christian values
And in case you were struggling to determine how the parties lined up with christian values in their policies and voting, the australian christian lobby has helpfully compiled this table which identifies “christian values” against which the relevant parties should be judged. The entire list of relevant “values” is:
- prayers to open parliament each day
- affirmation of marriage over de-facto co-habitation
- preserve marriage - oppose same sex marriage
- oppose official recognition of same sex relationships
- prohibit homosexual adoption
- support the “presumption” of shared parenting
- refuse IVF for single women and lesbians
- oppose destruction of embryos for research
- legislate to cease medicare funding of abortion
- oppose late term abortion on demand
- prohibit the import and use of RU 486 abortion pill
- income splitting for families with dependent children
- enforce national ban on x rated videos
- support mandatory filtering of internet pornography
- strengthen ABA to enforce moral standards on TV and Radio
- oppose religious and anti-free speech vilification laws
- refuse to endorse Sydney gay and lesbian mardi gras
- allow religious bodies to discriminate in employment
- financial support for parents’ right to educational choice
- reject heroin trials and drug injecting rooms
- marijuana use to be a criminal offence
- oppose decriminalisation of currently illicit drugs
- prefer abstinence based drug harm elimination programs
- life is precious - euthanasia to remain illegal
- overturn ratification of international criminal court
- develop work ethic through work for the dole
That is it, a basic breakdown of everything that Jesus was on about. However, if you are interested in looking a little beyond these key performance indicators, you can have a look at the Australian Council for International Development analysis of the major parties’ response to issues of international poverty and development, the evangelical alliance election site includes statements and comparisons from the different parties and candidates on the issues, the national council of churches election briefing kit which examines several key social justice issues and the responses of the various parties.
September 21st, 2004 at 12:36 pm
What? Don’t you people even believe in the Bible?!?!
;-D
(i kill me)
September 21st, 2004 at 12:38 pm
I am sure that someone will take your point and run with it Bryan. Hehe.
September 21st, 2004 at 1:10 pm
hehe
September 21st, 2004 at 1:46 pm
these are not the values that i learned in church
God and Jesus are not about this sort of crap, this sort of crap is small minded bigotted (so called) christians. Love is what Christ is about.
We are a relativey free democratic society, and to maintain our freedom, we have to fight, not just for the rights of chritians, but for the rights of everone. The “christian values” listed above do not represent the type of society which values EVERYONE’s freedom and human rights. I do not want to live in that sort of world.
September 21st, 2004 at 1:50 pm
LoL. LT started something eh?
You’ve got some good stuff on your election, your citizens and your politics. Given that you are required to vote, are people more interested in issues than they would be, say, in Canada or the UK?
September 21st, 2004 at 2:07 pm
Can’t really comment on the differences with the UK and Canada. However, I think that compulsory voting does not necessarily mean that we are more engaged politically. There are certainly people who care a great deal and follow politics closely, but there are also those that will donkey vote or will vote the same way that they always have without regard to individual issues.
September 21st, 2004 at 8:00 pm
Christian Political Values
Signposts has a couple of partucually good posts at the moment. The Australian ‘Christian Lobby’ have compiled a list of values which they then match against the parties to demonstarte who you should vote for.
September 21st, 2004 at 8:52 pm
We are a relativey free democratic society, and to maintain our freedom, we have to fight, not just for the rights of chritians, but for the rights of everone.
But not free not to vote? How free is that?
September 21st, 2004 at 10:35 pm
In a democracy does the leader have the freedom not to lead?
In a democracy are we free not to drive on certain side of the road?
In a democracy are we free to do what we want?
How free is that?
Is freedom the absence of rules?
How democratic is it when a leader in a democratic election can be elected by a small portion of the country?
September 22nd, 2004 at 5:50 am
Politics and faith
Living in Canada it is impossible to avoid the US election. Absolutely impossible - unless you don’t read a newspaper, don’t have a TV or radio or don’t go online. In the day to day, it is not a topic of conversation in spite of the bombardment. Canadi…
September 22nd, 2004 at 7:33 am
Bryan:
Voting is a priviledge, a hard earned one in Canada. That doesn’t mean most people exercise their right. Is it because we don’t understand our voice is important?
I don’t know if we could follow the Austalian model of mandatory voting, our country is quite spread out geographically with pockets of population.
Have a look at this and let me know what you think eh?
http://christianity.ca/news/weblog/2004/06.23.html
September 22nd, 2004 at 3:21 pm
That list of Christian values…hmmm…the problem is, unless people actually have an encounter with Jesus, they are not Christian. So, for us to empose our “laws” on them, isnt that religious discrimination??
