Musings on Dobson and the next election

Here are some interesting thoughts from Proegression member Alan Matheson.

How is it possible to link James Dobson,Iran and World War 111,and CofC, in one breath? Far fetched!

Does the partnership and promotion by NSW and Vic Conference boards of Dobson's Focus on the Family(Aust) really matter and after all isn't FOF Aust somehow, different?
Should it be of any concern?
What if Dobson and FOF frighten Christians across Canada and the USA?

Well it has to be admitted that most members of Australian CofC wouldn't have a clue about Dobson or the state conference links.However for our sister churches in Canada and the USA,Dobson and his FOF are a frightening species to be avoided at all costs.

1.WHO WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE USA?
Dobson is leading an aggressive,nation wide campaign to ensure his man gets the prize. The past few months have seen him involved in everything, from closed door meetings with President Bush (May);to the secret maneuverings of clandestine groups like the Council for National Policy and the Arlington group(September);organising the religious right's "Values Voters Summit"(October),and mounting a highly visible and well organised media blitz(NY Times op ed etc). And his 6 million mailing list will not be far behind.
There's an arrogance about Dobson which is almost delusionary. As the Republican Party considered Giuliani's run, Dobson declared,"go ahead,nominate a candidate who does not share our values on abortion and gay marriage.Then try and beat Hillary without us".
US presidents have taken Australia into wars in Vietnam and Iraq on the basis of lies and deception.
Who becomes president,then, has implications not only for CofC, but for all Australians.
And CofC is the only denomination in Australia in a formal partnership with Dobson!

2.IRAN & WW111!
As scary, is Dobson's support for WW111.
Having failed in Iraq,and intoxicated with messianic dreams,the theocratic religious right,is now hell bent on war with Iran.
In October,Bush warned,"if you're interested in avoiding WW111,it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make nuclear weapons".
In May,Dobson met with Bush to talk about Iran.Congress has set the scene(Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution),and commentators,such as Seymour Hersh are spelling out in detail how the White House has requested,"that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long standing plans for a possible attack on Iran"(New Yorker 8.10.07;check "The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran....."Esquire 18.10.07)).Conservative commentator,Podhoretz(also close to Bush) was on SBS(30/10) predicting an invasion before the end of Bush's term.
Scott Ritter(former UN Weapons inspector) notes,"that Dobson, one of the most powerful and influential evangelical voices in America,would be invited to the White House to discuss President Bush's Iran policy is absurd,unless one makes the link between Bush's personal faith,the extreme religious beliefs of Dobson and the potential of Armageddon like conflict-WW111.At this point,the absurd becomes unthinkable,except it is too real".(Common Dreams 22.10.07).
Brian McLaren (Sojo 25.10.07/Beliefnet blog)):"I am disgusted,concerned,appalled and furious at the sabre rattling of our government......I suspect that many of my fellow Christians will in the name of God and Jesus, support and justify a preemptive war on Iran......no matter how unprovoked,no matter how brutal and no matter how costly,both financially and morally".

It's sophistry at best, to try and argue as do the NSW & Vic Conferences, that FOF-Aust is different and separate from Dobson and his FOF, in the USA. FOF-Aus is an affiliate of FOF and directly linked and related to Dobson in the USA.

And if this doesn't worry you,then do some googling around (or Wikipedia it) Dobson and Joel Rosenberg and "The Ezekiel Option" and the breeding program for "red heifers".(Might need to have a yarn with your friendly OT lecturer to check the latter one out)!!.

All pretty disturbing really. And we're "related" to it.

Why Howard lost the debate

I thought I’d add my thoughts about last night’s debate to the mix, for what they’re worth!

I have to say upfront that I am not a fan of John Howard, and so quite possibly I was less eager to hear his point of view or award him brownie points than in the case of Kevin Rudd. But despite that I was really surprised by Mr Howard’s lackluster performance, his refusal to answer questions asked by Mr Rudd as well as the panel of journalists and his seeming inability to engage with Mr Rudd on issues where I thought he could have scored a few points. He seemed, quite frankly, old and snippy, and much more negative than Mr Rudd, which is strange as it’s usually the Opposition who comes across as the most negative.

