Grand Mufti Costello kindly shares his insights into Islam again
There’s no doubt there are problems with dysfunctionality in some of the organisations that seek to publicly represent Australia’s Muslims. This can be a problem when public comment is sought about the nature of Islam. Fortunately a solution is at hand – no longer do Australia’s Muslims need to worry about who is best to speak to the media and the public on their behalf to explain the real nature of modern Islam. Peter Costello is clearly the man for the job.
This weekend, he has kindly sacrificed his time to spread his message of peace and understanding, this time to the conservative fundamentalist Australian Christian Lobby – the perfect place to provide advice to the global Muslim community. Mr Costello’s willingness to tirelessly explain – time after time after time – the real nature of Islam and provide advice and guidance to Muslims must be acknowledged. When you add in the regular helpful contributions by a variety of other experts in the Liberal Party government, Australia’s Muslims can be comfortable in the knowledge there is always a leading public figure able to explain Islam to the general community. The Liberal government even have articulate women like Bronwyn Bishop, Danna Vale and Sophie Mirabella, always keen to add their personal insights into Islam.
With Mufti Costello and a whole range of aspiring imams in the Liberal Party government and amongst conservative Christians, we don’t really need to hear from Muslim Australians at all. As Irfan Yusuf describes it in this piece, they “tell Muslims who and what they are and then demand they take responsibility for things beyond their control.” Quite a generous approach really, to save Muslims the trouble of having to speak for themselves (or the rest of us having to listen to them).
ADDITION: The Australian newspaper has a range of pieces today giving various assessments about Islam and Muslims – none of them from Muslims. Paul Kelly has a piece arguing that “the Catholic church has highlighted Islam’s linkage of religion with violence.” There is another piece by Dr Mark Durie, an Anglican vicar, giving various opinions on what Muslims must do, as well as providing various examples of why Christianity is better than Islam. There is also a piece by Matt Price profiling a 30 year old Australian Muslim named Mustapha Kari-Ali. Price describes him as “brave, engaged and inclined to speak uncommon good sense” and “perhaps the Muslim equivalent of Noel Pearson.” Irfan Yusuf provides an interesting view about this article on his blog.
137 Comments, Comment or Ping
MarkL
Andrew, you have surprised me with the tone of cynicism in your post.
What is occurring here is deeper than those who obtain their worldview from the media can now understand, for heads of state who are major religious leaders, and who comment comprehensively on complex topics are incomprehensible to a media which operates in sound bites and writes to Flesch reading scale 60! The Regensberg Address cannot be understood by the mass media.
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor quoted, Theodore Khoury, says: ‘For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But in muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.”
The reaction of the Muslim world (automatic outrage and violence) illustrates much about their view that God is transcendant, cannot be understood, and is not necessarily rational. It is obvious in reading the work, however, the Pope was making a critical point that has little to do with Manuel’s quote. (But he threw that grenade deliberately, which is exceptionally interesting for reasons which should be obvious to the thoughtful)
The essence of this is about forced conversion. Benedict makes the argument that violent conversion (from a shaped by the priority of reason) is unacceptable. For those believing that God is transcendent and beyond reason, the argument is acceptable.
Benedict knows that Christians once practiced forced conversion. He knows that Aristotelian tendencies are not unique to Christianity. The same tendencies exist in islam via al-Farabi and Avicenna. Islamic equivalents of Christianity’s Thomas Aquinas or Judaism’s Maimonides. All three religions wrestle with God’s relation to science and to complex and interesting triple relationships like reason revelation, and dogmatism.
Benedict’s scholarly insight into the issues must be considered.
MarkL
Canberra
Sep 23rd, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
I don’t recall mentioning the Pope’s address at all in my post. Nor would I argue the theology of it one way or the other. However, I don’t think it was overly helpful (noting especially your comment that his “hand grenade” was deliberate) , particularly given that the Catholic influence in Germany, Croatia and Austria are a major source of antagonism towards Turkey joining the EU, which in the long-term could potentially be the single biggest thing to bridge the social and cultural divides between Islam and the West.
Buggered if I know why they see it as desirable to reject a nation from the EU predominantly because of the relgion of its people, particularly when it’s also likely to push many of them to adopt a more overtly anti-western outlook, such as is shared by some of their other neighbours like Iran.
I’m not overly interested in arguing the theology of any of the religions. It is useful to have intellectual knowledge of them, but I’ll leave it to Believers to ponder the ‘merits’ of the various theological positions.
I am interested in trying to reduce antagonism between different faiths, cultures and countries, whether it be politically or religiously driven. I can see far wider and deeper social divisions if we keep going down our current path, with at worst our world far more at war than currently (I mean a genuine war, not the ‘war’ on terror).
There was quite a reasoned assessment of the Pope’s speech in this post at Lavartus Prodeo. If people want to discuss the Pope, that’s probably a better place. I think Peter Costello and his gang get far more coverage and have far more impact on the general public (as well as being far less subtle in their Muslim bashing), so I’ll stick with looking at what they and the mass media are saying.
Sep 23rd, 2006
Obadiah
Andrew Bartlett: your comments expose a deep ingnorance about the world in general, and people of your same political ideology are just as stupid! you remind me of the Neville Chamberlin’s “Peace in our time” mob who blindly drift along in life in ignorant bliss! Oh, how it must be so blissfull to be intentionally ‘DUMB’ and not feel the need to know any better, not to mention your supporters and those of the political left who so often through their own ineptitude, leave such a mess for others to clean-up after them. Thank God for people like Winston Churchill; fore people like yourself, would not even be here, or worse still you would be speaking German in a ‘Gulag’, or equivalent. Why don’t you wake-up, and take a look around you, and while your at-it read a little History (even recent will do), beacause those who do not learn from ‘History’ are ‘DOOMED’ to repeat it! I am not surprised your ‘political party’is almost imaginary, for yours clearly runs away with you.
Sep 23rd, 2006
Obadiah
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-09-20 23:11
Dr Koenraad Elst, one of Belgium’s best orientalists and an occasional contributor to this website (if I had time I would translate more of his Dutch-language contributions into English), told me last week that he thinks “Islam is in decline, despite its impressive demographic and military surge” – which according to Dr Elst is merely a “last
upheaval.” He acknowledges, however, that this decline can take some time (at least in terms of the individual human life span) and that it is possible that Islam will succeed in becoming the majority religion in Europe before collapsing.
I am not a specialist of Islam. Hence, I do not know what to think of this analysis. Perhaps it can be argued that Islam is in agony, and that this is precisely the reason why Muslims reacted so sensitively to twelve, mostly inoffensive, Danish cartoons earlier this year and why they respond in a fury beyond all reason to the words of a 14th century Byzantine Emperor quoted last week by Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope emphasized that he did not approve of the quote, but the reactions of Muslims to the Emperor’s words “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” only lends credibility to what the Emperor said.
If a person is incapable of tolerating criticism, including mild criticism, and especially if he perceives criticism where there is none, this is often a sign of this person’s deep psychological insecurity. Rude aggression and wild rage, too, are usually not the normal behaviour of a self-confident person, but rather of someone who knows that he will lose an argument unless he can bully others into silence. Last Sunday, Catholics going to Holy Mass in London’s Westminster Cathedral were confronted by Christophobic Muslims, carrying hate posters such as “Pope go to hell,” “Benedict watch your back,” “May Allah curse the Pope,” “Jesus is the slave of Allah, “Islam will
Sep 24th, 2006
Obadiah
Cont. from above: will conquer Rome,” and the like. An English blogger has some photos here. What must one make of these Muslim protestors? Do they look like self-assured people?
It looks as if Muslims cannot cope with an open society and the modern globalized world. Should we interpret their aggression – the result of their inability to cope with the world – as a token of strenght, or rather as a sign of inherent weakness – a sign, as Dr Elst says, that the decline of Islam has visibly begun?
Sep 24th, 2006
Obadiah
Is this what you want in Australia Mr Bartlett?
Man is a religious being and needs religious faith. If European Christianity had still been healthy today it would have proselytized, it would have reached out with missionary zeal to the millions of Muslims who migrated to Western Europe since the 1970s, it would have offered them Christ. Instead, it’s churches became bastions of religious relativism. Europe offered the newcomers only cultural decadence, from which decent people want to shield their children, and spiritual emptiness, which one can only despise.
The Europeans, who lost the missionary zeal to reach out to the immigrants, also lacked the zeal to pass on their own civilization to their offspring. Worse still, they lacked the zeal to have offspring. Since demographics is the mother of all politics, it is, barring a miracle, certain that Islam will become the old continent’s dominant religion.
Sep 24th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
It never takes long for the Islamophobes and Muslim haters to come screaming out from beneath the woodpile. Even a post making the simple suggestion that it would be handy to hear more about Islam from Australians who actually practice that religion is enough to ignite the hatespeech.
Obadiah, despite your own statement that you are “not a specialist of Islam”, you seem
quite happy to immediately defame one billion of the world’s inhabitants for no other reason than their religious beliefs. And you think I’m intentionally dumb?!
(by the way, when you tick the box that says you accept this site’s comments policy, it’s supposed to mean that you won’t put up comments that breach it)
As for the lame Neville Chamberlain analogy – LOL. The fact that you have to reach so quickly for the Nazi smear proves only that you have nothing to back up your argument except abuse (that would be if you had actually made any argument to start with, rather than going straight into hatespeech).
I agree that more knowledge of history (rather than recycling talking points) would be a good thing alround.
Chamberlain was like Bush – a leader on the global stage who lied to his people, villified his critics, did dodgy deals with dictators and engaged in a range of shifty (and shifting) alliances, and then had it blow up in his face. His desire to put his own short-term political interests first meant his people (along with many others) paid a very heavy price.
Sep 24th, 2006
John Tracey
Sorry for the cliche but I feel it is very relevent
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Aborigenes?
Muslims?
The terrorism laws that make us all vulnerable to detention without trial, becoming a death in custody, phone tapping or being shot because we might look like a terrorist. Or someone we know.
As long as we maintain our hatred of muslims and have a generalised association between Islam and terrorism then we mistakenly believe the development of an authoritarian state will not affect us. That is why it is essential for Costello, Howard and the rest to continually remind us of the everpresent threat from Muslims who cannot be controlled, not even by their own leaders. Only authoritarian laws can control them.
The ideology of hatred is infectious, expansive and holisitc. It affects all our government directions, not just the war against terrorism. We lose our humanity and our capacity for compassion and empathy.
fuck fear, lets live! This was the attitude of New York after 9/11 and we have a lot to learn from it.
lets let the Muslims live, get out of their countries and become their friends. That’s the best way to combat terrorism.
Sep 24th, 2006
DrJon
Andrew, this is a damn fine ‘blogpost: as good an example of pointing at the Emperor’s New Clothes in our present political climate as one could hope for. Thanks.
Sep 24th, 2006
Fabian
It seems intriguing to me that all of the people bagging Andrew in the above comments, didn’t even read the article. Considering he didn’t mention the Pope at all, the blatant trolling and both MarkL and Obadiah engaged in seems all the more childish. (Unless of course I missed the ceremony where Peter Costello became Pope. I bet he would love that. At least then he could claim to be more important that John Howard)
Sep 24th, 2006
Deborah
Andrew, the nutters are here, spare us from their ravings. Posts #1,3,4,5 & 6 are an example of why people are turned off the religions – no logical and rational thought at all.
The current government is allowing these loonies an undeserved legitimacy. They think they are in the trenches, fighting for christianity and islam is their enemy.
While Bush and Blair are in their death throes, due to the war on
terrorIslam, the Australian conservatives are still demonising muslims and will continue to do so until the next election.Here is Costello, trying to ramp up some more hate and division – and the dimwits are coming down from the hill(song), with bible raised triumphantly, eyes blazing with the glory of the lord, taking up the battle. All in the name of god, peace and harmony.
“Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.
-Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, educator, mathemetician, and social critic”
Theology: The effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.
-H. L. Mencken, American publisher”
Sep 24th, 2006
Irfan
To understand the real meaning of the Pope’s speech, I recommend people invest $2.50 and get a copy of the Weekend Financial Review and read Brian Toohey’s article.
