Godless Business

The Australian Christian Lobby

 

A small contingent of self confessed, card carrying, devote atheists deliberately walked into the lions dean last night to attend the “Make it Count” event run by The Australian Christian Lobby. Essentially, they invited leaders of both major political parties and fired questions concerning various social issues concerning Christians. It was enlightening to say the least.

My Twitter followers would have already read my impressions as the night unfolded, and while I am sure Nigel and Oliver might have more to say on the subject during our next podcast, here are my notes regarding the night:

  1. The term “Christian family values” was thrown around a bit. What does this actually mean? Which family values can Christianity alone provide? What makes them wholly Christian? Do other faiths love their children? What about those with no faith? It seems to me the phrase is clearly aimed at hijacking decent morality and claiming it to be derived from a religion which worships death, suffering, and vicarious human sacrifice.
  2. Both parties gave full support to continue the discrimination of homosexuals and others by granting marriage special privilege. What sickens me about this is they claim marriage is a Christian institution (it isn’t), and that only a man and a woman can love each other (because homosexuality is unnatural). State sanctioned bigotry.
  3. The National Chaplaincy program was giving full support from both sides, to spite the fact it almost certainly violates section 116 of the Australian Constitution. Government has no business promoting one religion over another, or any religious view over another. The fact the program automatically grants religious persons advantages over others is plain wrong.
  4. Christian charities were praised for their efforts, with one politician stating government could not possible achieve the same results (oh yee of little faith). There is nothing unique to the Christian faith which grants it exclusive rights to charity. There is nothing good I can do which demands I believe Jesus was born of a virgin (for example). Also, full trust was given to charitable organisations like the Salvation Army, whose stated mission is to spread the word of Jesus at every opportunity.
  5. They all seemed to be against voluntary euthanasia, or “state sanctioned killing” as Mr. Hodgeman put it. Seems no Christian is in a hurry to get to Heaven.
  6. They both agreed that the “exploitation of sex workers” was immoral and harmful, and may be looking at criminally charging those who use the services (after the Swedish model). I also have a problem with exploitation, but not all sex workers are. Some positively choose to sell themselves for “easy money”. What will they outlaw next, sexual desire? (slippery slope argument)
  7. The night ended with a “won’t somebody think of the children” question. You can imagine the responses.

“…Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and meet human needs in His name without discrimination.” – Salvation Army Mission Statement.

At the end we were asked to stand and applause all those who helped put the event together, then came the kicker:

“While your standing, let’s bow our heads and pray to Jebus.”

Oliver and I just stood there scanning the crowd, Nigel was still seated and putting his laptop away (he made many notes of the evening). Many people were shouting “praise the lord!”, etc during the prayer. Awkward.  Oliver tell me the news camera was pointed straight at us the whole time.  Opps, guess we’re going to hell now.

The funniest thing for me was when Oliver was asked by the crazy looking lady next to him

“Which church do you go to?”

You should have seen her face when he said he didn’t. Bwahahaha!

  • David

    I'm glad to see you guys went to see the politicians bend over for the ACL.

    This organisation disturbs me deeply – especially its involvement in promotion of censorship in with policies/programs such as our version of the "Great Firewall of China" that I call the "Great Digital Reef".

    Not to mention all the points you noted in the piece here. I wonder if we can find out what their annual budget is and how much money the use for campaign donations, etc…

    • Dermot Cottuli

      David ACL makes NO campaign donations to any party or independent candidate. I'm sure you can find out all you want from their website.

      • David

        That is good to know (although their site didn't explicitly say this). There are a multitude of organisations in Australia who hold no allegience to a particular political party but still make donations or provisions to the major parties (depending on the state the requirement of disclosure depends solely on the manner donations and other provisions are defined).

        My suspicion of religious lobby groups is firmly informed by the US which obviously has a different democratic system to our own but nonetheless would be greatly undesirable to myself should Australia follow.

        I have serious disagreements with the ACL's position on issues such as internet censorship, euthanasia and how best to manage the negative effects of prostitution, abortion rights and furthermore I do not find their positions representative of many Christians I know personally. So while you may cry foul about the manner the attendants of the ACL meeting were portrayed in this post from Andrew, don't for a second think the ACL actually represents the views of 64% of the Australian population (questionable figure as it is).

        I further doubt the ACL is truly a Christian organisation that takes its moral lead from the bible (like all Christians and their churches and organisations) purely on the basis that it inconsistently applies scripture. For every perspective on these issues a Christian takes a lead from scripture they are ignoring other passages that advocate or command a wholly different approach or value. From this I say that organisations such as the ACL are actually just using the bible to add some authority to their own opinion and instead of being a group alligned in their desire to reassert the love of Christ, it really is an organisation of people who just want things done their way.

        To illustrate my point, the ACL doesn't support the push for a Human Rights Act/Bill in Australia. While your post down below says you follow Jesus' command to "love your neighbour like yourself" the ACL explicitly opposes the introduction of law that would require our politicians to enact legislation that doesn't undermine this fundamental preaching of your saviour but ensures it at a minimum. The human rights charters around the world have ensured religious freedom in many nations when the nature of their elected officials ceases to support such freedoms. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in the Australian system that explicitly ensures the protection of human rights (except the right to reimbursement if the commonwealth decides to take your property with sufficient reason) – as many Christians themselves would feel entitled to – the entirety of our rights rely on outdated law, activist judges and progressive politicians or simply having had the good fortune of electing people not entirely predisposed to undermining the fabric of a liberal, democratic society.

        A human rights act/bill would simply ensure our elected officials and courts are bound by a minimum respect for the citizens of Australia regardless of religious, sexual, ethnic or gender orientation, social standing or age. What a horrible country we would forge with such abborhent values.