I think Mr Howard’s first mistake was to elect to go second. I would have understood the decision if he was planning to rebuff some of Mr Rudd’s opening remarks in his own opening statement, but all he did was deliver a prepared speech that seemed almost nonsensical. In his opening remarks Mr Rudd put forward a clear plan for the future without unnecessary negative remarks. Mr Howard spent much of his time going on and on about Labor claiming Australia’s current state of prosperity was because of the mining boom – but it didn’t make sense because Mr Rudd hadn’t talked much about the mining boom in his opening remarks. If all Mr Howard was going to do was deliver a prepared speech, he should have gone first.

His second mistake was to blunder around not answering questions. On Iraq, climate change, interest rates and child care he just did not adequately answer the question or explain his reasoning.

Thirdly, and most oddly, he totally misused his questions for Mr Rudd. Asking the leader of the Opposition why he didn’t spend more time talking with the US President about climate change when he himself has ignored the issue for 11 years was just plain stupid. Voters are particularly anti-government on both Australian/US relations and climate change, and for him to bring it up in the same question was a spectacular mistake, as testified to by the worm. This was compounded by him saying we as a country needed to protect “America’s prestige” – may I ask why? This didn’t go down well at all. Then he asked a vague question about Mr Rudd guaranteeing his election promises – which gave Mr Rudd the opportunity to freely electioneer for a few minutes before closing statements. He also missed the opportunity to point out that if Labor wins, we will be a completely Labor-dominated country, which does worry voters.

Fourthly, he was just too negative, calling Mr Rudd “pessimistic” just seemed petty and pathetic, and quite untrue, as Mr Rudd was almost bounding across the stage with energy and enthusiasm, while it looked as though Mr Howard might need a good lie down.

Of course, Mr Rudd should not escape our criticism either. He should have been clearer about his interim targets for climate change and he needed to explain clearly why he supports disengaging from the Iraq war while at the same time leaving troops in Afghanistan. Though it is clear the situations are markedly different, it needed to be spelled out, as Mr Howard directly attacked him on this point. Mr Rudd did also rely a little on slogans. But it worked – at the end of the debate I could quite clearly pinpoint what Labor were planning to do if elected, and name several policies, whereas I really had no idea what the Liberals were offering. However, Mr Howard has never debated well, and has won the previous two elections…but I think that this time that might change. Labor has not been a worthy opponent for the past few years, but now they seem to have their act together there might be a different tale to tell on November 24.

Human rights in Australia

For all you facebookers out there, I recently joined a a human rights group on there which had this story to tell:

"Before dawn yesterday morning (Tuesday 16 October) a 40 year old Sri Lankan man was deported, after spending the night in solitary confinement at Maribyrnong Detention Centre. His last terrifying night in Australia can only have exacerbated his already fraught mental state - which had already passed the point of cutting open his throat and writing a letter in his own blood to detention staff, begging for psychiatric help. Despite his begging, on his last night he was not allowed to speak to friends and supporters who have been his only comfort in the past 2 years of his detention, for reasons that the detention centre staff sourced to 'the Privacy Act'. He has now been sent back to Sri Lanka, to his history of torture and terror, the memories of watching his infant daughter beaten and his wife raped. Back to the land where he had his penis burned with hot irons, his legs bashed and bruised, his face broken, all because he changed his political affiliations.Australia is - and ought to be - more than an economy. It is a nation that prides itself on giving people a fair go, providing opportunities, not to mention respect for freedom, justice and human rights.In the first 3 days of the election campaign those ideals have already been so dramatically flouted that I am compelled to write this letter, in dread anticipation that it's only going to get worse. I have visited people in detention for over 5 years and have seen these horrors time and time again. Tax cuts are all very well, but what is it to be economically rich, and morally bankrupt? This nation is more than an economy. "
by jessie@thejusticeproject

Being half Sri Lankan, I can testify that these things happen in Sri Lanka. I can't believe we sent him back.

Just a link

I found a web site named revolution in Jesus land and while I haven't read enough of it to have an opinion yet, I can say it looks interesting.