The Pope’s real target wasn’t Muslims. His real target was Protestants and secularists. He attacked the Reformation process. Muslims were just a side issue.
Ironically, one of the Pope’s first critics was Pope Shenuhad II, spiritual head of the Coptic Church in Egypt. I wonder why.
The people who should really be upset are Protestants, Orthodox Christians and secularists. As for Muslim protestors, I noted that hardly 150 protestors turned up to a protest in Basra.
150.
Basra has a population of 3 million.
Sep 24th, 2006
Law Student
There are three Muslim MP’s. Why the heck haven’t they spoken out against Costello’s continuous absurdity?
Sep 24th, 2006
Donna
Mark L and Obadiah,
Here is a speech I found on the Victorian Labor website. It is written by Joumanah El Matrah. It sheds some light into what is the true national security risk, and I suppose, given Costello’s recent speech, who the people are that are a danger to national security. It can be found at:
http://www.vic.alp.org.au/media/0405/20007479.html
See no Evil: The experience of Muslim women post-September 11 – the other national security issue
Joumanah El Matrah
Speech
Manager, Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria – 23 April 2005
It is 6am on Tuesday morning, and I’ve decided to come in early to plan and organise before the working day officially begins at nine. I notice a pile of unopened mail and start to sort through it.
One letter looks suspicious – it isn’t from government or a welfare organisation – I wonder if it is one of “those”‘ letters? The police encourage us to call them and not open these, but report a letter? It seems a bit precious. What do I say? “Officer, officer, please come immediately, I think I have an abusive letter in my hand?”
So what to do? I open the letter, which contains the following:
To the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria:
ISLAMIC WOMEN LIVE LIKE DOGS, F— LIKE A DOGS, EAT LIKES A DOG. ALL OF YOU JUST LYING DOWN FOR HUSBAN F— AND LIVE ON WELFARE, NOTHING TO DO, JUST F— ALL THE TIME. YOUR LEADER MOHAMMED WAS A F—EN MAN. HE DID F— AN LIVE WITH HIS SISTER IN LAW. WHY YOU BELIVED HIM, HE WAS A BASTARD. DON’T PRAY TO HIM, OK. YOU ARE CRAZY. YOUR KORAN BIBLE IS A TOILET PAPER. WAKE UP NOW, DON’T FANATIC ANY MORE, OK.
I think two things: thank God I opened the letter and not one of the other workers, after all no worker should have to put up with this stuff; and should I be here alone? Just how angry is this person? Should I ask the women who might come to us for help today to reschedule? …..…(continued)
Sep 24th, 2006
John Tracey
fleeting reference to Hillsong before.
I was watching their T.V. show this morning. The sermon was about resisting the devil. The point was made that the church comes under most attack when it is doing the best work, that the public criticism of the church was the devil getting agitated at the mighty work of the lord and such opposition is just to be expected from “the enemy”.
Considering much of the criticism relates to fraud and deception in obtaining funding for state welfare services, this defient resistance to criticism is revealing.
Hillsong is above the law because God is on their side.
In the same way that Muslim fundimentalists can demonise any criticism from the west, so too do our own fundamentalists resist dialogue as a thing of the devil.
This christian thinking justifies anti-abortionist terrorists in the U.S. as well as patriotic terrorism such as the Oklahoma bombing.
All I can say Andrew is that the criticism of you only proves that God is on your side too. You have no need to listen to anybody, just resist criticism in the name of the lord and the demons will be driven away..
Sep 24th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd
Let’s have a look at “muslim” violence in the last 5 years, the years Howard, Costello and co rely on to prove that muslims are violent.
1. TAMPA – 433 muslim refugees left to rot in the heat of a ship out in the ocean were branded hijackers – they were not but to some the slur is still believed.
2. Iraq refugees are so evil they throw their children into the sea to blackmail us – not one mention by the PM and co that the Adelaide had been firing on the boat in the middle of the nigh, or the 24 hour illegal towing of a sinking boat for the subsequent jailing and locking up on Manus Island of these evil parents – most of whom now live in Australia.
3. Blowing up Afghanistan because some Saudis were accused of flying planes into the WTC. – At least 20-30,000 civilians slaughtered and 5 million still on the verge of starvation.
4. Invading and occupying Iraq on bogus information – the senate report just released states clearly that the US knew in 1995 that Hussein had destroyed his WMD. Maybe 250,000 dead.
5. The Israeli occupation and continued slaughters in Gaza and the West Bank. 5,000 dead
6. The utter destruction of Lebanon in an invasion using the capture of 2 soldiers as an excuse. 1300 dead
7. The US supplying the 1.2 million cluster bombs to Israel to pollute Lebanon and the massive oil slick that is killing the Mediterranean sea.
Yep – those bloody muslims sure are violent, not like us nice pacificist folk in the west.
Sep 24th, 2006
Obadiah
You poor old Atheists! Logic and reason? “Only a fool would declare there is no God”!
What is horrific for you all (one day), is that you will clearly find this out. So please read ‘1 john’ in the Bible for your own sakes. Surely you do not want to find out that the Christians were right after all (including The Hon.George Bush), after your deaths, for by then there is no turning back; it is too late! Now you can really call me a ‘nutter, a nutter for JESUS! If you do not believe in your own mortality, check-out the Bible, or ask God, he will answer, if you are sincere!
And those poor folk you quote up top i.e Bertrand Russell, and H. L. Mencken I would not give the world to be in their shoes, or yours for that matter.
Help yourselves, give your lives to Christ, he is the only one who can save us from ourselves!
And why do people get so upset over these eternal issues? I could not put it any better than C.S Lewis’ statement: “Above all else the Devil cannot stand to be mocked”. Oh yes there is a devil out there; open your eyes!
As for the ‘Bush Bashers’ and so-called ‘Peace-niks’ hear this:
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf” – George Orwell
You say; no rational thought or logic? Well the Bolshevics/Communists (who based their ideology on Darwinism), were supreme atheists; how rational and logical were they when it came to debate? The horrifying ‘Blood thirsty trail’ they left behind can be seen by us all (who care to look), as a glaring ‘Testimony’ to man’s in-humanity to man. You talk about reason and logic; well the so-called ‘age of reason, the Enlightenment’, thats left the human race , a whole lot better off.
Sep 24th, 2006
harold
I see – so we are either fundamentalist Christians who must give our lives to Christ, or we are a bloodthirsty mass-murdering athiest/commmunist/darwinist. Doesn’t leave much choice really.
Bit hard on the Muslims (and Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, Jews et al), but Christ is Christ and there can’t be any argument.
I appreciate that the Senator probably feels he has to let these fevered rantings be posted on the blog in the name of ‘free speech’, but I think we’ve seen more than enough to know where Obadiah is coming from. Can we have a break from this sort of verbal pollution please? There are serious issues involved here, and we won’t get anywhere while this sort of smog is choking the atmosphere.
(and is that person seriously suggesting that the Enlightenment has left the human race worse off?!! sounds like exactly what the fringe Muslim extremists would say)
Sep 24th, 2006
MarkL
Andrew, “I don’t recall mentioning the Pope’s address at all in my post.”
Comment: Understood, but that is the issue which caused the present interest in this topic. And yes, I’d like to hear more from Australian muslims as well (Trad excluded, we hear plenty from him already)
“However, I don’t think it was overly helpful (noting especially your comment that his “hand grenade” was deliberate),”
Comment: Yes, I think it was deliberate, and for several reasons. It served as a warning to extremists, an offer to moderates, and at least two political ends. The Church is no stranger to international power politics.
“… particularly given that the Catholic influence in Germany, …are a major source of antagonism towards Turkey joining the EU, which in the long-term could potentially be the single biggest thing to bridge the social and cultural divides between Islam and the West.”
Comment: This could also be a disaster (let us hope not!). There is deepening European tension over the wave of Muslim immigration and their own demographic death spiral. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their culture or form a unassimilated and violent mass. Some extreme muslim groups are working for the islamisation of Europe. The Vatican’s position has ranged from silence to calls for tolerance. The Vatican is becoming increasingly estranged from the working and middle-class core of the European Church, the African Church and their fears. That, I think, is the major thrust of present Vatican policy, reconnection with the Catholic core worldwide, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe.
MarkL
Canberra
PS: Obadiah? Please calm down and engage in reasoned rational discourse, or butt out.
Sep 24th, 2006
Obadiah
Stifle open debate Mr Bartlett, you and your clones, thats what you lot are good at, particulaly when it does not line-up with your idelogies. It is something you cannot cope with; open honest debate in society, is an anethema to you all.
Sep 24th, 2006
John Tracey
Obidiah, don’t go away, those demonists don’t speak for me.
I am glad you have revealed both the shallowness of your mind, that holy talent that god has given you, as well as the same mighty hatred and negativity that drove the hebrew faithful of the old testament to dash their enemies babies on rocks.
I do not believe that this nutterism is fringe or irrelevent. It represents what is becoming a trait of Australian consciousness and policy development at government level.
Obadiah, you are correct this goes as far as George Bush, not just Peter Costello and the Australian men of hatred that attend churches like Hillsong.
Bring it on Obi one, the more devastation and hatred in the world, the closer to the second coming of our lord we get.
Until all bow down to the antichrist, history cannot be fulfilled.
Obidiah, do you practice polygamy in line with the Exodus law?
Sep 24th, 2006
C.L.
The Christophobic ethnic cleansing being practised by Muslim states makes it absolutely essential that leaders like Peter Costello speak out. No liberal-minded person who believes South Africa was justifiably hectored and pressured into change could have any reasonable objection to the Treasurer’s speech. The world – to say nothing of Christian minorities in situ (for example, nuns in Somalia) – has far more to fear from Islamic terrorists than it did from apartheid.
Shame on the cowardly political left.
Sep 24th, 2006
C.L.
Marilyn Shepherd:
1. The Howard government has saved lives with its policy on “asylum-seekers”. The Labor policy was to allow them to drown at sea – as, not infrequently, they did. Howard single-handedly destroyed the people-smuggling trade.
2. “Asylum-seekers” did scupper vessels at sea and did deliberately endanger the lives of children. On multiple occasions. This is a fact.
3. The war in Afghanistan ousted the Taliban from office – a regime that sheltered al Qaeda mass murderers and routinely blew women’s heads off in soccer stadiums for crimes against chastity. (You know, like being raped). Anyone who opposes this campaign is, prima facie, a fascist.
4. Every intelligence agency in the world, as well as the United Nations, believed Saddam had WMD. (Including Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi etc). Saddam had already used them against his own people – killing about 100,000 people. He is now on trial for war crimes and genocide. Anyone who thinks he should have stayed in office is, prima facie, a fascist.
5, 6. Israel withdrew from Gaza and southern Lebanon. Despite that, it was continually struck with missiles by terrorists who believe Israel and its Jews must be annihilated. Hezbollah is an agent of Tehran which also believes Israel and its Jews must be annihilated. People who support Hamas and Hezbollah are, prima facie, fascists (and anti-semites). Israel did not start war with either terrorist organisation.
7. Cluster bombs are legal. Their use, while unfortunately necessary, was brought on by Hezbollah’s use of – you guessed it – cluster bombs. (Lefties never protested about these ones, though).
Sep 24th, 2006
Harry
Sorry CL, a few disparities
1. South Africa is a nation. Islam is not a nation, it is a religion followed by a billion or so people in a huge range of countries and cultures.
2. South Africa was ‘shamed and pressured into change’, Muslims are being subject to secret imprisonment without charge, torture, military invasion and threats of expulsion from their own country.
Shame on the cowardly unthinking Christian right who insist on taking the easy path of hate and aggression, regardless of the cost to all of us (not to mention insisting that everyone who disagrees with them is the ‘left’, just so they don’t have to bother having to reason with their fellow citizens either).
How about you just pretend that the options of military aggression and ignorant propaganda is not available, just for a moment, and see if you can think of some other actions that might work to reduce religiously motivated political violence towards the West? Or would you rather stick with the Treasurer and just tell Muslims what their religion is really about (via speeches to fundamentalist Christians)?
What Would Jesus Do? Try to convert them through military force? Bomb them all into submission while yelling ‘fascists’ at the top of his voice?
Sep 24th, 2006
C.L.