        • Dermot Cottuli

          David I don't have the time to give your great response the reply it deserves at the moment but we do have legislation already in place that protects the rights of individuals and groups. The issue that Christians have with a new bill of rights is that it would actually stifle freedom of speech and public debate. It would also place our judiciary above our government in an area that they have no need to be involved. Canada is a good test case of how this type of legislation has backfired in a big way. Our stance would be to educate not legislate.

          The Act already includes provisions against ‘inciting hatred’.

          If this legislation is introduced then sites like this one would be open to litigation as it can be viewed as discriminatory towards people of Christian belief. I'm not happy with that and I'm sure you wouldn't be either.

          • David

            How is it an act that would force legislators to ensure freedom of speech and religion would stifle it? Furthermore, I am not familiar with the issues Canada has experienced but I think the proposed system in Australia is more in line with the UK approach which since 1998 has unilateral support from major parties (some actually hold policy positions on improving and expanding the act).

            Our judiciary is already above government in a variety of ways – we have a constitution which dictates the extent of the judiciary systems' power and this would not be undermined or expanded greatly with an act (as opposed to a constitutional ammendment which is not generally what is proposed). Our legislators are already bound by a variety of piece meal laws that restrict their powers, for example privacy laws. I know Australians have rights, unfortunately they are conditional, situational and incredibly difficult for the lay person to understand.

            The majority of Australians feel as though they have rights to press, speech, religion, personal security, assembly, etc but in reality we have privelages that are dependant on the nature of the activity in question. I would recommend you find a court case dealing with a right to religion or speech in Australia and read the ruling – you will find a tome of legal precendents and considered cases throughout our legal system that have weighed in on the judge's decision that are completely incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't spent half a decade studying law. Contrast this with the ruling in the UK were people have defended themselves for violations of their human rights act written in simple english and passed judgement with a clear and concise explanation of how this related to a piece of law that outlines the minimum respect UK citizens are entitled to from their government, employers, and other people.

            I fully accept that a porrly written and structured Act would be dangerous and disruptive to Australian law, government and society but I am quite confident we have professionals who are skilled enough with the law that we can do a good job with such an act. Australia wasn't just a signatory to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, our delegation played an important role in the phrasing and inclusion of specific sections, some of which the USA and Soviet Russia were not at all open towards but we nonetheless prevailed and played an important role in what is unfortunately a non-binding document.

            To gain a different perspective of the issue I would happily reccommend a book called "The Statute of Liberty – How Australians can take back their rights" by Geoffrey Robertson QC. The book is written in a simple style accessible to anyone. I have been unable to find a book expressing a contrary opinion, only editorials and columns in a couple of newspapers in Australia. Another good book on the subject is "Bills of Rights in Australia: History, Politics and Law" by Andrew Byrnes, Hilary Charlesworth and Gabrielle McKinnon.

            Regarding the statement that this site could be considered to "incite hatred" you would be hard pressed to reconcile that aginst the other provisions of these kinds of acts that outline a right to freedom of thought, speech, assembly and conscience. While this site may mock and deride the attitudes, positions and beliefs of the religious it is hardly hatred (no matter how offended you may be, this is not the legal definition of "hatred") and certainly no one of this has expressed tolerance let alone encouraged violence.

            To further support this conclusion swing your gaze to the USA. Their Bill of Rights does limit their legislators immensely and yet the freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, etc has been held over and above hate speech for the majority of their history. Unfortunately, like Australia, after 9/11 they did enact a range of anti-terror legislation that should concern you as a religious person and an individual that would hold many of these rights in high regard.

            A human rights act is no panacea of any sort and their success relies heavily on the system they are implemented in, the nature of their powers/restrictions but also, and most importantly the politicians we elect and the society who elects them. Dictatorships have still thrived and succeeded in violent oppression despite human rights acts in their countries however I think the Australian political system, its politicians and people have a character and culture that doesn't lend itself towards dictatorships at this time for much the same reason that overall Australia has done well without a human rights act but we certainly have been far from perfect and have a lot of room for improvement.

            • Dermot

              David – Regarding the statement that this site could be considered to "incite hatred" you would be hard pressed to reconcile that aginst the other provisions of these kinds of acts that outline a right to freedom of thought, speech, assembly and conscience. While this site may mock and deride the attitudes, positions and beliefs of the religious it is hardly hatred (no matter how offended you may be, this is not the legal definition of "hatred") and certainly no one of this has expressed tolerance let alone encouraged violence.

              Sorry David if I was unclear above – the current act has that clause about inciting hatred already in it which I think is well and good – the new one takes it way further though –

              One of the recommendations proposes an amendment meaning that a person is unable to engage in any conduct which, for example, offends another person on the basis of religious belief or affiliation, political belief or activity, and sexual orientation, amongst others.

              Define offend? Hence my reference to this site. It's way too ambiguous. The proposed amendment is poorly thought out and fraught with problems unless of course there is an agenda here that we're not seeing.

              I totally agree with your last sentence.

            • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

              Well I am skeptical of this amendment you describe. The entire concept of outlawing offense is absurd.

              Sure this website could be labelled as offensive to Christians but then we could label any Christian website offensive to us if they were to claim only people who have found God can truly be moral or something else like that.

              However, there is no draft act on the table in parlaiment and despite the consultation process the government has made no (is in fact overdue) move towards bringing an act in to the legislative process.

              Surely if we can find problems with such terminology a lawyer would have a field day.

          • David

            How is it an act that would force legislators to ensure freedom of speech and religion would stifle it? Furthermore, I am not familiar with the issues Canada has experienced but I think the proposed system in Australia is more in line with the UK approach which since 1998 has unilateral support from major parties (some actually hold policy positions on improving and expanding the act).

            Our judiciary is already above government in a variety of ways – we have a constitution which dictates the extent of the judiciary systems' power and this would not be undermined or expanded greatly with an act (as opposed to a constitutional ammendment which is not generally what is proposed). Our legislators are already bound by a variety of piece meal laws that restrict their powers, for example privacy laws. I know Australians have rights, unfortunately they are conditional, situational and incredibly difficult for the lay person to understand.