Doesnt Paul say that “everything is permissible, but not everything is possible? To take away peoples choices, especially when they do not have the revelation of the liberty that comes from knowing Christ, is not going to turn people towards God.
If we were to introduce them to the Holy Spirit, then those things that are “Christian” views (I am making a general statement there), would become part of who we are as a nation. Instead, by trying to force people to do things, we are instilling the exact opposite!!
September 22nd, 2004 at 3:22 pm
Sorry, meant to say “everything is permissible but not everything is profitable”, not “possible” in my above post…
Is there a way to edit our posts?
September 22nd, 2004 at 3:27 pm
Yeah there is - we can edit comments, but our policy is to leave comments as is unless we are removing things that cross the line (only happened once or twice) - otherwise more people comment referring to the other comments and it is all a big mess.
September 22nd, 2004 at 7:05 pm
Cheeky post Dan. Like it.
September 23rd, 2004 at 11:49 am
True…i meant editing my own post…but i guess if i preview it first that’d be just as effective i reckon…
September 23rd, 2004 at 2:24 pm
I fail to see how driving on the wrong side of the road is the equivalent of not voting. Personally, I think I would *prefer* that some people don’t vote, especially if they are totally uninformed about the issues.
In a democracy does the leader have the freedom not to lead?
No, but a leader *chooses* to run for that position. A person doesn’t *choose* to be born in Australia.
In a democracy are we free not to drive on certain side of the road?
see above. Really not germaine to the topic at hand.
In a democracy are we free to do what we want?
Within certain boundaries. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
But, yes, I think freedom means the freedom to choose not to vote, rather than spend your vote on one of a couple of candidates neither one of whom you agree with (which is probably more of a problem in the U.S. than in parliamentary systems).
Not that I don’t think voting is important. I do believe we have a responsibility to vote. But I don’t agree that compelling people to vote is the best way to get people to be responsible.
Very legalistic, to me. I thought you were the “grace” folks.
September 23rd, 2004 at 2:42 pm
Yeah, well. Australia has had compulsory voting since 1924, and really without much of a complaint from anyone. Practically speaking, everyone has the option not to vote by voting informally (we write numbers into boxes, if you don’t fill in any boxes, your vote doesn’t count but you are considered to have discharged your obligation). So if you have an objection, you don’t HAVE to spend your vote on anyone.
Because of compulsory voting, it is incredibly convenient to cast a vote. It doesn’t require anyone to go out of their way, and putting numbers in 5 or 6 boxes twice every three years isn’t likely to unduly prejudice anyone (of course if it did, you can get an exemption or vote in another way).
A lot of overseas people may see this as eccentric, but it has a couple of benefits - first is that campaigns are not devoted at all to getting people to come out and vote, which means that campaigns are actually more directed to considering the issues. Second, I think people do tend to pay more attention to political matters (particularly around campaign time) than if they didn’t have to vote. Third, you get the benefit of all of those people who do have an opinion but who aren’t particularly politically motivated and maybe wouldn’t turn out otherwise.
Is it perfect? No, but I don’t think it is perfect to have non-compulsory voting where the turn out might be particularly low and you get a relatively small slice of people deciding for everyone else.
I might ‘prefer’ that some people don’t vote either, but I wonder if non-compulsory voting would be like letters to the editor in a newspaper, where the vocal minority who are passionate about an issue make a statement, but the vast majority of more moderate, centrist views are never expressed.
September 23rd, 2004 at 4:51 pm
My point, as I stated as a question, is that a free society is not an absence of rules.
September 24th, 2004 at 3:04 am
In fact, if you don’t register to vote, you don’t have to vote. And if you don’t register, noone is going to chase you to do so.
September 24th, 2004 at 3:05 am
In fact, if you don’t register to vote, you don’t have to vote. And noone is going to chase you to register or fine if you if haven’t.
It’s only compulsory to vote once you register.
September 24th, 2004 at 3:06 am
I seem to always repeat myself here. LOL!
September 24th, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Hi all
I work for a politician, so sites like this one really interest me. To pick up on the stuff about Family First, it really intrigues me that they have deliberately said, in their public statements, in their media stuff, that they are NOT a church or christian party. That strikes me as odd, given that they patently are, and have been running ads in local church newsletters asking for volunteers to man polling booths etc etc!!
Would those same churches run ads for the local branch of the Green Party??