South Africa is a nation. Islam is not a nation, it is a religion followed by a billion or so people in a huge range of countries and cultures.
Which means the campaign against Christophobic ethnic cleansing and Islam-inspired terrorism must be even more passionate and determined.
…Muslims are being subject to secret imprisonment without charge, torture, military invasion and threats of expulsion from their own country.
And that’s just by their own governments.
What Would Jesus Do? Try to convert them through military force? Bomb them all into submission while yelling ‘fascists’ at the top of his voice?
No he wouldn’t. Mohammed would, though (and did). His followers kill Turkish priests, New York office-workers, Bali tourists and 67 year-old nuns while yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’.
The Treasurer wasn’t telling Muslims what their religion was all about. He was reminding them of what modernity is all about. Shame on the political left for its unwillingness to condemn – WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION – a fascist movement that aims to create a caliphate of barbarism and which actively wishes to bring about an anti-Jewish genocide.
Sep 24th, 2006
Obadiah
Quote: Bit hard on the Muslims (and Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, Jews et al), but Christ is Christ and there can’t be any argument.
Hey Harry you got it in a nutshell! now that wasn’t to hard was it?
Sep 24th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Hmmm – This thread is supposedly about the Muslim religion, not refugees or wars in the Middle East.
Anyway, in response to #23
Thanks CL for your exposition of the Christian doctrine of the “necessary cluster bombs” and the telling argument of labelling everyone who disagrees with your assertions a fascist. Before posting again, can you please look up ‘fascist’ in the dictionary and then try to use it accurately, rather than just regurgitating neoconservative talking points? You sound as mindless as those lefties from the 80s who just yelled out “fascist” at everyone who disagreed with them. (Apologies if you were one of them, there does seem to be quite a few who have just changed one extreme for the other extreme over the years)
It’s nice to see your concern for asylum seekers. I’ll be pleased to see you showing the sincerity of your concern by coming to some of the ceremonies next month marking the 5th anniversary of 353 people who drowned on the SIEV X.
That’s the boat where, despite the Howard government (yes, the “life saving” one) had intelligence of the boat’s impending and actual departure, but no rescue efforts were ever launched, and efforts to discover the full truth have been repeatedly met with falsehoods, misinformation and cover-ups.
I’d love to see evidence of “Labor’s policy to let them drown at sea.” I so dislike it when people only attack one side and ignore all the evidence that reflects badly on others, it’s so unbalanced. However, all the evidence provided to the Senate is that the policy prior to 2001 was for rescue vessels to go out to intercept boaboats and bring the people to safety. That was changed by Mr Howard to leave them to their fate until they got close to Xmas Island or Ashmore Reef, change to intercept the boats and tow them to be abandoned offshore from Indonesia – such a great “life saving” policy. Let’s also not forget those hundreds on the Tampa would also have drowned had that vessel not rescued them.
Sep 24th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
In regard to CL’s “fact” 2 in post #23:
are you suggesting that the asylum seekers fled everything they owned and knew, risked their lives to get onto treacherous boats just so they could then try to drown their kids at sea? Sounds rather like saying all those Jews who took the dangerous step of fleeing the Nazis with their children were terrible people “deliberately endangering the lives of their children”
Hang on, weren’t all those “asylum seekers” in 2001 fleeing the same terrorist, anti-semitic, mass murdering “fascist” regimes you go on about in the rest of your post? Why would you be demonising the people who in 1998-2001 fled as victims of the very regimes you now proclaim (in points 3,4,5 and 6) to be fascist.
(of course, those regimes weren’t so fascist or despotic that the ‘life saving’ Howard government didn’t force asylum seekers back there – included unaccompanied children.)
(and why on earth do you put scare quotes around “asylum seekers” anyway?)
Sep 24th, 2006
silkworm
The context of the Pope’s speech was about the use of reason in religious conversion, but very little religious conversion, whether of the Muslim or Christian variety, is done by reason these days. Religions have captive audiences of primary school children, delivered up to them by their parents in their own religious schools, as their targets of conversion.
It does not require reason to convert primary school children. Their impressionable minds are not sufficiently developed to critically assess or resist religious indoctrination that is given them.
In some smaller religious schools, the children are taught creationism. In high school, when science teachers come to teach evolution, they have to clean up the wreck that is taught in religious education classes in primary school. Teaching creationism is an extreme case, but in general, religious education is stultifying the minds of our children. Australia needs more scientists, and more clear thinkers, not more preachers. There should be less religious education taught in our schools. This is where the real battleground is.
Sep 24th, 2006
Harry
Re CL at comment 25
“Islam is followed by a billion people in a huge range of countries and cultures.”
Oh great! So it really is true that the mad Christian right think they have to bomb the whole billion of them. I thought that was just lefty propaganda. I’m sure promoting mass violence is against the new anti-terror laws.
I must have missed that bit in the Koran where Mohammed flies his bomber over the infidels yelling out “fascist”! You’re right though, Jesus wouldn’t do that. Pity that so many of his followers do, just as it’s a shame that so many of Mohammed’s do.
Sorry CL, half-arsed quips don’t cut it. There’s the book called the Bible – it talks about taking the beam out of your own eye before you complain about the speck in your brother’s. Perhaps you should read it sometime.
Shame on the Christian right for not only refusing to hear the many unequivocal condemnations from Muslims and others on the left, right and centre of the political spectrum, but also for refusing to condemn – EVEN HALF-HEARTEDLY – the torture, murder, mass-killings and war crimes that they and their allies engage in.
(no to mention adopting the old-left’s boring and intellectually dishonest label of unthinking abuse – “fascist”)
Sep 24th, 2006
silkworm
Costello has a peculiar concept of secularism. He is in favour of secular Islam because it rejects the notion of fundamentalist Islam, and on the other hand he is in favour of secular Christianity because it too rejects the notion of fundamentalist Islam. Neat, huh?
Sep 24th, 2006
C.L.
Thanks CL for your exposition of the Christian doctrine of the “necessary cluster bombs”.
There is no such doctrine. There is a doctrine of just war; responding to a terrorist organisation reigning rockets down on civilians certainly qualifies.
Before posting again, can you please look up ‘fascist’ in the dictionary and then try to use it accurately..?”
Alright:
1. “…a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. “
Sounds like the entire Middle East.
The SIEV X was the boat that the Indonesian police forced people to board even though it was obviously unseaworthy and which sank not far from Java. Indonesian authorities harboured and equipped the smugglers and the smuggled. People who believe the Australian government was responsible for what happened – like SIEV X-FILES crackpot Tony Kevin – tend to be the same sort of people who believe in UFOs. The Labor policy on asylum seekers was ‘come one, come all’ and it cost lives. There are no longer any boats being sent to Australia by mafioso and their Indonesian enablers. Howard destroyed the racket.
I so dislike it when people only attack one side and ignore all the evidence that reflects badly on others, it’s so unbalanced.
Yes, I agree.
Remember that as you ponder 353 people who drowned because of the negligence and corruption of our big, allegedly moderate Muslim neighbour. (Lately mentioned in dispatches for machine-gunning Christians to death)
Sep 24th, 2006
silkworm
Earlier this year the Pope took it upon himself to tell German Muslims how to teach Islam, and now Costello has taken a leaf out of the Pope’s book to do exactly the same thing. What is not clear is whether he is doing this as a politician (in which case he could be seen as doing his public duty of preaching moderation within the community) or as a Christian (in which case he could be seen as doing his Christian duty and preaching the superiority of Christianity over its rival Islam). That is the problem that being a religious politician creates. In fact it could be said that whenever he or any other religious politician speaks about religion there is a conflict of interest. This is the kind of conflict of interest that section 116 of our constitution was intended to prevent. Section 116 makes Australia a secular nation. Peter Costello should read it some time.
Sep 25th, 2006
C.L.
I must have missed that bit in the Koran where Mohammed flies his bomber over the infidels yelling out “fascist”!
I was responding to your first sentence: “Try to convert them through military force?”
Mohammed’s only aircraft was a winged-horse. I’m not familiar enough with the Koran to know what the prophet said or didn’t say in the saddle.
people are welcome to flee any country and attempt to come here. I oppose the third country notion because I think it is unjust and also because it diminishes Australian greatness. Asylum-seekers are not necessarily entitled to sail here on mafia-hired vessels (with women and children in mortal danger) and make demands on the resources and physical safety of Australia and Australians. Many of them are not, in fact, in need of asylum. Nor will it effect change in fascist Islamic countries for the West to encourage their wealthier citizens (the ones who pay off people-smugglers) to spend tens of thousands of dollars fleeing to the West.
Sep 25th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Responding to comment #23:
Today’s New York Times quotes a report from that well known pinko lefty fascist group, “United States Intelligence Agencies”.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.
One is tempted to say that on the basis of this report, anyone who supported the Iraq war must be – prima facie – a fascist, because they’ve supported actions that have made the problem worse.
However, I won’t do that, because it would make me as shallow, hollow and hypocritical as CL. What I will say is that this shows the importance of basing our arguments and decisions about the best course of action on reason and honesty rather than prejudice, hatred and propaganda.
Sep 25th, 2006
Deborah
When Costello also rejects the notion of fundamentalist christianity, because of the extreme behaviours and views expressed, we will know that he has sought some balance.
Sep 25th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
responding to comment #32:
Remember that as you ponder 353 people who drowned because of the negligence and corruption of our big, allegedly moderate Muslim neighbour. (Lately mentioned in dispatches for machine-gunning Christians to death)
CL, the Indonesian government shoots Muslims as well as Christians – it’s called the death penalty. Personally I’m opposed to it regardless of the religion or nationality of the people subjected to it.
CL, unlike claims about UFOs, there is ample evidence provided to the Senate that the corruption of Indonesian officials regarding people smuggling activities was fully known to and facilitated by Australian authorities. Indeed, our Federal Police was made to be a partner in a ‘disruption program’ to make it harder for the refugees to escape to safety and to provide intelligence to Australia about what they were doing and when.
It’s nice of you to affirm about the refugees that “many of them were not, in fact, in need of asylum.” I guess that would be why a massive majority of them were eventually found to be in need of aslyum, even under the farcical ‘third country’ assessment procedures? Or was it the fact that these refugees were Muslim mean their needs don’t mattter?
Sorry, CL, but even your links displaying ‘evenhandedness’ just express outrage when Howard cooperates with Muslim Indonesia about West Papuan refugees (but not when it’s to cooperate to disrupt Muslim refugees apparently), and only express outrage at Christians being executed.
Indonesia executes Muslims too, and that’s just as bad in my eyes. After all, they were at war with Aceh, their most devoutly Muslim province, for ages. Are you equally concerned about the atrocities and executions commited by the Indonesian military and government on Muslim Aceh separatists in recent years?
Sep 25th, 2006
pc person
Andrew
Could you please direct me to any comment you have made- written or spoken- where you have acknowledged even a passing concern towards Islam.
I guess in your sphere of the universe, it’s the “kristians” who are at fault.
Sep 25th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
PC, I don’t have a concern about Islam. Nor do I have a concern about Christianity. I support freedom of religion, even though I’m non-religious myself.
However, as I’ve said many times, on this site and elsewhere, I’m opposed to unreasoned extremism of any kind, whether it be Muslim, Christian or non-religious.
I find it especially dangerous when unreasoned hatred or ignorance is directed from one religion towards another. Not surprisingly, I spend more of my time focusing on what my own society could do better, as I figure it’s weakens our efforts at engaing with our societies or nations if we leave ourselves wide open to charges of double standards.
Sep 25th, 2006
C.L.
Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
It isn’t the argument of the right that Islamic radicalism is in retreat, though the War on Terrorism is progressing quite well. No, quite the opposite: the argument is that Islamic radicalism is a growing problem. The first WTC bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Africa, the Bali Bombing – all of these occurred before the Iraq War. Now these “spy agencies” tell us that the problem has continued to trend in the same direction: up. Well, I’m glad the clever operatives of this billion-dollar spook matrix are reading the newspapers.
Here’s an excerpt from an earlier National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction”.
“What I will say is that this shows the importance of basing our arguments and decisions about the best course of action on reason and honesty rather than prejudice, hatred and propaganda.”