            The majority of Australians feel as though they have rights to press, speech, religion, personal security, assembly, etc but in reality we have privelages that are dependant on the nature of the activity in question. I would recommend you find a court case dealing with a right to religion or speech in Australia and read the ruling – you will find a tome of legal precendents and considered cases throughout our legal system that have weighed in on the judge's decision that are completely incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't spent half a decade studying law. Contrast this with the ruling in the UK were people have defended themselves for violations of their human rights act written in simple english and passed judgement with a clear and concise explanation of how this related to a piece of law that outlines the minimum respect UK citizens are entitled to from their government, employers, and other people.

            I fully accept that a porrly written and structured Act would be dangerous and disruptive to Australian law, government and society but I am quite confident we have professionals who are skilled enough with the law that we can do a good job with such an act. Australia wasn't just a signatory to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, our delegation played an important role in the phrasing and inclusion of specific sections, some of which the USA and Soviet Russia were not at all open towards but we nonetheless prevailed and played an important role in what is unfortunately a non-binding document.

            To gain a different perspective of the issue I would happily reccommend a book called "The Statute of Liberty – How Australians can take back their rights" by Geoffrey Robertson QC. The book is written in a simple style accessible to anyone. I have been unable to find a book expressing a contrary opinion, only editorials and columns in a couple of newspapers in Australia. Another good book on the subject is "Bills of Rights in Australia: History, Politics and Law" by Andrew Byrnes, Hilary Charlesworth and Gabrielle McKinnon.

            Regarding the statement that this site could be considered to "incite hatred" you would be hard pressed to reconcile that aginst the other provisions of these kinds of acts that outline a right to freedom of thought, speech, assembly and conscience. While this site may mock and deride the attitudes, positions and beliefs of the religious it is hardly hatred (no matter how offended you may be, this is not the legal definition of "hatred") and certainly no one of this has expressed tolerance let alone encouraged violence.

            To further support this conclusion swing your gaze to the USA. Their Bill of Rights does limit their legislators immensely and yet the freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, etc has been held over and above hate speech for the majority of their history. Unfortunately, like Australia, after 9/11 they did enact a range of anti-terror legislation that should concern you as a religious person and an individual that would hold many of these rights in high regard.

            A human rights act is no panacea of any sort and their success relies heavily on the system they are implemented in, the nature of their powers/restrictions but also, and most importantly the politicians we elect and the society who elects them. Dictatorships have still thrived and succeeded in violent oppression despite human rights acts in their countries however I think the Australian political system, its politicians and people have a character and culture that doesn't lend itself towards dictatorships at this time for much the same reason that overall Australia has done well without a human rights act but we certainly have been far from perfect and have a lot of room for improvement.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeandBlogonaut SeandBlogonaut

    On

    The National Chaplaincy program was giving full support from both sides, to spite the fact it almost certainly violates section 116 of the Australian Constitution. Government has no business promoting one religion over another, or any religious view over another. The fact the program automatically grants religious persons advantages over others is plain wrong.

    All Section 116 has been interpretd to mean only that the Australia will not establish a state religion. Search for Max Wallace's work online. We were fucked over by a biased judiciary in the early 80's.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      I will look it up.

      To me they are certainly promoting believe over non-belief, which could be argued to be a religious point of view.

  • http://twitter.com/Cynskeptical @Cynskeptical

    Australian Constitution – Section 116 – Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    The part at the end that says no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust…

    That bit to me looks like it has been ignored. Especially if it states in the Chaplaincy programes pre-requisite list of preferred skills, that you are of a religious swaying (both viewpoint and upheld believe within any one religion). Of course if it has been interepreted by some lop sides religious backed fools 25 odd years ago, it will take a fair bit to get it reversed and have a more realistic interepretation instilled.

  • Dermot Cottuli

    Firstly may I say that I found myself smiling at your opening statement. It was a very well run "covert" operation, so not quite as romantic as you have worded it. The "lions" had no idea that you were there so there wasn't much risk to life and limb unlike the situation that Christians found themselves in when facing real lions in Rome's amphitheatres during the first century AD.

    There were 12 questions in total that were asked of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. 12 questions that they received well in advance of the event so that they could be well prepared with their answers.

    1) You say that the term Christian Family Values was thrown around a lot during the night but you failed to mention that this term wasn't once used in a question that was asked by a church leader. If the term was used it was used by either David Bartlett or Will Hodgman. Which considering that neither is a practicing christian, seems to refute your assertion that there isn't such a thing in the broader communities mind, of values that many equate to christianity. Your comment about it "clearly being an attempt to hijack decent morality" is quite humorous as that is a fabrication and totally false :) I was there, I'm a Christian, I asked one of the questions as the head of my denomination and that isn't a thought that has ever entered my mind or the mind of my colleagues.

    2) They haven't granted marriage special privileges they have just left the marriage act the way it has always been. Your next two statements are totally false – christians don't believe that we have the corner on marriage. Many different cultures and religions have ceremonies that equate to our practice in western society. The question covered weddings in churches AND civil ceremonies devoid of any spiritual content. As for men loving men or women loving women where have christians said that can't happen? Do you think that I condemn same sex couples just because I disagree with their choice? I never would. I'm not bigoted. Your choice of language only serves to inflame and falsely accuse people like me of being cruel and heartless. I treat homosexuals exactly the same as I treat heterosexuals. With courtesy, respect and love. When Jesus said I was to love my neighbour as myself that was regardless of skin colour, sexual orientation, physical or mental capacity etc. But just because we disagree with their sexual choice you say we can't love them and treat them with dignity and respect. I'd hate to be a child growing up in a family with that approach to love and acceptance. But hey it gets better mileage and suits the agenda of some if they can paint all christians into a rednecked corner. It's not true but lets not have truth get in the way of a healthy does of fear mongering and vilification. :)

    3) The chaplaincy program doesn't violate anything in our constitution. Come on where do you guys get your facts from? Chaplaincy is open to all faiths including atheists however it would seem that predominantly people of christian faith are more willing to make the sacrifices that working in schools entail. They aren't allowed to proselytise – there is legislation in place that prohibits that and we take that very seriously.