Of much interest is a partial transcript of a litergy by Shane Claiborne (whom I am about to Google to find more info on).

With governments that kill…
…we will not comply.

With the theology of empire…
…we will not comply.

With the business of militarism…
…we will not comply.

With the hoarding of riches
…we will not comply.

With the dissemination of fear
…we will not comply.

But today we pledge our allegiance to the kingdom of God…
…we pledge allegiance.

To the peace that is not like Rome’s…
…we pledge allegiance.

To the Gospel of enemy love
…we pledge allegiance.

To the poor and the broken…
…we pledge allegiance.

Birthday musings

As I'm turning 30 tomorrow I have felt rather reflective today, and so this post will be slightly more personal than usual.

It occurred to me that I have spent most of my 20's unlearning everything I thought I knew when I turned 20! And most of that has been to do with my faith. I've been reading an essay recently which sums up where I am right now in terms of theology, faith and culture, how we relate as Christians to other faiths etc....here is an extract:

"Theology is incomplete. We have not captures the singular truth for all times (despite what we may think), but theology is a continual process of interpreting and understanding God in the contexts of new situations, new experiences and, in the light of new knowledge and new insights. Theology is about understanding the now in light of the present revelation. The Christian faith is ever renewing itself, as it works for and longs for the coming of the kingdom...All thought is shaped by the society which produces it. We inherit unexamined mindsets that colour all our ideals."

So I hope you can ponder on that for a while.

Support Burmese Protestors

I confess I felt a swell of pride and solidarity with the Burmese monks this week as I watched the protests get underway in Rangoon.

At least 30,000 people led by about 15,000 monks clad in orange and red robes swarmed through the streets of Burma's main city, with some activists saying 100,000 were involved.

Crowds of people thronged the roadside, many with tears in their eyes. About 10,000 monks and supporters set off from the Shwedagon Pagoda and past the offices of detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy. As the monks walked by chanting prayers for peace, NLD officials came to the footpath and bowed in respect to the clergy before joining the marchers.

"We are marching for the people," one monk said to the crowd, and urged supporters to remain peaceful and avoid political slogans.

I think the reason I was really moved by this spectacle is that it was watching faith in action. In our Christian tradition, we have often been at the forefront of social change, forcing an end to oppression, but unfortunately many times we have stood by and let the oppression, poverty and injustice go on unchallenged. We may not believe what these monks believe - but we have to admire their integrity and the way they have embraced action in their faith. Now we need "Christian" nations to support their effort.

Absurd censorship in America

It hardly seems possible, but the American government has taken to banning certain religious texts from prison libraries.

The ban includes texts by theologians Reinhold Niebuhr or Karl Barth, as well as popular inspirational work such as Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Life or Harold Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

As The New York Times put it, "chaplains have been quietly carrying out a systematic purge of religious books and materials that were once available to prisoners in chapel libraries."

The news reports seem implausible. The idea of government bureaucrats drafting a list of approved books on religion seems like something out of Soviet-era Russia, not the United States of America, where freedom of religion – even for those behind prison walls – is supposed to be sacrosanct.

But the reports are true. All of the books and authors named above have been removed from prison libraries. In some instances, according to the Times, chaplains have been forced to dismantle "libraries that had thousands of texts collected over decades, bought by the prisons, or donated by churches and religious groups."

The contents of the "approved" list seem capricious. For example, "80 of the 120 titles on the list for Judaism are from the same Orthodox publishing house," and the list for Christianity "lack[s] materials from early church fathers, liberal theologians and major Protestant denominations."

The Bureau of Prisons says they merely want to ensure prisons are not recruiting grounds for terrorists and other militant groups. So why are they removing the vast majority of materials on faith and religion? And if prisoners are not free to pursue their own faith journeys, what cause for hope should they have?

Christians from across the political and theological spectrum are outraged. As Mark Earley, president and chief executive officer of Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship, told the Times, "It's swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. There's no need to get rid of literally hundreds of thousands of books that are fine simply because you have a problem with an isolated book or piece of literature that presents extremism."

I wonder if Rick Warren had not so vocally opposed aspects of the Bush Administration, would he still find himself on the banned list?