Sep 25th, 2006
C.L.
[You, CL]…only express outrage at Christians being executed.
Really?
I’m a general critic of Indonesia’s infamous violence. Our big Muslim neighbour is the biggest killer in the whole region – we all know that.
I don’t really care who comes to Australia or what their religion is. The old modus operandi governing how some of them went about that, however, got many of them killed and was run by criminals. No-one dies any more on unseaworthy vessels coming to Australia. John Howard has saved lives. The old policy got people killed.
On the SIEV X, you seem to be saying the Australian government should have launched pre-emptive raids on Indonesian harbours to stop rust-bucket vessels with 400 people aboard from disembarking. The craft put to sea under Indonesia’s prodding and auspices. There is no evidence – real evidence I mean, not the Roswellian ‘dude, what if’ kind – that blame can rationally be allotted to the Howard government. This is simply dishonest propaganda of the kind you claim to oppose.
Sep 25th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
I would have thought the biggest ‘killer’ in our region would be China, by a long way. One of their target groups is Muslims in the west, along with Tibertan buddhists and Falun Gong (not really a religion as I understand it), and pro-democracy activists in general.
Still Indonesia definitely has a bad record, (although it is improving in most areas, which is something we should encourage). All the more reason not to leave refugees stranded there though, I would have thought.
In any case, the violence of the Chinese or Indonesian state is not driven by relegion, so it’s not much to do with the topic. And given the main focus of the violent Muslim extremists in Indonesia is towards the government and other Muslims locally, it also shows how pointless it is to defame all of Islam as somehow a problem – which is what this post was originally about.
“John Howard has saved lives”
By adopting a policy which has forced people back to their deaths? Interesting logic.
No one supports refugees having to risk dangerous journeys or benig forced to use people smugglers. That’s why deliberately undermining the global system for dealing with refugees is a bad idea.
You also originally said the old policy was “allow them to drown” – something you haven’t backed up with any evidence. Yet that’s precisely what was done with the SIEV X (and almost the vessel rescued by the Tampa).
Australia did have people involved in disruption activites that did prevent boats leaving. Disruption activites that do this have some justification (although it doesn’t solve the problem of the unsafe refugees) It’s the disruption activities which allow the unsafe boats to leave that are most reprehesnible.
Sep 25th, 2006
Another Andrew
“It isn’t the argument of the right that Islamic radicalism is in retreat, though the War on Terrorism is progressing quite well. No, quite the opposite: the argument is that Islamic radicalism is a growing problem.”
Ah, so the WOT has been progressing well, which can be ascertained from the fact that Islamic Radicalism is a growing problem.
Presumably, CL, your preferred policy is that we must, at all costs, continue the glorious battle until we can be absolutely certain that the problem of Islamic Radicalism is, once and for all, completely out of control.
Sep 25th, 2006
C.L.
All the more reason not to leave refugees stranded there though, I would have thought.
So Australia should escort them here with navy vessels or maybe chopper them out from refugee camps in Indonesia? Let’s try and be realistic. Indonesia has to stop being such a basket-case of a police state – that’s what we have to work towards. And Jakarta doesn’t kill Muslims because they are Muslims; it has targeted Christians because they are Christians. A big difference. As for involving the AFP in “disruption” – remembering that these are the Keystone clowns that gave up the Bali Nine – that doesn’t strike me as a smart idea.
By adopting a policy which has forced people back to their deaths?
No, by abolishing Labor’s Let Them Drown At Sea policy. There is no evidence the Howard government “let” the SIEV X passengers drown. There is ample evidence that Indonesia did.
I note that Australia’s peak Muslim body agrees with the Treasurer on the Church-State question. These days, it seems, the left is more Muslim than the Muslims.
Sep 25th, 2006
C.L.
Islamic radicalism has been spiralling out of control for decades, Andrew. It took off with particular force during the Clinton administration. The liberal policy of surrender didn’t work. That’s why so many Australians were murdered in Bali and so many others were killed in New York before the Iraq War. If the left had its way, Saddam would still be gassing his own population and the Taliban would still be shooting women in soccer stadiums for exposing their ankles in the market square. What disgraceful cowardice.
Sep 25th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Please spare us all the US neo-conservative attack phrases, CL. I know you’re capable of reasoned debate. The US enabled both Saddam and the Taliban when it suited them, and are still turning a blind eye to plenty of other practices. None of which helps us deal with the here and now (let alone has much to do with Mufti Costello regularly pronouncing on the real nature of Islam)
I am not interested in whether or not something is a position of “the left” (whatever that may be, presumably just everybody you disagree with). I am interested in debate on the issues.
This post isn’t about asylum seekers so I won’t keep responding on that – suffice to say that Australia has done some good things with Indonesia in enabling asylum seekers to apply for protection through the UNHCR in Indonesia. This is the main action which has reduced the boats coming out of there, and it should continue. The major flaw is that people can still languish there forever even if they are found to be refugees, and there is no real safe option for those who have other genuine humanitarian cases.
If you could just look at the law and policy and its real world consequences, instead of insisting on using the issue as a weapon in your ideological crusades, it would help.
As for people in Indonesia targetting Christians because they are Christians, I think you’re taking a very one dimensional (and one directional in some cases) view. In addition there are Muslim extremists being targetted by the government precisely because they are Muslim extremists, and Muslim extremists are certainly targetting mainstream Muslims precisely becasue they are mainstream.
I know the West (probably like all cultures)like to assume everything is all about us, but frankly I can’t really see why we want to keep making ourselves the centre of attention on this particular issue.
Uniting our enemies and alientating our friends – potential and current – does not seem too smart to me.
Sep 25th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd
Cl, what a bunch of old bollocks, and Andrew – the boats only became unsafe after the government started turning them around or sending them to Nauru. Beside all that no-one was forcing the 10,000 who came before the TAMPA onto the boats – we know from the CMI that it was an AFP initiative started by that lunatic Ruddock.
As for SIEVX, CL, the boat sank in international waters while the Operation Relex people were flying over head – survivors heard the planes and they saw the boats in the sea who watched them drown.
Now if we had ever had any concern we would have acknowledged that the women and children were on the boat because we denied them the right to family reunion – otherwise they would have flown.
Andrew I am shocked that you buy into the nonsense about disrupting the asylum system – those on the boats were the asylum system, that is precisely how it has always worked. It is not people smuggling, it is transit to a place of safety.
You know that so why change the story now?
As for the muslim violence I will come back and post a piece from an old Jewish peace monger that needs to be read by all and sundry who whine about muslim violence.
As for the NIE I am with CL on this – the players are the same losers who got it wrong on September 11 and those pesky WMD – beside all that only 1439 people have been killed in designated “terror” attacks in the last 5 years while hundreds of thousands have been killed because of it.
Sep 25th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15089.htm
I really, really hope all the mindless islamaphobes aren’t going to disbelieve this 80+ year old Jew when he explains the history of Jews and Islam.
And CL, I forgot to say – Hezbollah didn’t have any cluster bombs to fire. What they did do was fire less than 4,000 rockets onto towns where the Israeli defence forces were hiding in the population of arabs and using them as human shields. This has been reported in Israeli papers. They also had fixed rocket positions, they did not fire from houses and they didn’t fire on civilians.
The notion that anything on earth would justify the firing of 1.2 million cluster bomblets into civilian towns in a few days just to demolish and kill anything that was left standing or alive sort of destroys Israel’s claim to any high moral ground.
Add to that the report that the IDF knew very well that the soldiers would be taken and when and didn’t stop it and the question to be asked is – did the IDF use those boys as pawns in a plan they had made last February – which was to blow Lebanon back 20 years?
No-one in the know in Israel will tell me but the parents of one of those boys looked as sick as death in the photo attached to the press conference about it.
Now when you read Uri’s history and then ponder what happened in Israel perhaps you could all get back to us about muslim violence.
Sep 25th, 2006
pc person
Andrew says:
“However, as I’ve said many times, on this site and elsewhere, I’m opposed to unreasoned extremism of any kind, whether it be Muslim, Christian or non-religious. ”
Would you mind showing us how that comment would apply Christianity or Judiaism over the loast 20 years?
Sep 25th, 2006
pc person
Andrew says:
“As for people in Indonesia targetting Christians because they are Christians, I think you’re taking a very one dimensional (and one directional in some cases) view.”
Tell why you think this is one sided view, Andrew. Are Christians not being targeted for being Christian? Are you saying that Christians are targeting Muslims in Indonesa in the same way. Are you serious. You’re actually spinning this line?
Sep 25th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Oh for god’s sake, grow up, PC. This is my planet too, and I’m sick of ‘roid-rage idiots ruining it for eveybody.
I said CL was being one-dimensional and one-directional.
Any suggestion that all of the many and very different internal conflicts and violence within Indonesia are just driven by a Muslims vs Christians or an Islam vs the West dynamic is simply ludicrous. Now please get back on topic.
Sep 25th, 2006
Steve Madden
Now you can really call me a ‘nutter’.
OK Obi-one,your are a nutter :)
Andrew, thanks for the article.
I will be voting for you for the first time next election (even if you do have crap fridge magnets).
Sep 25th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd
Yes PC, you seem to forget that the christians sent to the firing squad happened to have slaughtered over 200 muslims. What are you saying? Three christian murderers are worth more than the 200 dead muslims?
Like Andrew I say grow up. There is no clash of civilizations except we in the west keep distorting the truth so we can steal the resources that happen to be in muslim countries.
Sep 25th, 2006
pc person
Marilyn
Seriously, you give us human mammals a bad name in the animal world.
Andrew
Could you please answer my questions instead of offering qad homs.
Sep 25th, 2006
muzzmonster
To veer slightly off topic, I do like Steve’s idea of voting for people who have good fridge magnets.
In which case, I’d probably be voting for NASA.
Sep 25th, 2006
Lynette2
Costello’s advice to Muslims was to separate religion and the state. So I guess he’ll be giving the same advice to Israel then?
Recently a friend brought me a small Statue of Liberty back from a trip to the US. I peeled the Made in China sticker off the bottom and stuck that on the fridge.
Sep 25th, 2006
John Tracey
Andrew B. has interjected a few times by saying Islam is not about the middle east, pointing to Indonesia as the biggest muslim community.
I beg to differ. The middle east is the holy land, the dreaming sites, the sacred places of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. They are all based firmly in the ground there. The are all theologically the same and worship the same god. The modern christian myth of the trinity emerged hundreds of years after Jesus, who preached essentially orthodox monotheism in line with islam and judaism.
That which fills the churches in Australia is an impererialist ideology with a few trimmings of the ancient religion to give it some credibility.
The point at which Rome co-opted christianity, or constantinople co-opted islam or state zioninsm captured judaism is the point at which the spirituality dissappears and the state sponsored brainwashing and ideologising begins to justify wars, occupations and genocide. The religions spread around the world with imperialist expansion.
Indonesia is no more a sacred place of Islam than Australia or USA is for judeo/christianity. The religions that have been panel beaten out of these earth based spiritualities was just the method of oppressing foreign populations and justifying this to domestic populations. just like Costello et al are doing with our present islamaphobia.
Islam is the imposed colonial religion that replaces indigenous spirituality in Indonesia.
Christianity is the colonial religion that replaced the Aboriginal dreaming in this country.
Zionism is the statist philosophy of Imperialism that has over-riden the earth based spirituality of Moses and Abraham, who are the grandfathers of Islam, Judaism and christianity.
christianity, Islam, Judaism = state imposed illusion
earth, people, love = spirituality
Obi-one and the Hillsong spiritual commandos are just storm troopers of the empire deluded into thinking they are rebels.
Sep 25th, 2006
ken
Love it – all we need is Deborah to weigh in wiht its all really John Howards fault and this cacophany of squealing and cat calling would be complete. A strong dose of categorical imperative needed all round.
What isn’t made in China?
Sep 25th, 2006
Steve Madden
What isn’t made in China?
Yorkshire pudding?
Sep 25th, 2006
muzzmonster
I beg to differ about Islam John. While I don’t claim to have a comprehensive knowledge, Islam is incredibly diverse; with adherents in pretty much every country (except perhaps the Vatican).