    4) He was stating the truth – without non-goverment charitable organisations working within our welfare segment we as a nation would be far worse off than we currently are – you can't argue against that. Once again the fact that the majority of these welfare agencies are faith based is a glowing endorsement of the work that they do and shouldn't be ridiculed. I would be very happy to see an explosion of non faith based charitable organisations starting up to help those worse of than themselves. There wouldn't be a single christian complaining.

    And just to further clarify here's the actual question that was asked – please note that we were asking about both church based and non church based charities.

    "Homelessness/NGO Compliance Burden: ABS figures indicate that approximately 2500 Tasmanians are homeless, including families and children. Church aid agencies and non-government organisations are working to alleviate this and other social crises, while facing the constraints of ever-increasing compliance and red-tape.
    What will your party do to ensure the extreme burden of compliance and regulation on church aid agencies and other non-government organisations is reduced?"

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      On reflection I should have written "the lions walked into the sheep's pen" :)

      "… but you failed to mention that this term (Christian values) wasn't once used in a question that was asked by a church leader."

      True enough. Perhaps I should reword the question. What is it politicians and the general public believe these "Christian values" are exactly? Which values, or set of values, are the exclusive domain of Christian groups?

      "Which considering that neither is a practicing christian…"

      By whose standard? Who are you to dictate who is a Real Christian(tm)?

      "… seems to refute your assertion that there isn't such a thing in the broader communities mind."

      The fact the person speaking may not be a practicing X, does not mean their audience will not attach some meaning to the words and phrases used.

      "Your comment about it "clearly being an attempt to hijack decent morality" is quite humorous.."

      Then tell me what is meant by the commonly heard phrase "Christian values".

      "They haven't granted marriage special privileges they have just left the marriage act the way it has always been.."

      Yeah – that's the problem.

      "As for men loving men or women loving women where have christians said that can't happen?"

      Many Christians and Christian groups say these sort of things. Think it doesn't happen here in Australia, or even here in Tasmania? My wife and I were in a local church when the congregation (lead by the minister) prayed that equality legislation would NOT pass. Bigots.

      "Do you think that I condemn same sex couples just because I disagree with their choice?"

      I hope you don't mean choice and in "consciously choosing the lifestyle"? As I said above, it's no more a choice than you or I choosing to be attracted to women.

      "I never would. I'm not bigoted"

      Good :) I wonder how you get around the instructions to stone homosexuals to death contained in the Bible? Old Testament? Great! Let's throw out the 10 commandments while we are there.

      "But hey it gets better mileage and suits the agenda of some if they can paint all christians into a rednecked corner"

      I am not painted all Christians with this brush. You know full well there are Christians out there holding these views and using the Bible to support them. Why is it up to me to point this out? Clean your own house.

      "It's not true but lets not have truth get in the way of a healthy does of fear mongering and vilification."

      I do not fear you, I simply think you have some interesting (and ultimately wrong) ideas. Of course, there are also others whom I fear because of the results of their beliefs – intolerance, bigotry, and violence.

      • Dermot

        "Which considering that neither is a practicing christian…"

        By whose standard? Who are you to dictate who is a Real Christian(tm)?

        They said so themselves on the night – I would never make that assumption about another person myself

        ———————————————

        "As for men loving men or women loving women where have christians said that can't happen?"

        Many Christians and Christian groups say these sort of things. Think it doesn't happen here in Australia, or even here in Tasmania? My wife and I were in a local church when the congregation (lead by the minister) prayed that equality legislation would NOT pass. Bigots.

        But Andrew I'm a Christian and a Pastor and the head of our denomination here in Tasmania and I'm posting on here and saying that isn't the case.

        ————————————————
        "But hey it gets better mileage and suits the agenda of some if they can paint all christians into a rednecked corner"

        Andrew – I am not painted all Christians with this brush. You know full well there are Christians out there holding these views and using the Bible to support them. Why is it up to me to point this out? Clean your own house.

        But the vast majority of Christians are decent law abiding people who try to live by Jesus' mandate to love others, even their enemies. It's easy to jump on the media bandwagon who are looking for the weird and whacky because that sells papers and paint everyone with the same brush. I'm here engaging with you as a representative of mainstream Christianity so ask me what Christians really believe and leave the fringe elements where they belong :)

        The people that I'm responsible for are doing their best :)

        —————————————————-

        "It's not true but lets not have truth get in the way of a healthy does of fear mongering and vilification."

        Andrew – I do not fear you, I simply think you have some interesting (and ultimately wrong) ideas. Of course, there are also others whom I fear because of the results of their beliefs – intolerance, bigotry, and violence.

        Andrew I didn't say you feared me :) My point is that a questionable debating tactic is often used that has as it's aim to make people fearful or the group that is being attacked.

        • dermot

          Sorry pressed send without reading what I'd written – the second snippet above – my answer sounded dumb. I appreciate that you were in a church and heard what you did – sorry about that.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

          “They said so themselves on the night.”

          Actually, Will Hodgeman says he definitely was NOT an atheist (making a point of it) and David Bartlett skirted the entire issue. Will’s comment might suggest he is a deist, pantheist, polytheist, or theist, but whatever his actual beliefs he does believe in a god. A number of other statements he made strongly suggest to me he believes in the Christian god, making him a Christian.

          Your assertion they are not “true” Christians can only be based on the fact they do not go to church, or some other idea. It this is requirement of being a True Christian (TM)? I have heard many Christians say it’s about a personal relationship with Jesus, not about your actions or works. You lot are very hard to define.

