jesus is either right or wrong. If he's right, all the pollies are wrong. Try fitting Joe Hockey through the eye of a needle. You'll see what I mean, I'm sure...

Would Jesus vote at all?

I can't get over you lot. Jesus WAS a political activist, one of the first, and certainly one of the best. He fought against the state because he knew it was wrong and corrupt. Nothing has changed. The state is still wrong and corrupt. Jesus wouldn't vote Green. He wouldn't bother voting at all! What point is there to a vote over one man's dominion over another, when your everlasting spirit is at risk?

The closest thing I ever see to a REAL Christian are the Jehovah Witnesses who come knocking on my door. At least they're living the life that Jesus put forward. The rest of you look like a debating society, oh-so-precious about being a Christian, but oh-so-hypocritical in reality, like Rudd, Abbott and Howard.

I can't wait until the next one of you start the debate on "just war", from a Christian perspective...

Hoockkk, Ptuuiii... to the bunch of you!

Just War

Ian, It is my understanding that just war theory has been irrelevant since nations started targeting non-combatants. 

Just war

Sadly, Evan, I think you're right. And we call ourselves Christians, bringing heaven to the Middle East through "shock and awe"...

Sweeping but accurate

Fiona, you don't have to be a guru demographer to profile the average Green. It represents less than ten per cent of the electorate and as I say delivers virtually all of its lower house vote to Labor.

It simply has no meaning but perhaps it will make you feel good on election day. When Rudd gets up and claims victory though, it will be yours and other fake Green votes that helped get him over the line.

Greens is just cranky and disconnected Labor. Not more, not less. Usually urban with an attitude problem. That's fine, it is a form of self expression but ultimately it is fultie because the cold hard fact is that it is a vote for Labor in nearly all cases.

Generally a vote for Greens in the House of Reps is a vote for Labor. God knows what your second choice would be but it would be hardly Liberal. The simple fact is that under our preferential system the vast, vast majority of people who vote Greens first in the House of Reps are in fact delivering a vote to Labor.

The exception proves the rule. Greens are Labor and few of them believe in God so the idea that churches have much relevance to them is also a nonsense.

Proving proof

David, the overt interpretation of the saying "the exception proves the rule" is this: if there is a rule and I can identify an exception to it, then the rule is true. That, unfortunately, is absurd. For example, if we take the rule "all birds can fly" and then point to the emu as an exception, how does the flightlessness of the emu "prove" that all birds fly? Au contraire, mon ami.

It is important to remember that "prove" has several meanings. The two most common are (1) to establish as true, and (2) to put to trial or test. The expression "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" is an example of the second sense, as is the use of the term for that arena beloved of petrolheads, the "proving ground". And, I regret to advise, it is also the sense in which "prove" is used in the old saw that you twice quote in your post.

Thus, the fact that I intend to vote (1) Greens, and (2) not ALP rebuts your contention that "Greens are Labor".

For your information, I intend to vote (2) Liberal - but only because I am in the seat of Kooyong and consider Petro Georgiou to be one of the few MPs on the Coalition side with any claim to calling himself a Liberal. For further details of my personal political odyssey, you will have to await my forthcoming piece, Confessions of a Politics Eater (with apologies to De Quincey).

Exceptio Probat Regulam


Fiona
, your interpretation of the saying may prima facie be overt, but it is hardly accurate.

The saying relates not to your meaning (2), "test", but rather (1), "establish as fact".

Consider: you may have a rule without possibility of exception; but you cannot have an exception without acknowledging the existence of a rule. In other words the very fact that something is an exception may be said to prove that the rule exists. It is a saying many people use, and many people hate to hear; but that latter, I suspect, because they don't understand what it means.

Of course modern usage is much looser than the legalistic meaning I shall paste on the bottom of this to show where it seems to have come from, but I think it serves a useful purpose, in idiomatic terms, at least. For instance, if I were to say "Harry Hootleberk doesn't know what he is talking about, but he makes a good point when he says such-and-such — the exception that proves the rule", I wouldn't strictly speaking be making sense myself, but people would immediately know what I meant. I would mean that I think he doesn't know what he is talking about as a rule, but I agree with him on such-and-such.

More editorial pedantry: "rebut" truly means no more than "gainsay". What you have done to David's claim that Greens are Labor deserves the stronger word "refute", meaning to "disprove". One of my pet peeves is hearing people, politicians, mainly, claim that they have refuted some accusation or other, when all they have done is deny it, without disproving it at all.

And more: in case it was you who reduced my "judgement" to "judgment" on another thread, surely it must be a person's legitimate option to use proper English spelling. MS Word does not always rule OK. And Grrr for outing me on putting too many Fs in aficionado, when you promised not to!

Cheers, Bill.

This is from Alt,usage.english FAQ.

… MEU says, "the original legal sense" of the "the exception
proves the rule" is as follows: "'Special leave is given for men to
be out of barracks tonight till 11.0 p.m.'; 'The exception proves
the rule' means that this special leave implies a rule requiring
men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The value
of this in interpreting statutes is plain."


MEU2 adds: "'A rule is not proved by exceptions unless the
exceptions themselves lead one to infer a rule' (Lord Atkin). The
formula in full is "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non
exceptis"." [That's Latin for "The exception proves the rule in
cases not excepted."] [Alt,usage.english FAQ]

Rem cedo...

...to some extent, but it wasn't my interpretation - just that of the majority. (Incidentally, I generally agree with Ibsen that the minority is always right.)