Even in the primarily Muslim nations, the experiences and ideas are wildly different, and it’s not all about the Middle East.
Try reading Julia Howell (from Griffith University) who I saw recently at the Brisbane Writers Festival.
Anyway, this is all off the topic – not that many threads stay on topic on this blog.
Sep 25th, 2006
muzzmonster
Oh, I almost forgot John. There are a significant number of Jews who oppose Zionism, and most Christians I know don’t care for the “Holy Land” – except, like most of us, they think it’d be an interesting place to visit and that people should stop killing each other.
Sep 25th, 2006
John Tracey
Hi Muzz, perhaps we may not disagree so much. I agree that the different varieties of Islam are as diverse as the different varieties of christianity and Judaism.
In all cases these developed as earth based spiritualities and transformed into ideational concepts. This is why there is so much variety and even contradictions betwen different sub-sects, as they have evolved with the political histories that they were applied to, not any universal spiritual reality.
I was teasing Obi-one with the exodus polygamy thing. However it is important to understand that Moses, Abraham and Jesus all lived in a desert tribal society and their spirituality and sociology was more akin to Aboriginal customary law than to middle class Australian values or modern indonesian nationalism.
Indonesian Islam is best understood in terms of Indonesian sociology than Muslim theology.
Sep 25th, 2006
C.L.
What [Hezbollah] did do was fire less than 4,000 rockets onto towns where the Israeli defence forces were hiding in the population of arabs and using them as human shields…They also had fixed rocket positions, they did not fire from houses and they didn’t fire on civilians.
Beyond parody. When I mentioned SIEV X FILES loony Tony Kevin, I didn’t imagine this thread would become doubly honoured with Marilyn Shepherd would post that travesty of anti-semitic baloney – virtually script-written by the exterminationist fascists of Tehran.
As for you, Senator!
“…attack phrases…reasoned debate.”
Followed by “Mufti Costello”.
;)
Sep 25th, 2006
Law Student
I suspect that some individuals in this forum have read and consulted passages of the Quran out of context. I’d like to make something clear:
Numerous passages of the Quran were explicitly directed at situations facing Muslims in 1400 years ago Arabia. For example, when Muslims 1400 years ago faced some sort of dilemma, the Quran addressed it. Those passages applied in that particular context.
Some passages direct Muslims to kill the non believers. However, if you read the passages above and below verses of this nature you would find out that Muslims were addressed to retaliate against those who had commenced a systematic genocide of the small Muslim population in Mecca.
There is no verse in the Quran, nor any saying of Mohammed which commands Muslims to kill or deliver any sort of harm to non Muslims for the simple reason that theyre not Muslims.
Sep 25th, 2006
Bilko
Hi Andrew, Perhaps you’d like to know that MarkL and Mark Durie, whose inflammatory article in the Australian you linked to, are the same person.
http://www.leftwrites.net/2006/09/16/papal-bull/
Go the Democrats! We need someone to stand up for social justice.
Sep 25th, 2006
Deborah
Poor, poor pitiful Oz
by Richard Neville:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/poor-poor-pitiful-oz/2006/09/22/1158431894367.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
“Meanwhile, the neo-cons backtrack though history to prove that “Islamic terror” long pre-dated September 11, 2001, so you’re not allowed to blame the pre-emptive strike on Iraq for destabilising the world.”
“…In fact, the “revolution” was pre-ordained in 1953, after the CIA ousted the elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, for his un-American aspiration to nationalise oil. Washington installed a puppet dictator, the Shah of Iran, who founded the feared secret police, SAVAK, while his wife hosted lavish international film festivals, flying in Hollywood celebrities to speak well of tyranny. By imposing the shah on the Persians for all those years, the West must surely accept some responsibility for the rebirth of radical Islam and all that’s followed.”
Hi Ken,
re #58
Sorry, I’m afraid that you will have to provide the ‘balanced’ and worthy viewpoint here – I see you’ve done yourself proud.
Sep 26th, 2006
Deborah
Lynette2, “Costello’s advice to Muslims was to separate religion and the state. So I guess he’ll be giving the same advice to Israel then?”
Say what!?
He needs to give the same advice to himself, he’s been playing footsies with the Hills(ong) Angels for years, that church for worship of the almighty dollar and the ‘greed is good’ creed. We’ve now got the Exclusive Brethren’s meddling in government policy (IR) bought by influential donations and their illegal, vicious smear campaigns (nothing like a fundie christian for dirty dealings).
Costello must have been smirking when he said it!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-costello-smirk-through-the-ages/2006/07/15/1152637916308.html
I hope the creeping jesus infection that has destroyed sane government in the US, is rapidly excised before it takes gangrenous hold here.
Hidden prophets: (EB story)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/07/01/1151174401719.html?from=top5
4 Corners on EB, 25/9/0″:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1748441.htm
Hills Angels:
http://workers.labor.net.au/features/200603/a_guestreporter_westiewideweb.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hillsong-members-stung-for-millions/2006/09/25/1159036462397.html
Sep 26th, 2006
Paul Walter
Well, Ken, it does seem only a few here have noted the implications of Bartlett’s bestowal of the title of “Mufti” upon Costello.
Costello is one of those Hypocrites who talks about “Christian values” and “Australian values” and then launches spite-motivated attacks on everyone from Australian workers ( “road to serfdom” IR ), hapless Australian indigenes, unfortunates being harrassed on welfare while the rich dodge tax, and those of different race or culture (through ignorance?). Their real “religion” is the despicable, perversely nihilistic self-obsessed neo-liberal ideology, with its cruelties masked as “reform”.
Contrast Hillsong “Prosperity” theology with the Parables and Sermon on the Mount and realise how far from Christian humility, self sacrifice and generosity the Lyons Society fundamentalists have degenerated into millenarianist superstition, judgementalism and moralising.
On a different trajectory, Deborah and Marilyn Shepherd were dead right about the vicious hypocrisy of “civilised” Christendom- it extends from current times, through the Mossadeque era, back to the betrayal of Lawrence’s Arabs, who sided with the WW1 allies against the Turks and Germans and were betrayed for their trust in the Christian, Western word of “honour”. You can see how the trust of people in the Third World has been stretched time and time again by greedy and spiritually-bankrupt western colonialists and bloody imperialism- some in these threads would have us beleive this was “civilised”.
You could consider the millions and millions murdered by the British in Bengal in genocidal famines from the time of Robert Clive to the the middle of WW2, as just one example.
But is it JUST “Muslims” who loath the West?
What about Chavez, speaking on behalf of Latin America?
Would Vietnamese, Chinese and Cambodians thank us for the past carnage in their countries?
I wonder what African Kofi Annan would say about about the “Civilised/ Christian” West and its history.
Sep 26th, 2006
Geoff
I was trying to avoid the anti-religious LW bigots here, but it seems impossible.
So… just a point that some may get.
Western nations where Christianity is the main religion and whose laws are based on Christian beliefs are largely if not almost totally SECULAR nations. That means there is a division between religion and state.
Since Paul brought up the Arab and British deal, (note I said BRITISH)… it should be noted that it wasn’t a Christian deal… SECULAR is the key here Paul… unlike Islam we do not equate the 2 things as 1. If a government makes a decision it’s a GOVERNMENT decision NOT a CHRISTIAN one. You do know the difference I assume.
As for ken’s comment – couldn’t agree more.
Sep 26th, 2006
C.L.
I wonder what African Kofi Annan would say about about the “Civilised/ Christian” West and its history.
Somebody should ask him that as he once again implements the UN’s wily ‘Act After Everyone Dies’ policy in Sudan.
Sep 26th, 2006
ken
Not quite sure the point you are trying to make Paul – obviusly my comments were not clear to you. As for people fighting and killing each other its been going on for ever and will coniteu so irrespectvei of who, where and what they believe.
I couldn’t give a monkeys abotu the religious arguemnts, have no interest in it- the point is that the self righteousness ceritiude of the accruacy of their postion displayed by most posters for or against is a joke. Althohg they should be applauded for passion there is no mortgage on accuracy or right or wrong.
My point was take heed of Kant’s viwes in the Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)- put simply – try to act and construct a just and satisfying social world based on the principle of mutual respect. Not particualry evident here….
Sep 26th, 2006
ken
Oh dear – I’ve graduated to the blacklist
Sep 26th, 2006
Thomazina
Being anti-religion doesn’t make one a bigot (left wing or otherwise). In fact it seems to me that most bigots – extremists, dogmatists, and hypocrites – are in the main firmly ensconced in one religious doctrine or another. It’s within such structures that they can make their mark and find power over others. It’s also where they are most dangerous to the people who they end up leading by the nose and to the broader community.
The ‘you must believe my interpretation of the word of my God or I (with my God’s assistance) will smite you down’ method of conversion favoured by these people is alive and well in both the various version sof Christianity and Islam as well as all the other forms of religion.
None of this changes the fact that Peter Costello standing up in front of a Christian religious audience and telling them what they want to hear about Islam in order to gain their political approval and their supportive electoral dollars is at best a cynical act and should be seen for what it is.
It’s also another disturbing example that Australia’s governance is perhaps not quite as secular as one would like it to be.
Sep 26th, 2006
muzzmonster
Ohmigod! I have to say I also agree with Geoff on this one.
Though there seems to be a movement among certain churches (in Australia and USA at least) to ensure a larger role for the church in the government.
And I recall reading that the concept of secular Islam is a misnomer, on the belief that Islam encompasses every aspect of life; the community of believers is the state and the religious leaders are the political leaders – there is no separation. It was not a problem for Christians or Jews (or whoever) to live among them, but they had to pay extra taxes.
I’m taking a wild guess and suggesting this idea goes back many hundreds of years to a different poliitcal and social situation.
Sep 26th, 2006
John Tracey
Geoffs point about church and state.
It is true there has been a separation of church and state but this comes from King Henry the 8th who set up his own state run church as competition to Rome, which very much ran as a oneness of church and state since Constantine. The old Roman Emporer was both god and king. This has been watered down to a papacy which was then challenged by old Henry who used the authority of god to justify the British crown, a constitutional reality even today.
All cabinet ministers (and perhaps all parliamnenttarians?) have to swear on the bible. The Anglican church is very close to the state and has a service to mark the beginning of parliament. Witnesses in court have to swear on the bible. Our sovereign, her majesty is the head of the Anglican church.
But legally, The key role of a sovereign is to be the link to god, via the church of england, that is why they have the constitutional power to override parliament.
There is not so much a separation of church and state but rather demarcation, deliniation and compartmentalisation within a whole of one nation under god. I dont know about our citizenship mantras but the American one clearly puts god as the basis of citizenship.
The main way the Australian/British state uses christianity today is as a psychological justification for the agenda of the state and ruling elite, just like in muslim societies.
Was not Iraq a secular state? A modern industrialised country of 20 million, just like us? Yet islamophobia allows us to believe that god is on our side and Iraq is just a hotbed of islamic fundamentalism..
Sep 26th, 2006
John Tracey
In Australia, the Queen’s official title is:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of Allah, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Sep 26th, 2006
muzzmonster
Though you’re technically correct John, I think you’re being disingenuous here.
Yes, there are references to God in our Constitution and Parliamentary procedures that many of us would rather be rid of; but the 10 commandments are not the basis of law in Australia; nor are many of the other laws from the Old Testament. I see no real evidence to suggest that we are living in anything but a secular state.
I’m pretty sure that parliamentarians can make an affirmation rather than swear on the Bible – I’m sure Andrew can enlighten us, having done one of the two.
Sep 26th, 2006
MarkL
Aha! Bilko has also been taken in. Sorry, I am not Mark Durie. As I explained over at leftwrites, I am actually the Chief Minion of the VRWC, Marcus Libellus Methuselah, originally of Hattusilis, and I work PERSONALLY for the Dark Lord of the VRWC Karl Rove and his allies, Lord Howard the Not-so-Tall and the Dank Lord of the Dismal Science Peter of Costello (Feral Abacus and bar). Hey, it’s the only way I get access to water from the fountain of youth which the Rosicrucian wing of the VRWC provides – buggers have had a monopoly for 2006 years now. You can check all of this, and the troubles I have with those damned VRWC Henchmen (especially Wronwright and Paco) over on our super-secret underground VRWC website run by Tim Blair.