          ———————————————

          “But Andrew I'm a Christian and a Pastor and the head of our denomination here in Tasmania and I'm posting on here and saying that isn't the case.”

          Then I strongly suggest you attend other church services. The church in question was the Christian City Church. My wife (who has her faith) was disgusted and we never returned.

          ————————————————

          “But the vast majority of Christians are decent law abiding people who try to live by Jesus' mandate to love others, even their enemies.”

          Jesus taught many things, but this could open a whole other can of worms. Let me post another article for you to ponder.

          “It's easy to jump on the media bandwagon who are looking for the weird and whacky because that sells papers and paint everyone with the same brush.”

          I do not have to look for the weird and whacky (like the Bishop who powders his bum while standing nude on his verandah). There are plenty of weird beliefs central to any religion. You tell me what you believe, and I will tell you why I think it’s whacky.

          • Dermot

            Andrew where did I say that they weren't "true christians?"

            Will Hodgman's exact words were "I'm not a practicing Christian but I'm not an atheist either" I repeat, I wasn't making the call he was. Okay I concede that Bartlett didn't say this exactly but he had plenty of opportunity to identify as a Christian that night but he adroitly skirted the issue :) Please don't put words into my mouth and then make the argument about things I haven't said.

            Here's what I believe in a nutshell . . .

            God loves me
            I love Him
            I'm to love others as I have been loved
            I'm to teach others to love others

            That's the gospel in a nutshell and the principles that I live my life and pastor my church by. Please tell me what's whacky about any of this?

            • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

              "I repeat, I wasn't making the call he was"

              Is a non-practicing Christian still a Christian? Can he speak on behalf of any Christian beliefs?

              "Bartlett didn't say this exactly but he had plenty of opportunity to identify as a Christian…"

              Indeed. He's probably a stinkin' atheist.

              "That's the gospel in a nutshell …."

              But there's much more in the "good book" isn't there? Let pause for a moment for the soothing words of Jesus:

              "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Jesus in Matthew 10:34

              "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." – Jesus in Luke 22:36

              And my personal favourite: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Jesus, Luke 19:27

              "Please tell me what's whacky about any of this?"

              There is nothing whacky about helping people, or loving them, or being charitable. There is something decidedly wacky about believing in a god who murdered his own son to make this possible.

      • Dermot

        On reflection I should have written "the lions walked into the sheep's pen" :)

        LOL – the sheep were trembling at the sight of the mighty predators amongst them :) Or was that just in the imagination of the lions . . . :)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      "The chaplaincy program doesn't violate anything in our constitution"

      Section 116 might be of interest. Of course, the Chaplaincy program is not really "creating a law", but it certainly is promoting religious views over non-religious and it trumps the rights of the minorities in any community.

      "Come on where do you guys get your facts from?"

      The Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations
      (http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/NationalSchoolC…

      For example, the FAQ (http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolC… states:

      “Do chaplains have to be Christian?
      No. School communities will also determine the role, faith and, or denomination of the chaplain.”

      Even the word “Chaplin” carried significant Christian overtones and taint the overall flavour of the program.

      “Chaplaincy is open to all faiths including atheists”

      Atheism is not a faith. Come on, you know this already.

      “… however it would seem that predominantly people of christian faith are more willing to make the sacrifices that working in schools entail.”

      Really? Do you have data to back that up, or just a warm fuzzy feeling?

      “They aren't allowed to proselytise – there is legislation in place that prohibits that and we take that very seriously.”

      Again from the FAQ (http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolC…

      “While recognising that an individual chaplain will in good faith express his or her belief and articulate values consistent with his or her denomination or religious belief, a chaplain should not take advantage of his or her privileged position to proselytise for that denomination or religious belief”

      This is hardly a secular position. Religion has NO place in Government, or Government run enterprises.

      “Without non-goverment charitable organisations working within our welfare segment we as a nation would be far worse off than we currently are…”

      And the clear implication was that Christians are the only ones who run (or at least successfully run) charitable organisations. One of the largest charities in Australia (possibly *the* largest) is the Red Cross – an organisation who publicly states their mission as:

      “To be a leading humanitarian organisation in Australia, improving the lives of vulnerable people through services delivered and promotion of humanitarian laws and values.”

      They espouse the values of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity, and universality (http://www.redcross.org.au/aboutus_missionprincip…

      “Once again the fact that the majority of these welfare agencies are faith based is a glowing endorsement of the work that they do and shouldn't be ridiculed.”

      While I would not knock the work they do (and I didn’t), I would seriously question their seeming desire to preach religious messages to people in their darkest hour of need. Just when people have hit rock bottom and require a helping hand, some snake oil shaman will be there to sell them to blood of the lamb. Ambulance chasers all.

      “I would be very happy to see an explosion of non faith based charitable organisations starting up to help those worse of than themselves. There wouldn't be a single christian complaining.”

      The Red cross alone has 23,569 members, 28,573 volunteers, and full time 1,862 staff. Does this count?

      • Dermot

        Andrew – While I would not knock the work they do (and I didn’t), I would seriously question their seeming desire to preach religious messages to people in their darkest hour of need. Just when people have hit rock bottom and require a helping hand, some snake oil shaman will be there to sell them to blood of the lamb. Ambulance chasers all.

        Andrew you keep missing it – if there is a God and I'm right I'd be totally remiss in not doing all that I can to connect people with Him. So you saying that I can't share God's love with people who need it is a moot point and one that we can't argue. If I'm wrong and there's no God I've just helped someone in need (nothing wrong with that) and I've told them about a God who's number one aim is to get people loving each other (not a bad way to live a purposeless existence).

        • David

          While I agree Dermot that as a Christian you should be preaching about God and his word, as it clearly commands you to itself, I take contention with very earlier part of your statement "if there is a a God and I'm right".