The thing is, they would like to have it both ways…lock down all the Christian vote, but appeal to a secular society. Once again, good, honest, well-meaning Christian people are being taken advantage of, and having their good natures abused and their faith preyed upon, for political gain.
And as for Family First’s list of “christian values”, they are actually a list of right-wing values, not christian ones at all. there is a definite agenda at work here, and worryingly, one that as I sad before, seems to be largely hidden from view. But even if they were up-front about it all, even taking the most charitable view of Family First, you have to admit that there are serious problems.
What it basically boils down to is that people who are conservative in one thing are generally conservative in another. Politically conservative people tend to be religiously and socially conservative as well. And the great worry is that conservatism, in the main, sees too many things in black and white, in real absolute terms.
Life is not absolute - it is complex and difficult and confusing and interrelated. And if you cannot admit to that reality, you really shouldn’t be governing the country.
I’ll leave you all with this thought. The apostle Paul writes, “Who am I to judge those outside the church?” Who indeed? Unless these Family First sorts are rating themselves above the apostle Paul, they shold be very wary of judgemental, right-wing statements about other groupd in society. Politics should never be about religion, or race, or gender. Those things are a recipe for strife (Northern Ireland, Kosovo, terrorism, et al). Politics should be about politics, and Family First blur the line dreadfully.
If anyone wants to pick up on these themes, i’d love to talk a bit more about ‘em…..
October 6th, 2004 at 6:39 pm
I agree whole heartedly with Luke’s post, he raises a lot of points that I think most of you have been a little too short sighted about. Have a think about these things huh? Religion has no place in politics, it’s straight up bad news and has only ever served to bring conflict to peace loving folk like you and me.
As for Families First and their Christian Values Check List; anyone who endorses this kind of bigotry and prejudice should be ashamed of themselves.
It’s the homophobic component of Christianity that I find especially hard to swallow, aren’t you guys supposed to be about tolerance? This narrow-minded hatred only serves to divide the community even more than it already is.
Of the 26 values on the check list 5 of them are aimed at homosexuals, I think a new phocus is needed. Discrimination is a bad thing people- wake up.
October 7th, 2004 at 9:51 pm
To be clear, the checklist was not developed by family first, but by another christian organisation purporting to be a christian lobby group.
Matty, I don’t think you will find too many people here disagreeing with your sentiments, and in fact the point of the post was regarding the narrow focus of these so-called christian values.
October 13th, 2004 at 7:53 am
I quote from a talk given in our Parliament by a member who took part in an overseas debate on mandatory voting:
There is almost a contradiction: compulsory voting, in a way, takes away a person’s right not to vote, but also makes sure a person does vote. Many of the countries that do not have compulsory voting indicated they felt that they could not now introduce that to their electors because of the fact that they would see it as a right being taken away. However, the majority of people who joined in the discussion indicated that they wished they had introduced it as far back as Australia had, where it is a culturally accepted tradition that you go to vote. In the same way you recognise that you have to do jury duty, pay your taxes, have a driver’s licence, you have to go to vote. It is a right that Australians take as part of their democratic lifestyle here.
Some of the emerging nations represented there felt that perhaps this was one way they could make sure that many people did have a vote in their democracies. It is something that they will probably take away and consider because I showed them how easy we make it for people. It is not hard to vote in Australia if you want to. In some of those countries it is obviously very difficult and governments do not make it easy for people to access the polling booth. It was interesting that there was a great deal of support for compulsory voting, and probably also a bit of envy that Australia has had such a long tradition. There were other countries, such as in Europe, which still do get a high voter turnout even though they do not have compulsory voting, but they say it is also part of the culture of the people that it is easy: they are small, dynamically small, geographically small, so they are able to do it, whereas in some of the larger nations, geographically it is much harder to do.
April 24th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
hey i’m stacey n i’m 16. i was wondering if u guys could give me some info on the abortioin pill in simple terms that a sixteen year old would be able to understand coz i don’t have a clue what ur going on about half the time (above). i’ve decided to do it 4 a school asignment oh and btw i’m also a christian. thanx.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
1. Don’t take the pill, it messes with your hormones, making you extra moody, re-arranging your period cycle, and its been said that it can cause cancer.
2. Don’t have sex, its not worth it. Wait for the right boy to come along (nice God fearing man of God) who respects you and treats you like royalty and get married, stay together for life through all of lifes troubles.
April 24th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Stacey.
Here is a link to a site which I hope has a easy to understand description
http://www.arha.org.au/factSheets/mifepristone.pdf
April 24th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Charli
I assume you have personal experience of taking the pill !!!