MarkL
Canberra
Sep 26th, 2006
John Tracey
you can take an affirmation in court.
our parliamentarians, including Sir Andrew of the Gothic Vegetables, are bound agents of Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of Allah, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth and will be so until such time as we have a republic, which it would be treasonous for our good senator to advocate.
Sep 26th, 2006
Deborah
I think that they say the lord’s prayer before commencement of parliamentary proceedings too.
Don’t know what you’re supposed to do if you are a non- believer or of another faith.
Sep 26th, 2006
Deborah
…and don’t forget the mad monk, Tony Abbott, the conflicted minister for health, who is trying hard to ensure that Australian women have no access to either a surgical or safe, medical abortion.
He is also lying and distorting on the stem cell research debate, Abbott turns it into a de facto abortion issue, even though therapeutic stem cell transplantation is entirely different.
Remember the meeting with Pell? (denied and lied about it).
Separation of church and state?
Sep 26th, 2006
ken
#80 – they add a littel prayer before the Lords Prayer Deborah – words to the effect of “imploring our humble serveants to uphold the interest of Austrlai in their deliberations etc etc” and then laucnh into the Lords Prayer. Notably absent at the end are any hearty “hear hear’s”.
As for what does anyoen there do (non or believer) – well they do what people should always do – they respect tradtion and process, and then get on with things that matter – the job.
Sep 27th, 2006
Deborah
Oh Ken, prayer upon prayer, to remind them to think of ALL Australians when they make decisions and laws. It’s not working then, god can’t be listening.
Respecting tradition and process -
like this
and this
Sep 27th, 2006
ken
yes I agree the childish rudeness of those two Senators! Surprised you think so too.
Don’t know about god thast obviusoly your deparmtne, but the pollies certioanly aren’t listening.
Sep 27th, 2006
John Tracey
Ken, I agree that we should not read too much into respect for tradition. Same thing when the secular government of Sadddam Hussein called on loyal Muslims to engage in Jihad against the west. Hussein was appealing to religious tradition to justify his government’s agenda. political opportunism and nothing else.
This is the point of islamaphobia, non-spiritual regimes that use their national traditions of god to justify their actions, and demonise other religeous traditions be it Hussein or Bush or Costello – nothing to do with the spirituality of Jesus or Mohamid.
The truth is that the nature of the religion is irrelevent but the nature of economic, politics, nationalism etc. co-opts this immagery to manipulate us ordinary folk.
The anti-religion of the chinese state uses humanism in exactly the same way. But it has nothing to do with liberating the population from illusion. It is about ideological hegemony just like the muslim, Jew and Christan state tyrants.
Even theocracies such as the Taliban or the Vatican state are more manifestations of nationalism than religion as neither of them represent any common or universal themes of their religions but just the politically and cultural niche that has evolved. just ask the Hillsong people if the Pope speaks for Christianity.
Sep 27th, 2006
Deborah
JT, I think Ken’s quip was meant to emphasise his own respect for tradition and process and his support for those who maintain the status quo.
Ken, re #84, no respect for traditions, process and tenets of democracy, were shown to those two senators and the general public in the micro contolled howard love-in for GWB.
Sep 27th, 2006
Deborah
Howard allows Costello to further demonise muslims, but Howard himself will come out in support of the Exclusive Brethren and their right to influence him (being white and christian and all).
PM backs Brethren’s rights:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-backs-brethrens-rights/2006/09/27/1159036577496.html
“They have a different, a more disciplined, perhaps some would say a more narrow interpretation of the Christian religion than others, but I respect their right to have it.”
check out the comments on the blog from the same paper – hypocrisy well and truly noted! One person brought up the question of it being illegal not to vote in Australia, so how can the EB not do so.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/your_say/006467.html
Sep 27th, 2006
John Tracey
Deborah, I was responding to Ken’s post 82, not the Greens stuff.
Sep 27th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
In response to a few of the above comments:
People can get legal exemptiosn from not voting for relgious reasons, whether it is the EB or anyone else. Relgious exemptions have been able to be used in law for a range of things for some time, whether it be military service, jury service, union membership, etc.
The Brethren are the current whipping boy because they (or some of their members) are anti-Green and pro-Howard. Some other religious groups and bodies have been and are strongly anti-government. I think we should critique their actions, not their religiousness.
As for Parliament, if you don’t want to partake in the prayer at the start, you don’t have to – a bit being in a church funeral or wedding ceremony I guess, you don’t have to pray or sing the hymns if you don’t wish to. Personally, I think it would be preferable if we ditched the prayer, as it isn’t appropriate for a secular country, let along a mutli-faith one – people who want to call their god’s blessings on proceedings could do so privately. However, I don’t really think it’s worth the bother of having a fight over – I’m sure people don’t need my help to imagine the howls of outrage that would greet any such suggestion.
One make an doath or an affirmation when being sworn into Parliament. I’ve actually done one of each, as I’ve been sworn in on two occasions. For one you get a nicely bound Bible (signed by the Governor-General), and if you do the other you get a nicely bound copy of the Constitution, (also signed by the Governor-General). I usually keep the Bible in my draw in the Senate chamber, and I’ve used it a few times to quote from in speeches – it has some good stuff in it. Just a pity the government doesn’t follow its lessons as often as they should.
Sep 27th, 2006
Louise
At #81.
…and don’t forget the mad monk, Tony Abbott, the conflicted minister for health, who is trying hard to ensure that Australian women have no access to either a surgical or safe, medical abortion.
What’s he conflicted about, Deborah?
He is also lying and distorting on the stem cell research debate, Abbott turns it into a de facto abortion issue, even though therapeutic stem cell transplantation is entirely different.
How is it different, if it involves the destruction of human embryos (ie tiny babies)?
Remember the meeting with Pell? (denied and lied about it).
Separation of church and state?
Oh my God! Oh no! Disaster! Federal MP discusses moral issues with a Catholic Cardinal! What a disgrace!
Senator, perhaps you could remind Deborah that Catholics *are* entitled to serve in public office in this country (still). And they are entitled to act upon their religious beliefs as they do so.
When Deborah et al can prove their morality is clearly superior to the Church’s I will gladly bow down and worship… whatever it is that I should then worship.
Sep 27th, 2006
John Tracey
The very act of swearing on the bible is an example of the state’s co-option of religion for its own political purposes.
Mathew Chapter 5
33 “Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time,’You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows,’
34 but I tell you, don’t swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God;
35 nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can’t make one hair white or black.
37 But let your’Yes’ be’Yes’ and your’No’ be’No.’ Whatever is more than these is of the evil one.
Sep 27th, 2006
John Tracey
does the parliamentary affirmation involve pledging loyalty to Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of Allah, Ayatolah of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth?
when christian soldiers go onward to war for God, Queen and country, is this not jihad?
Sep 28th, 2006
Deborah
But haven’t the EB’s actions been shady, with allegations of illegality Andrew? I don’t mean the non-voting issue:
-money laundering allegations
-refusal to obey family law court rulings to allow ex sect members access to their children
-child abuse allegations (coming from ex sect members who have had the misfortune to grow up in the sect)
-spying on and libelling of public figures
And if they have an exemption from voting because it is against their religious beliefs, shouldn’t they be banned from extreme political activity? – not running around ambushing political candidates prior to elections, falsifying how to vote cards, and giving huge donations to political parties to influence outcomes. If their actions are political, then the exemption should not apply.
The EB have IR labour law exemption and the exemption has been especially tailored for them, no-one employed by EB can ask to be represented by a union, unions are locked out, without the consent of staff.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/09/20/1158431783201.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
“A Government spokesman claimed yesterday a clause in this year’s WorkChoices legislation that made it easier to bar union officials was not designed to please the conservative religious organisation.
But the Industrial Relations Commission confirmed that, since 2002, every one of the more than 30 employers who claimed a “conscientious objection” exemption belonged to the Exclusive Brethren church.”
It’s hilarious to see Howard preaching the rights, and please no vilification, of this extremist fundie sect on one hand, yet, demonising another religion for, supposedly, the same reasons!
No worries, he’ll have something else on the front pages quicksmart to take the public’s attention off his own duplicity.
Sep 28th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd
Actually CL my anti-semitic rant that you claim was written by Iran was actually written by Jewish journalists in Israeli newspaper as a result of their own investigation launched into the behaviour of the IDF.
They also report that the Israeli court has deemed it legal to deny clean water to Bedouins on the bogus basis that they live on “illegal settlements”, what a hoot that one caused.
Then we have the nice one about roads in the West Bank being arbitrarily closed to all but Israelis wihout any legal order – that one is on it’s way to the courts.
How about this one CL- the people of Gaza are being starved to death by Israel and the west and the Israeli human rights commission has just found that the IDF committed war crimes in Gaza by bombing their power stations.
I will not be blindly supporting Israel anytime soon while they behave like brainless savages, like it or lump it. What about pregnant Bedouins being denied medical care and the 1 million cluster bombs lying around Lebanon in the last days – after the cease fire had been called and agreed on?
The quote the Pope gave was bogus pure and simple and I have to say I have always been treated with incredible respect from every muslim I know, they have never tried to convert me or abuse me. Unlike the so-called christian bigots on this forum.
Sep 28th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Yes, there’s been allegations against the EB, and they should be investigated by appropraite authorities. Most of the allegations have been around for years and none of them seemed to draw public campaigns of outrage until they started attacking political opponents, who have subsequently targetted them – which probably suits both sides to some extent.
The Parliamentary affirmation does require pladge allegiance to the Queen – I would rather it didn’t but it’s still the case for now.
For precision’s sake, the 2 versions – oath and affirmation, are as follows:
OATH
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
AFFIRMATION
I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law.
Sep 28th, 2006
John Tracey
‘ken oath mate! (swearing an oath)
I am not having a go at you Andrew, I think your hypocritical dishonesty is quite honourable.
My point is to Islamaphobes, that we can point the finger at all sorts of things in the “Islamic” world and be blind to the same phenomenon in the “Christian” world. It is just a matter of rhetorical interpretation, not theology or spirituality or some kind of religious charachter.
Mathew 7
1 “Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged.
2 For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye?
4 Or how will you tell your brother,’Let me remove the speck from your eye;’ and behold, the beam is in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Sep 28th, 2006
Deborah
You could remind me yourself Louise, just a few points of difference:
- an embryo is not a baby, however tiny.
-Catholics are entitled to serve in public office (and do) but:
-they are not entitled to fund $60 million of taxpayer’s money to anti abortion groups (under the guise of pregnancy counselling and offering of choice), who refuse to refer women for terminations and falsely claim that abortion causes breast cancer, infertility and mental illness.
-Catholics in public office are not entitled to have individual religious morality prevail over majority public opinion and stifle debate on controversial issues (abortion, RU486 and stem cells)
-They are entitled to a single, conscience vote but a single MP is not entitled to use the power of office to make unaccountable (even by parliament) decisions which affect half of the population (ministerial veto on RU486)
-They are not entitled to misrepresent the truth and parade deliberate lies to the public on controversial issues (SCNT and RU486)
-They are not entitled to ignore and misrepresent the taxpayer funded reviews and reports that clearly offer expert opinion and advice and recommend policy direction, if they don’t agree with personal, religious belief. (RU486, Lockhart review)
Re the Abbott & the Cardinal:
“Lateline 30/09/2004 (Minister Abbott first denied, then cannot recall, then remembered meeting of 10 days ago)
…TONY JONES: You’re a political operative and the question is not whether he gave you counselling but whether you gave him counselling because only a short time after your visit out came this letter signed by two Archbishops condemning Labor’s education policy?’
I don’t have to prove my (or anyone’s) morality is superior to the church’s – our morality is none of the church’s business.
You should worship truth and honesty, something sadly lacking in the Catholic debate (emotional rhetoric) on women’s issues.
Sep 28th, 2006
ken
Bit touchy Deb!! – On this one I happen to agree in the main with you.
Unfortunately you could start each staement with a differnet group and with different issues at the end in the brackets and the statemetns would equally be true.
Its just whose perspective you want to belive in.