          I don't find the arguments and evidence for the existence of any God sufficient to think you are right, let alone to think you have the right one. Even if there is a God how do you know you're preaching about the right one? Surely, if God was really the God of Islam you're actually doing harm by increasing the number of christians in the world – effectively stealing souls from Allah. It would be nice if it was true that all religions are just variations of the reflective face of god in humanity but many of the major religions have scriptural support to suggest people who are on the wrong path will be punished (a different flavour for each religion ofcourse). Surely, even you must think that many of the followers of other faiths are not going to be given access to heaven because they haven't accepted jesus as their saviour?

          Overall your statement here is simply Pascal's Wager, applied to charity work, which is a line of reasoning that most people who have considered it won't find compelling if they genuinely question their original assumption that there is a God.

          • Dermot

            David you're entitled to your opinion of course just as I am to mine. I'm not telling you to agree with me I'm just explaining my thought process. I could turn your above statements around and say that I take umbrage at your assertion that there is no God.

            What makes me shake my head about this sort of debate is that I have never said that you aren't entitled to your beliefs and obviously from this website you're actively trying to propagate them – some would say there's a militant flavour to your activities but I'd say that's unfair. As a christian we have weathered all sorts of wonderfully derogatory comments about our activities so I try not to do the same to others.

            My statement re my motivation toward charitable works is what does it matter if love is the motivation behind what I'm doing?

            • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

              "As a christian we have weathered all sorts of wonderfully derogatory comments about our activities so I try not to do the same to others."

              Is that why you virtually called us cavemen in another post?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

          "if there is a God…"

          That's a BIG if.

          "… and I'm right I'd be totally remiss in not doing all that I can to connect people with Him."

          Therein lay the impetuous of religions to propagate themselves.

          "So you saying that I can't share God's love with people…"

          No, I am saying you do not need god to share love.

          "If I'm wrong and there's no God I've just helped someone in need (nothing wrong with that) and I've told them about a God who's number one aim is to get people loving each other (not a bad way to live a purposeless "

          You have also instilled a number of mental processes which will not always lead to positive outcomes. A brief scan of the history of your church speaks volumes.

          • Dermot

            "No, I am saying you do not need god to share love. "

            I agree

            "A brief scan of the history of your church speaks volumes."

            And an even briefer scan of history will show that men don't need a religious justification to do heinous acts.

            And btw the history of my denomination has no record of wars or militant behaviour.

            • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

              There is a direct link from "Though shall not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) to the burning and killing of women because a cat brushed up against them, or they mumbled something before a storm came.

              There is no logical way to get from "I disbelieve in a god" to anything. People are not motivated by what they do not believe, they are motivated by positive beliefs. You need to add something extra to the lack of a belief in a god in order to get people to kill each other.

              Your phrasing of "my denomination" is interesting. Tell me, did the parent denominations of your commit horrendous acts int he name of their god? My money is on "you bet they bloody did!"

  • Dermot Cottuli

    Continued . . .

    6. We're already heading down the slippery slope, the purpose of the question was to try and arrest it and make sure it doesn't go any further.

    Here's the actual question:

    Exploitation of Women/Prostitution laws: In 2008 the Sex Industry Offences Act was reviewed, resulting in a renewed push by the sex industry for legalisation of brothels. The decriminalisation and legalisation of prostitution in several Australian states has been an abject failure. A better alternative exists.
    Motivated by a concern for women and children exploited through human trafficking and prostitution, the Swedish parliament enacted ground-breaking legislation to criminalise the purchaser of sexual services ten years ago.
    Will your party commit to a parliamentary inquiry into the Swedish model, including a delegation undertaking a visit to assess its effectiveness in Sweden?

    I don't have much to add to this as I think it's a moot point but here's something that has always intrigued me. If prostitution is considered a legitimate form of easy money would you Andrew encourage your daughter to sign up? I'm sure I know your answer, it would be the same as mine. Why then do we think that other people's daughters aren't as precious as our own? Just a thought . . .

    7. Here's the last question that was asked that Andrew mentions:

    Establish a “Best interests of the child” test for public policy: Tragically, there were more than 55,000 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect recorded last year in Australia, over 1200 of those in Tasmania. The growing incidence of neglect and abuse of children is evidence of our general failure as a society to protect our children’s best interests and representation of children in our homeless figures.
    Would your party commit to the “best interests of the child” being given primacy as a test of new policy initiatives that involve or potentially impact on children, and how would you plan to implement and ensure it?

    Great question – let's hope that they do something with it for the sake of all Tasmanians.

    All in all I thought it was a great night. For those who don't think the churches of Tasmania don't have the right to organise a meeting with our political leaders please try saying that to the union movement or the pensioners society. I'm a Tasmanian and want the very best for my state and my community. Christians appreciate that not everyone shares our worldview but that won't stop us offering our services to all of our community regardless of their religious belief or lack thereof.

    Both David and Will commented after the meeting how nice it was to go somewhere where no one heckled them. The prayer at the end was a great idea :) and from where I stood I didn't hear a single amen or praise the Lord so obviously God has a sense of humour surrounding you with some boisterous christians. And btw, the bible says that we are to watch and pray so standing there scanning the crowd during prayer is actually quite scriptural, so well done! :)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      “We're already heading down the slippery slope, the purpose of the question was to try and arrest it and make sure it doesn't go any further.”

      The sex industry as been alive and well since the invention of sex. Do you really think laws punishing people for acting on their desires will help?

      “Exploitation of Women/Prostitution laws: In 2008 the Sex Industry Offences Act was reviewed, resulting in a renewed push by the sex industry for legalisation of brothels. The decriminalisation and legalisation of prostitution in several Australian states has been an abject failure…”

      Has it? I must admit I am not familiar with the condition of the sex industry anywhere.

      “…A better alternative exists. Motivated by a concern for women and children exploited through human trafficking and prostitution…”

      Please show that women and children and exploited and trafficked in the prostitution industry.

