A Change!

Well I for one think the change in government is a step in the right direction. And given the absolute landslide result, it seems plenty of us all agree! With wall to wall Labor governments now, the Libs must be wondeirng when they became obsolete. I think they have simply moved too far to the right - I am a Kevin 07 fan, but I have to admit he's not really left enough for me. But I do acknoweldge that the country will ultimately be run by moderates - a truly left of centre candidate is not going to win. But niether is the far right-of-centre party - and I think the IR legislation tipped the balance over the edge, not to mention the US alliance etc etc. Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing Labor now implement their policies - and who the Libs chose as their leader. It'll be some time before we see them in power again!

Election

The following is an excerpt from the Sojourners: Faith, Politics and Culture website. In it, Sojourners CEO Jim Wallis comments on the bizarre move made by conservative Christian Coalition preacher Pat Robertson to endorse Republican presidential nominee Rudy Giuliani.
“ Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for president is simply astonishing. Robertson - the television preacher who founded the 700 Club and once ran for president himself - has made opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage his political north star and has been a relentless champion of traditional marriage and family values.
“Remember Robertson's merciless attacks on President Bill Clinton's lapses of sexual morality with Monica Lewinsky? Or his comments about how the 9/11 attacks were the result of America's tolerance for homosexuals and abortion?
“Now Robertson is for Rudy, a thrice-married adulterous husband, who is estranged from his own children and is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights. According to Robertson's twisted moral logic, forgiving the social conservative shortcomings of Republicans is a Christian virtue, so long as the same virtue is never applied to Democrats. But Pat thinks Rudy can beat Hillary, and Pat really cares about winning for the Republicans.
“What exactly goes on in Pat Robertson's head has puzzled many of us for a long time. This endorsement ranks as one of the most unprincipled in recent political memory. Maybe principles never mattered much to Pat Robertson after all. Perhaps the pro-business economic conservatism of the Republican Party was always more important to the televangelist than saving unborn lives. Robertson's long-standing support of murderous Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, and his diamond investments thanks to Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko speak louder than words when it comes to Robertson's ethic of life. And that's not to mention the more than $400 million Robertson's empire made when he sold his International Family Network to Rupert Murdoch, after building it on tax-deductible contributions of thousands of CBN donors, many of modest means. He has put profits over principles for years.
“Richard Land, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, has taken a more consistent position. Land has clearly said that he won't support Giuliani if he becomes the Republican nominee, explaining, ‘I'm not willing or able to violate my moral conscience. It would be like asking an African American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, or asking Abe Lincoln to vote for a pro-slavery candidate. I personally can't do it.’
“Land predicts that many social conservatives will just sit out this election if the Republicans decide to run Rudy. That's called standing for principle. Pat Robertson clearly has taken another position. His endorsement of Rudy Giuliani will seem to many to be unprincipled hypocrisy.” see www.sojo.net
It did not come as any surprise to me that all of Pat Robertson’s posturing about family values was a put-on, designed to hide the fact he has a radical right-wing agenda and will happily manipulate the Christian vote in order to keep the Republicans in power. What does disappoint me is that I fear so many Christian voters simply will not think through the issue for themselves– Robertson’s endorsement will be enough for them. They’ll go blindly to the polls comfortable in the knowledge that someone else has done the “hard yards” of thinking through the election issues. They’ll vote Republican because that’s what good Christian voters do.
While things aren’t as bad as that in Australia, I fear many Christians simply do the same thing. They get the “Christian Values Checklist” put out by the Christian Democratic Party and, without really asking whether or not they agree with Fred Nile’s stance on school prayer and abortion, are just happy someone else has done the thinking for them, and they don’t need to bother.
It also worries me that Christians don’t seem to be aware of when their vote is being manipulated. Anyone who knows me knows that The West Wing is my favourite show. In Season Six, the Republican Party makes the unusual decision to run a presidential candidate who is, in fact, an atheist. This character, called Arnie Vinnick, is played by Alan Alda. Worried he will estrange the evangelical right if he does not profess some kind of faith, Vinnick’s advisors pressure him into attending a church service. After much soul-searching, Vinnick has this to say: “If you demand expressions of faith from your political leaders then you are just asking to be lied to...and it will be the easiest lie they’ve ever told”.

Twice during this election I’ve heard pastors banging on about “godly leadership” and choosing a prime minister based on whether or not they’re “godly men”. I hope for their own sake they are—but this will not influence my vote. Checklists may be useful in gaining a general picture of where parties stand on various issue, but at the end of the day if we vote based on a simplistic list we are just asking someone else to do the thinking for us. I hope we would vote based on our convictions, whatever they may be, after thinking good and hard about what sort of country we want Australia to be in the next four years.

Election Newsletter

The November/December edition of the Progression newsletter will be out next week, and will feature news, articles and opinion editorials about the upcoming election. If you would like to contribute any thoughts or comments please email us at the above address and we would be happy to include them.

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.