Do yuo have a muklti index to every nwespaper int eh world or do nothiong but search for articles. i find it quite amazing the linking effrots that some poseter sgo to.
JT – mate put any thing before “…..phobe” and I’m your man – just a total phobe.
Sep 28th, 2006
Deborah
Hi Ken, glad to be in occasional agreement with you :)
Off topic reply:
No, on the linking thing, no effort involved. I hold down a full time job (although shiftworker, on 3 days off now and may appear to have lots of spare time, but I’m working 12 hr shifts when you’re catching zzz’s) and have sporadic time on net, depending on computer availability (kids and life) and chores.
It might seem time consuming, but I note, you had said in another thread that you don’t know how to link, it is so easy with the auto blogger software that drives Andrew’s blog (and I’m certainly no computer savvy person, if I can do it, any novice can).
You can do a search (google or others) and just right click and copy on the address that you go to for the article you want to cite, then paste that address into the comments box and you’re done – it’s automatically converted when you submit comment thanks to the software.
There, now you know how easy it all is!
I think the reason Andrew’s blog is so popular and different for a pollie is, he allows us to have (pretty much) uncensored commentary, even if he may disagree with the views expressed.
Can you imagine talking to John Howard, Kim Beazley, or any other Senator as you do to Andrew or other guests (commenters) here- or those pollies allowing the discussion to unravel and provoke as it does here (it’s like you’ve been invited into Andrew’s house for drinks and dinner) without being thrown out.
Of course Andrew gets to keep in touch with community views and speak to people that he would not get to meet in his usual day (just like he stopped off at the pub on the way home from work or came home to find us all there!)
My shout.
Sep 28th, 2006
John Tracey
ken,
I’m a phobaphobe
Sep 28th, 2006
Louise
an embryo is not a baby, however tiny.
Except that it is.
Catholics… are not entitled to fund $60 million of taxpayer’s money to anti abortion groups (under the guise of pregnancy counselling and offering of choice)
Why not?
who refuse to refer women for terminations and falsely claim that abortion causes breast cancer, infertility and mental illness.
How do you know they are false claims?
I beg your pardon, but Catholics *are* entitled to do all of these things if we live in a democracy. Otherwise, you are saying your morality is better than ours.
Catholics in public office are not entitled to have individual religious morality prevail over majority public opinion and stifle debate on controversial issues (abortion, RU486 and stem cells)
Rubbish! You would have someone go against their own conscience, merely because you disagree with them. Who is stifling which debate?
They are not entitled to misrepresent the truth and parade deliberate lies to the public on controversial issues (SCNT and RU486)
No they aren’t, but where have they done this?
If Tony Abbott has lied, then that is wrong. But my point is, why should his discussions with a Catholic Cardinal be an issue at all?
I don’t have to prove my (or anyone’s) morality is superior to the church’s – our morality is none of the church’s business.
But you do have to prove it to me if you want to shove your morality down *my* throat.
You should worship truth and honesty, something sadly lacking in the Catholic debate (emotional rhetoric) on women’s issues
I worship Him who *is* truth. Seems to me that every time secularists hear something they don’t like, they accuse Catholics of lying.
Your basic argument is that Catholics can hold public office, but not behave like Catholics.
So much for “tolerance, respect, diversity blah blah blah.”
Sep 28th, 2006
ken
JT – philophobe I am
Sep 28th, 2006
John Tracey
ken, I can handle that, as long as you are not a phobophile.
Sep 28th, 2006
Paul Walter
Have just got back to this post after a couple of days and confess to respect for John Tracey’s
honest comments.
But want to really compliment Deborah. She is a stand out contributor to this site ( amazing how often women salvage blog threads ).
Have come to the conclusion that at least one of several individuals convincingly refuted by Deborah; “whipping boy” Bartlett himself, can only be joking, being mischeivious in his protracted, facile and obstinate defences of the perverse EB.
EB are not “whipping boys”. They are surreptitious, dangerous cranks whose antics, although going back many years, also include several gratuitous very recent interventions in different parts of Australia and off-shore.
Too much more Humour from Andrew and I may start to beleive he actually belives his nonsense, as to the EB, and thus be forced to recommence a search for a more rational politician to represent my interests in parliament.
Sep 28th, 2006
Deborah
Andrew, “Yes, there’s been allegations against the EB, and they should be investigated by appropraite authorities. Most of the allegations have been around for years and none of them seemed to draw public campaigns of outrage until they started attacking political opponents”
If those allegations have abounded for years:
- why have the general public not heard about it before now?
-why have there been no investigations by the authorities as yet?
Louise #101, There you go, didn’t take too long before all reason and logic is gone.
No point even discussing these issues with someone so blinded by faith and religious dogma – there’s no acceptance by you of anything other than what your faith based agenda allows.
You, Louise are entitled to your own morality, no-one else’s.
So don’t try to argue for governmental legislation which will seek to deny the majority of other Australians (the 80% who do not share your views on abortion etc), their right to a Minister for Health, who makes decisions based on medicine and science, not faith.
Sep 28th, 2006
Donna
Being a practicing Catholic, I would like to comment on the issues raised by Louise.
Tony Abbot’s Catholicism is quite draconian, and he should not be imposing his own narrowly defined ‘values’ onto women and onto Australia.
There’s no point arguing over whether an embryo is a baby or not. Everyone has their own perspective. But there are many Catholic women who have had abortions. At the end of the day, Catholic or any Australian women will not allow men of any persusasion to decide their fate, particularly men who would deny them an abortion, and then demonise them for being a single mother.
The Catholic Church withdrew their (paid) services to Centrelink, citing the ‘immorality’ of Liberal Government Welfare to Work Legislation.
This is the type of Catholicism that I identify with; a Catholicism that criticises governments on socially unjust policy.
Sep 28th, 2006
Donna
… and, I imagine this withdrawal of social support and demonising of single mothers will, ironically, lead to increased abortions.
Sep 28th, 2006
Deborah
Donna, the fact that you are a practising Catholic and can still manage a progressive and rational, grounded in reality, religious faith, is inspiring.
Catholic women like you are to be commended and for that, I respect your values, faith and belief, despite our differences.
Why are women like you not being made archbishops, you’d be bringing in the customers!
Sep 28th, 2006
Deborah
aw shucks, thanks for the kind words Paul, I have to say that I agree with you in that the EB are not just a harmless, eccentric little sect with unorthodox beliefs.
They appear to be quite sinister and dangerous, if the allegations against them are proved to be true. The ex sect members’stories on the other thread seem to support those allegations too.
Suffer the little children! (and the women).
Sep 28th, 2006
Donna
Deborah,
We’re an odd bunch, full of idiosyncrasies (geez, I hope that’s how you spell it). Take what we like and discard the rest.
I’m not a particularly religious person by the way. It’s more a cultural practice, and something I continue for my daughter’s sake.
But Catholics (put Tony Abbot aside) tend to be a socially aware bunch.
Sep 28th, 2006
Louise
Deborah, I believe people can disagree and still be decent people.
In other words, when we are discussing moral issues, it’s very easy for any of us to say, X is right, and for others to hear this as, “Anyone who believes X is not right is a Bad Person.”
I can only say that this is not what I think. I don’t think that anyone who disagrees with me is a Bad Person. I just disagree with you. Just so you know (and other readers too).
I know this is all very off-topic now, so these will be my last comments on this thread.
Donna,
It seems that possibly you misunderstand my defence of Tony Abbott. I was merely defending his right to serve in public office and to act according to his conscience as a Catholic.
I emphatically do not agree with many of the Liberal Party’s policies. Which means that on any number of issues, I disagree with Tony Abbott. I do not vote Liberal, for these sorts of reasons.
As for single mothers – I believe these should receive every possible assistance from the gov’t.
I’ll finish by saying that this is a blog combox and it’s a limited medium. None of us can do much more here than present a kind of one-dimensional sliver of ourselves. If these discussions were happening in real life, they would be difficult enough. Even with people we know well and love, these debates are difficult.
Apologies for getting so off-track.
Sep 29th, 2006
ken
Paul said: “EB are not “whipping boys”. They are surreptitious, dangerous cranks whose antics, although going back many years, also include several gratuitous very recent interventions in different parts of Australia and off-shore.
Too much more Humour from Andrew and I may start to beleive he actually belives his nonsense, as to the EB, and thus be forced to recommence a search for a more rational politician to represent my interests in parliament. ”
Ok thats gfreat – i know nothing of them and don’t want to, and can only thank whatver spirit you like that i wasn’t born inot them
But the point the whipping boy Bartlett is defendiong and rightly is the rule of law and social beghaviuor that enables us to funciotn as a society even if somewhat dysfunctioanlly.
The better questroin is asked by deborah (twice in a row i’m getting worried) – why hasn’t those charged with upholding the rules investigated them – maybe they have i don’t know.
Whats your alternative Paul – get out the AK47’s. maybe George and john could nuke em – you might even support that?
You see for every group you despise, there are other law abiding people out there, who despise grouops you might support.
If theyve transgressed the rules they should be fearlessly dealt with, and if thats not happening thenn expose it – otehrwise the Bartlett defence is not only right but rational.
Sep 29th, 2006
Deborah
Ken. I think that the EB have seriously transgressed the rules, which makes you wonder why the proposed parliamentary inquiry into their activities was voted down (by the Bartlett defence too).
Wonder if political angling and give no aid or comfort to a competing party, were the prime objectives, rather than an investigation into alleged illegal activities.
Maybe there are a lot of vested interests at stake here – it might become a snowball and we get to know about the freebies and perks enjoyed by all the religious and charitable bodies in Australia. Could get a lot of people, in powerful and privileged positions, very worried.
Sep 30th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
because, whatever rules you might think they have broken (as oppsed to generally being objectionable), it is better that it be investigated be an appropriate independent authority, rather than via a Senate inquiry which would have been clearly politicaly motivated.
I agree that it would be worthwhile to fully investigate all the different types of tax breaks and other exemptions given to religious and charitable bodies in Australia. It’s something that I and other democrats have been calling for for some time. The rules regarding all this are less than clear and the overall costs vs benefits are simply not known.
However, it would be unwise to approach such an examination from the point of view of what harm and/or benefit it might do toone’s ideoligical enemies. There are churches and charities across the political spectrum, and suggesting that the overall benefit favours the left or the right would be a brave call, as I doubt anyone has the resources to fully quantify it. (indeed the difficulty in quantifying the financial impact is one of the reasons to fully investigate it)
Sep 30th, 2006
Deborah
Andrew, it would be good to know the financial burden to the taxpayer in supporting churches and charities. Just because it should be measured and known and justified in some way.
Most of them are performing good deeds and in some cases, provide the essentials of survival to needy people. But the EB seem to be so exclusive that they do nothing but help themselves.
It would be good to know (and you may) how organisations are considered to be religious and/or charities? What criteria?.
Also, “it is better that it be investigated be an appropriate independent authority, rather than via a Senate inquiry…”
What does it take? considering that allegations have been going around for years now and ex members have made complaints.
- Is there an investigation in progress or even being seriously considered?
-How does one get started? Can the Senate, a political party, MP or private citizen ask that an investigation be commenced, and have it referred to the appropriate authorities?
Sep 30th, 2006
Paul Walter
Andrew, Deb has single handedly “done” you and your allies like a dog’s dinner!
You, Ken and the like, keep trying to defend fifth columnists who are the local equivalent of the reactionaries who have taken over certain Islamic states.
There will be NO democracy, if the Hard-Right Fundies get their way.
The fact is, that in US Bible-belt states they have succeeded in getting Darwin banned from Biology and kneecapped contraception and abortion programmes internationally: as a beginning. They are fundamentally opposed to the tenets of secular democracy, including rational thought and debate as against the rule of force and dogma. They see this life as irrelevant, irrelevant to a desire to see all focus on miserable guilt and “sin” fixation, against an unproven contention relating to “eternal life”.
They see alternative mainstream lifestyles as “decadent” and antithetical to the ascendency of a reinstalled Medievalist Theocracy ( in the case of Opus Dei ).