      “…the Swedish parliament enacted ground-breaking legislation to criminalise the purchaser of sexual services ten years ago.”

      As I stated earlier, exploitation is an issue in many industries, but we never charge the customer for the offences of the service provider.

      “If prostitution is considered a legitimate form of easy money would you Andrew encourage your daughter to sign up?”

      Your question is deliberately loaded. Would I *encourage* my daughters into that life? No, but that is my choice. Other families have different values and may not see any harm in it. Provided the workers are not exploited, ripped off, abused, beaten, etc then seriously where is the harm? A properly controlled, regulated, clean environment seems the only sensible solution – otherwise you will just push it underground and exacerbate the issue.

      “For those who don't think the churches of Tasmania don't have the right to organise a meeting with our political leaders…”

      Sorry – who was saying that?

      “… The prayer at the end was a great idea :) and from where I stood I didn't hear a single amen or praise the Lord so obviously God has a sense of humour surrounding you with some boisterous christians.”

      He must :)

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/GodlessNige GodlessNige

        I bought some nike shoes for $200, the person who made them probably got paid $1 for the days work. That is exploitation. Maybe they should fine me?

        I wouldn't complain if someone paid me for sex ;) Heck they could probably have it for free. Or at least a pint.

        :)

      • Dermot

        Andrew – The sex industry as been alive and well since the invention of sex. Do you really think laws punishing people for acting on their desires will help?

        No, sadly they won't but they may make it harder for people to destroy their lives in this way. Our drug laws are a case in point.

        ———————————————–

        “If prostitution is considered a legitimate form of easy money would you Andrew encourage your daughter to sign up?”

        Andrew – Your question is deliberately loaded. Would I *encourage* my daughters into that life? No, but that is my choice. Other families have different values and may not see any harm in it. Provided the workers are not exploited, ripped off, abused, beaten, etc then seriously where is the harm? A properly controlled, regulated, clean environment seems the only sensible solution – otherwise you will just push it underground and exacerbate the issue.

        It's a good question hey :) It's one that I asked myself when tackling whether or not our society should actively encourage prostitution. And Andrew I don't know of any healthy family man, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, muslim etc that would encourage their daughter into prostitution. That has to tell us that there is something intrinsically wrong and damaging about the practice regardless of your moral framework?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

          Your conflating two separate issues here. One is a parent encouraging their child into prostitution, the other is an adult freely choosing to offer sexual services. The two scenarios are not comparable at all.

          • Dermot

            Am I? I'd say that what I'm demonstrating is the moral ambiguity that afflicts a lot of the choices that society currently makes. They say one thing and then do another – called having your cake and eating it too. How about a little more honesty and rigorous thinking?

  • http://seantheblogonaut.com Sean the Blogonaut

    The chaplaincy program doesn’t violate anything in our constitution. Come on where do you guys get your facts from?

    You are correct.

    It does however, violate the principle of the separation of church and state (which sadly does not exist in legislative form in Australia).

    It does run against the grain of a secular state school system, that makes no preference for any religion/dogma.

    It’s not based on any evidence that its efficacious (please don’t quote the 97% of principals figure ) that I am aware of.

    It does preference and extend Christian privilege in state schools.

    Chaplaincy is open to all faiths including atheists

    Either you are being loose with your language, deliberately trolling or are genuinely ignorant. Atheism is not a faith. That being said you say that Chaplaincy is open to the non religious or secular.

    It was only open to secular applicants when schools had exhausted all possible avenues for recruiting a suitable “spiritual” candidate by the cut off date of July 2008. There were a number of these because Christian services could not meet the demand ( to interpret this as a desire for christian/faith services is I think stretching things too far) give any principle the option of another funded adult member of staff and I don’t know many who would turn down the offer.

    To be a chaplain you have to be approved by the school community, the majority of which will be Christian and predisposed to a Christian candidate(which contradicts the liberal democratic ideal of supporting and protecting minorities.)

    And be ordained, commissioned, qualified by a religious organisation or recognized as coming from a state approved chaplaincy service

    however it would seem that predominantly people of christian faith are more willing to make the sacrifices that working in schools entail.

    Sacrifices? Now whose being romantic? Now come on these are paid positions are they not? They may not be well paid but then qualifications vary e.g. the chaplain that I am acquainted with is an ex motor mechanic.

    How is it a sacrifice to promote your religion? How is it a sacrifice to gain the support and good will of your Christian community, how is a sacrifice to further the aims of your religion.

    As indicated above there are systemic and cultural barriers to people of no faith, and other faiths being able to serve or sacrifice as you put it.

    They aren’t allowed to proselytise – there is legislation in place that prohibits that and we take that very seriously.

    This is at odds with experiences in Queensland.

    • Dermot

      It does run against the grain of a secular state school system, that makes no preference for any religion/dogma.

      Do you really believe this? I don't have a pluralistic approach to life – I don't divide my world into secular / sacred. Secular by definition is anything not pertaining to the spiritual – it has come to mean Godless in our society. Why should a state school system which is supposed to be for all not allow choice? My music teacher used to have us listen to new age music and commune with our spirit guide – all in a state school. This is probably better for an entirely different discussion

      ———————————–

      It's not based on any evidence that its efficacious (please don't quote the 97% of principals figure ) that I am aware of.

      I won't but I'm curious to know why you have a problem with the figure. There has been a review of the chaplaincy program by government and the education department and the figure is accurate – 97% of school principals are very happy with the program and see great benefit for having it run in their schools.

      ——————————————-

      Chaplaincy is open to all faiths including atheists

      Sean – Either you are being loose with your language, deliberately trolling or are genuinely ignorant. Atheism is not a faith. That being said you say that Chaplaincy is open to the non religious or secular.