I don't accept that your example of "Special leave" proves - or establishes - your point. In that instance the rule is one that has been promulgated by some authority or other: it is a limited, even relativistic, rule, rather than one of putatively universal application, like my suggestion of "All birds fly" (or whatever it was that I proposed).

I was not being legalistic; I was trying to indulge in logic (and please, I would prefer it if no-one threatens me with Bobby Gledhill - after all, it is entirely her fault). We could get into a debate about necessary and sufficient conditions, but perhaps this is neither the time nor the thread.

My original point - undoubtedly poorly expressed - was that many people believe that the saying "the exception proves the rule" means that the existence of an exception establishes the veracity of the rule. That is not good logic for all sorts of reasons, including necessity and sufficiency, but also going way beyond those elements.

Rebuttal rather than refutation - this is the point that I concede, Bill. My initial draft read something like "this explodes your claim, David" but then I exercised discretion and decided not to be so unkind. You are correct, however: I should have gone for the jugular.

As to judgement v. judgment, while my preference (save when dealing with pronouncements by the judiciary) is for judgment, I never mess with someone else's preferred (provided it is also currently accepted) orthography. "Afficionado" is another matter entirely.

Proving

The saying preserves an older meaning (or connotation) of the term "prove".

Details in dictionaries with historical examples such as the OED. 

Green preferences almost always flow to Labor

Antony Green reports that the flow of preferences from the Greens to the ALP was around 75% at the last election.

This was the most consistent of the preference flows from minor parties to the majors with the Christian Democrats sending about 71% to the Coalition, the Australian Democrats sending about 64% the way of the ALP and Family First about 63% to the Coalition.

Interestingly One Nation voters are pretty evenly split on their second choice. The ALP and the Coalition split preferences 44% to 56% respectively.

Who exactly do they represent?

I don't know who these people are.  They do not represent the majority of Christians by any stretch of the imagination so their name could only be classified as being a lie.

From what I can tell, they represent a portion of the evangalical Christian population who are in a minority.  According to ACL, around 68% of the poulation claim to be Christian and around 2 million people attend services on a weekly basis.

If you do a deep dive into who the committed Christians are and at what churches they are showing up at, I think you will find that they are not at the evanglical churches.  Of course these churches are growing relative to the traditional churches, but it is a nonsense for them to proclaim some sort of right to talk on behalf of all Christians.

I seem to recall Cardinal Pell saying that there was bugger all difference between the two major parties.

I think that is a correct summation. There is no party in this election that has a right to claim the Christian vote. This is supposed to be a secular state where all are free to have their own religion. There are committed Christians on both sides of politics.

Do a deep dive into this issue and I think you will find as I said that ACL is not representative.

They are certainly entitled to their view and there is nothing wrong with them undertaking such activities. Parties, though, should treat them with the importance that they deserve. They represent a minority of Christians; they are not the Christian lobby. There is no such thing and the idea of such a thing is not something I would relish.

What about the Exclusive Bretheren? They are a sect and deserve to be treated as such.

I would treat churches that include a third of the population as being organisations worth listening to. How many hospitals, schools and charities do Exclusive Bretheren run? How many millions of kids go to their schoools?

As for the Happy Clappies, how many people attend their services each week? A hundred thousand? I suspect it is not much more than that. These lobby groups need to be put into perspective.

I think big churches also should be careful about being partisan lest they get a backlash from their congregation.  For instance, I can't stand that Catholic Health guy who sucked up to Gillard last time round. Better off to be like Cardinal Pell and speak the truth - there is bugger all difference between the parties.

As for the Greens, engagement has no meaning. Their first preference vote has no meaning and it all goes to Labor anyway. Greens are Labor.

Fiona: David, your generalisation may be a tad sweeping. I will be voting 1 - Greens in Reps, but not 2 - ALP.

Representative

Hi David.

In my experience the ACL is depressingly representative of Christians on these conservative issues.

I think you need to brush up your church life survey on numbers in which denominations too. 

Christian in Politics

I'm a christian and I vote Green.

As for Christine Milne she asserts that her value(s) should prevail but does not argue the case.  This hardly advances the cause or even gives a good basis to start dialogue.

Jim Wallis being called a right-wing fundamentalist defies imagination: read some of his writings!

Unfortunately people in these debates usually just assert that their values are correct and I don't see this helping  (eg asserting that a group lobbying for (their version of) christian values is unchristian). 

The Centre for an Ethical Society is a christian group much more on the progressive side of politics.  They have only just started but I hope for great things from them.

Greens Mistake

Yes, Margo, it is a nifty site. And useful. I'm impressed with the balanced presentation, and with the mainly straightforward responses. Especially those from the Democrats. Last time I heard a straight "No" to a question put to a pollie is so long ago I can't remember.

Pity the Greens refused to participate. Can't say I blame the lobby for not publishing their letter. Now that the site is there for all to see, the Greens must be kicking themselves for their decision not to be part of it.

priorities

Well, you say it all yourself, Margo. If you are a dinkum  Christian your concerns will relate to substantial issues like global poverty and the "fair go".

If you are a narrow-minded, near illiterate fundy, you will be preoccupied with who is getting a leg-over, that you can't be on hand to micromanage.

Wasn't it  H.L. Mencken who said a puritan, or conservative, is roughly

 "someone who is knows that some one, somewhere,  is having fun and (s)he doesn't know about it". (appropos  Sue Ann Post "Age" article years ago)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.