They have covertly influenced world affairs through politicians like Bush and Pinochet, through power manipulation rather than debate and persuasion. Now a ridiculous and utterly aggressive “war of civilisations” is waged. This unequal and brutal “war” is impelled by precisely the willfully and hypocritically suppressed and denied baser instincts REAL Christians would seek to acknowledge and eradicate from within themselves. The insticts of ego, greed and powerlust inflicted on a hapless world have seen huge numbers of people murdered( as in recent Lebanon ) and $trillions wasted
( Stiglitz, 2006 ), that could have been spent on helping the global poor- a much more “Christian” notion some here would accept?
Because of the crankery of the religious right, totalitarian-oriented governments have been installed in the US and here which consequently attacked the very bases of justice, as the example of David Hicks.
And contrary to certain contentions, the interventions are not ended; only beginning!
Sep 30th, 2006
Geoff
Hang on a tick… I must have missed something.
When did this group EB???? take over the world? I’ve never even heard of them before the other week.
How many members are there? 1? 2? 10? 20? 100? 200?
Sep 30th, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Paul Walter – Do you have any evidence linking the Exclusive Brethren with the political activities of conservative southern US protestantism?
Sep 30th, 2006
Paul Walter
Feral, just spent time in a detailed reply, but machine ‘blew it” when I tried to correct word content.
Did not claim direct links with Falwell or Pentecostals or Jimmy Swaggart etc. Am observing and relating concerning a trend revelatory of behaviours I find incredibly suspicious and antagonistic to what I would regard as a Christian spirit. I alluded to my “theological”, if you like, reasons, for this feeling in earlier threads.
Take your point about citations (sigh).
Sep 30th, 2006
Deborah
AUSTRALIAN POLICY ONLINE
POLITICS
God and the New Zealand 2005 election:
http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filename_num=28861
“Then, in the United States elections, a group of Exclusive Brethren spent more than US$500,000 on newspaper advertisements supporting President Bush and Florida Republican Senate candidate Mel Martinez, known for opposing gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, and involvement in the Republican strategy for turning Terry Schiavo’s fifteen-year coma into a ‘great political issue’.
In July this year, advertisements and a direct mail campaign warned Canadians against supporting gay marriage, in the name of a group called CCP, or Concerned Canadian Parents. The letters and advertisements gave the address of a post box the group had stopped paying for three months earlier.”
Sep 30th, 2006
Geoff
Deb… I suggest you look through our own lists of donations and which parties are donated to.
Sep 30th, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Thanks Paul. I was just a little concerned that I could hear the sound of long bow being drawn…
From what I know of the groups that have a very literal view of the Bible, I would expect the Exclusive Brethren to very much keep to themselves. Strict adherence to the letter of the Law has such primacy that they would avoid collaborating with other fundamentalist groups for fear of compromising their beliefs. Hence I am reluctant to see them as part of some broader fundamentalist push.
On this occasion I disagree with you and Deborah. Parliamentary inquiries into sects, cults and minority faiths usually end up badly. There was a very murky case in NSW in the late 80s-early 90s where there was a major intervention by the state welfare agency (Children of God perhaps? ken – do you remember this one?) Likewise, the Dunstan govt’s moves against Scientology were ultimately dismissed by the courts.
As far as I can see, the accusations against the Exclusive Brethren can be dealt with by existing laws. These are matters for the police, the Electoral Commission and the welfare agencies. If govt agencies find it hard to obtain evidence, then provide more resources and give priority to the investigations. Parliamentary inquiries are best reserved for cases where the usual avenues cannot work, or for cases where there is a substantial involvement with politics and the public service.
Sep 30th, 2006
Yulia
I agree with Andreww that a Senate Inquiry is not the appropriate vehicle for investigation into the practices of the Exclusive Brethren – especially one that is based on the sect having worked against a specific political party during an election period.
And I can imagine many people commenting here would be unhappy if the Liberals proposed a Senate inquiry into a Muslim sect on the grounds they were homophobic and misogynist, made their women wear headscarfs and shunned contact with the wider society.
Using parliamentary privilege and processes to target your political enemies is objectionable and a misuse of the parliamentary process whether its the Liberals doing it or the Greens.
A Senate inquiry initiated on that basis would pretty much reduce things down to an EB versus Greens ideological stoush which would allow this sect’s many insidious practices in business and in the broader community as well as within their own church to go unchallenged.
I spent a fascinating two years living next door to an EB church with members of the church living on the other side and across the road – the church is at the end of a cul-de-sac. They were rude, aggressive and had absolutely no regard for the rights or property of others. As the chosen ones of their god they believed themselves to be above the laws the rest of us must live by.
Personally I think – no I know – they are way more of a threat to the Australian way of life than the average olive skinned, non English speaking Muslim will ever be.
But they have remained virtually unnoticed and un challenged because they are white, speak English and carry the ‘Christian’ moniker. Because of this – despite the fact they segregate themselves and that the women also wear very distinguishable head scarves – they are viewed as fitting into Australian society.
I believe the opposite is true – they are as, if not more, extreme than any extreme Islam sect and would happily see the rest of us rot in hell.
Sep 30th, 2006
Geoff
I think they’ve remained unnoticed because there are so few of them and they keep to themselves. There are no racial overtones there.
Sep 30th, 2006
Deborah
Hi Ken, I’m sure that there’s lots of money being donated to our political parties by religious organisations.
Don’t know how well they are disclosed though – eg. anonymous donations through funding entities.
Then, there’s the opinion that John Howard, rather than being courted by, has actually been the one doing the courting of the religious right.
A book called God Under Howard: The rise of the religious right in Australian Politics by Marion Maddox is thought to be extremely well researched and very telling on the creeping US style fundamental religious right influence in Australian politics (I think the fundies are well and truly, here and now). Maddox details The Lyons Forum a liberal christian right goup of the early 1990’s.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Reviews/God-under-Howard/2005/02/23/1109046981178.html
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3314
Also here’s some info on beliefs etc. of the Exclusive Brethren.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/exclusivebrethren_print.html
Feral, I agree the police, electoral, welfare and family court agencies should be doing the investigating – but why isn’t it being done? Is there a lack of will, rather than lack of evidence? They sure won’t find anything if they don’t go looking for it.
Oct 1st, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Deborah, how do you know that there are no investigations being conducted? The lack of charges may indicate insufficient evidence, rather than a lack of investigative activity.
And if the Greens lodged a formal complaint over the Exclusive Brethren’s activities during the election campaign, the Electoral Commission should have reported on it.
Oct 1st, 2006
Paul Walter
Reading these last half a dozen posts or so, a couple of thoughts come to mind.
Firstly, the EB have attracted attention at the moment not so much for their lifesyle, but because they appear to have intervened and in a unsavoury way in politics, in a way that most Muslims, Bhuddist, secular ( e.g.greens?) and Christian groups would not dream of doing.
Spiritual beliefs usually inform people’s responses to the world they live in. Right across Parliament and throughout the community there are vast numbers of both rational yet “spiritually” motivated atheist, agnostic or religious people who would nevertheless not dream of getting their religion or ideology or philosophy a bad name by pulling the sort of stunts the EB have pulled. Besides, they are oriented by experience in a realistic way to their world.
Most people in this very thread are consciously or unconsciously directed by their “spiritual” experiences, and that experience informs just about all of us to the extent that, as adults, we not contemplate, out of self-respect, smear campaigns ( “bearing false witness” ).
Its not the EB right to participate that’s in question; it’s the manner in which this is happening and their seemong reluctance to be acountable for that. They are( shudder) behaving like politicians and journalists, for example, for heavens sake!
BTW, elsewhere Quiggin has started up a thread indirectly related to ours, although more along the lines of the “religious right ” versus “science”. Not that there has been much movement there, most of the action seems here, just now.
Oct 2nd, 2006
Deborah
Feral, I don’t know if there are any, I haven’t seen much publicised in the media. I have seen articles about the possibility of investigations in NZ after the EB offensive there.
I would have thought that if they had been investigated and exonerated, they (EB), or the Government, would have been quick to let the public know.
I saw this article
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=28&ContentID=8051
on the ex member’s site peebs.net but don’t know if any real action has been considered. The Libs have defended the sect whenever interviewed by the press.
Also on the peebs site I saw a few references to a possible class action court case against the EB.
I think that it will all just die down and be forgotten about soon. Although, I do hope that the next time Howard tries to publicly vilify Muslims, the opposition quickly brings up the EB to remind him of his own extremist connections.
Oct 2nd, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Deborah – thanks for the links. I had a quick look at the Electoral Commission’s site, but couldn’t find any references to the EB there. Most agencies normally conduct their investigations quietly, which can make it difficult to tell whether anything is happening.
My guess is that the EB – like most small groups with Luddite tendencies – would prefer to avoid publicity, so I don’t expect to see any press releases from them.
I agree with Yulia that a Senate Inquiry is undesirable. The EB may well be employing underhand political tactics, and may well have some very unpleasant people amongst their congregation, but the same could be said for a number of other organizations in our society. Singling out the EB for special attention seems unnecessary until conventional legal avenues have been shown to be inadequate, and is too reminiscent of McCarthyism for my comfort.
Oct 3rd, 2006
ken
Well in all the hot air Paul and the other “destroyers” of a sensivble argument – no one has actually comer up with what to do – whcih of course was the orgignal question.
Everything said is probably true but proving the point, of how terrible the world is and how we are closing in on the end of civlised (in our world view that is of course) society is, is the game of schoolboy debating.
Lets all link to anohter “new idea” political thread and display great concern – but do something. Perhasop this mornings news from “good ol US hicksville” can give you guys some inspiration.
Oct 3rd, 2006
Deborah
What to do?
-Ban gun ownership in the US
For EB, what is there?
Consenting adults have free choice to be brainwashed and subservient. Hopefully with all the publicity, people will realise that EB is a loony sect and not a religion.
We could ensure that government departments and other watchdog organisations do not allow undeserved legitimacy by turning a blind eye to activities. They need to enforce laws and punish non compliance under the existing rules and legislation to keep EB under control. An approach that does not bow to political pressure is necessary.
The AEC is politicised too, remember:
“The AEC still refuses to release its legal advice to date or the HPT trust deed, but is seeking new legal advice after revelations that it conducted no investigation into the trust, asked no questions of Tony Abbott” (SMH) re the ‘Australians for Honest Politics’ Trust/slush fund travesty a few years ago.
My concern is mostly for the children, but we could:
-check on EB schools (tax exempt) to ensure kids are getting the education that is mandated not EB controlled and censored and remove tax breaks if no compliance.
-ensuring child protection by investigating complaints from public and concerned ex member parents.
-Electoral Commission probe the issues of illegal electioneering practices and thuggish behaviour.
-Police probe issues of money laundering and other alleged illegal practices.
- enforce existing Family Law Court legislation and prosecute those who refuse to allow access to children.
- remove tax exempt status if EB refuse to open up churches to public worship etc. (ensure compliance of rules governing tax exemption for religious bodies legislation).
I don’t know how you stop political parties from catering to EB donations by changing legislation to suit ideology
(Howard supplied non voting amendment and IR exemption) other than voting them out of power.
Dunno Ken, what can a few people writing on a blog do?
Oct 3rd, 2006
ken
Thats the point I was making, Deborah, and that paul couldn’t seem to get. He even had the hide to accuse me of supporitn them,, talk about not reading other than what one wants to see.
Theer aer people whose job it is to inspect curriculum, investigaet child abuse, and the ohter things that aer part of the “norms” or not “nomrs’ of our society.
get stuck inot them if the job’s not being dopne.
If we want to return to the law of the jungle and simply knock off thsoe we don’t like then at least say so and count to ten before turinign.
Oct 3rd, 2006
ken
Feral – re the Children of God matter you referred to above – this is a speech, under privelege on this. I had left by then, althouhg worked with some of the key players.
Home » Hansard & Papers » Legislative Council » 10/11/1993 » Article 8 of 39
NSW Legislative Council Hansard
Oct 3rd, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Thanks for the reference ken. I’ll check it out. My apologies: it didn’t occur to me until after I’d posted that it might be a sensitive issue for you, given your work.
Oct 3rd, 2006
wajma
You said it in black and white Andrew!
As one of my colleagues said:
“they represent us, yet they don’t even know us” and unfortunately “they” includes Muslims too!
Oct 9th, 2006