      Maybe I should have said all "worldviews" instead :)

      ————————————–

      Me – however it would seem that predominantly people of christian faith are more willing to make the sacrifices that working in schools entail.

      Sean – Sacrifices? Now whose being romantic? Now come on these are paid positions are they not? They may not be well paid but then qualifications vary e.g. the chaplain that I am acquainted with is an ex motor mechanic.

      How is it a sacrifice to promote your religion? How is it a sacrifice to gain the support and good will of your Christian community, how is a sacrifice to further the aims of your religion.

      Sean I use the term sacrifice purposefully and I'm speaking from experience. Most chaplaincy positions are part – time which means it's a financial sacrifice to take the job. They are in schools that as you put it are quite secular in their outlook and approach to life. Do you know what it's like to be ridiculed for your faith? To be considered dumb and naive before you have even opened your mouth? You want to talk about prejudice and persecution then look no further than what happens to the christian on a daily basis in our society. So yes it's a sacrifice to put yourself out there to help others.

      Yes we make sacrifices because ultimately we believe that it's worth it but it still costs us greatly to do so. We're not wandering around in a cloud of blissful ignorance unaware of the opinions of others. We don't hide away in our enclaves but we try to make the world a better place regardless of how people view us or respond to us. Is that easy? Heck no but we still do it.

      And if 68% of the population of our state is christian (according to the 2006 census) then it goes without saying that the majority of our chaplain workers will be of christian persuasion and shouldn't be made to feel badly about that – true?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

        “Secular by definition is anything not pertaining to the spiritual”

        Actually, “secular” is more “no comment” than atheistic or anti-religion.

        “Why should a state school system which is supposed to be for all not allow choice?”

        Because as soon as a teacher, school, or Government chooses they offside everyone who does not share their views. This is why the only sensible course of action is to remain impartial.

        ———————————–

        “… 97% of school principals are very happy with the program and see great benefit for having it run in their schools.”

        Of course. Which Principle would not be happy with another helping hand staff member and $60,000 from the Government to pay for them?

        ————————————–

        “And if 68% of the population of our state is christian (according to the 2006 census) then it goes without saying that the majority of our chaplain workers will be of christian persuasion and shouldn't be made to feel badly about that – true?”

        So the other 32% of state school students and teachers should just shut their mouths when someone of another faith (or none) are automatically given preference? I do not think so! This is *not* how a secular society operates.

        • Dermot

          "So the other 32% of state school students and teachers should just shut their mouths when someone of another faith (or none) are automatically given preference? I do not think so! This is *not* how a secular society operates."

          They don't "shut their mouths" and faith based chaplains aren't automatically given preference and I'm happy with that. Not sure where you're getting your information from??

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

            Directly from the Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations web site.

            I quote from their FAQ (found here http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolC… under "Who can be a school chaplin":

            "by the local school, its community and the appropriate governing authority as having the skills and experience to deliver school chaplaincy services to the school and its community; AND

            through formal ordination, commissioning, recognised qualifications or endorsement by a recognised or accepted religious institution or a State/Territory government approved chaplaincy service."

            And also the answer under "What do I need to know about Secular Pastoral Care Workers?" (same page, emphasis mine)

            "Due to shortages of suitable candidates available, many of these schools have reported difficulties in employing a chaplain. For this reason, the Government made the decision to allow the funding already approved for these schools to be used for alternative support workers, if they could not find a chaplain by July 2008. These ALTERNATIVE providers may include COUNSELLORS, youth workers or OTHER SECULAR SUPPORT STAFF.

            The offer ONLY applied to those schools that had exhausted all reasonable avenues to find a suitable chaplain. It does not affect any other school that has successfully identified a chaplain that meets the school community’s needs."

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeandBlogonaut SeandBlogonaut

        Atheism is a philosophical position on the question – Does god exist. Not a world view either.

        Now onto the review that generated the much pimped 97% of school chaplains baloney. The review was commissioned by the NSCA an association of Christian chaplaincy providers. The survey was limited only to those schools who employed a member of the NSCA in a chaplaincy role.

        There were at the time 2712 state schools with a federally funded school chaplain. There were 1626 schools who employed a NSCA chaplain. These 1626 schools were sent the survey. Only 688 of the surveys were retuned, of the 688 schools 97% of those principals stated that they thought the program was positive.

        A far cry from the 97% of school principles thought it was positive and wanted the program to continue. That survey is a running joke.

        On the subject of Sacrifice, well you may be sacrificing money, but then that's your choice and their are some things that people find more important than financial reward, friendship, admiration, the respect of peers/community. The buzz they get from making a sacrifice in front of their community.

        I was a practicing christian until my early twenties. Aside from juvenile labeling from some state school kids I can recall no persecution because of my belief. Indeed my faith smoothed the way for me in work and social engagements. Even at university I wasn't ridiculed. Indeed the only time I have felt uncofortable was when I decided to be openly atheist, but even then I wouldn't call that persecution.

        So I must ask what examples do you have of personal persecution? Do you perhaps need to reevaluate the way you present yourself. Perhaps what you see as persecution is disagreement with your views.

        Helping others in my own experience is its own reward, whether as a Christian or an atheist. You posting strikes me as just a tad sanctimonious

        And who said that chaplains should be made to feel bad. The issue is that the system unfairly promotes Christianity in a state school.

Subscribe to the Podcast

44 – An Atheist Temple

BBC News – Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post Priority is to protect marriage | Herald Sun No Fetus Can Feed Us | Unreasonable Faith Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com

Standard Podcast [ 1:44:50 ] Play Now | Download

Further Reading

Dog Heads

The excellent British broadcaster BBC 4 recently aired a fascinating program called “The Medieval Mind” which explores the philosophy, theology, and predominate thinking of the dark ages.  The first episode deals with knowledge and revealed numerous intriguing insights into how the medieval mind determined epistemological truths. Monks, priests, and other godly people were in possession…
Read more …

Matt’s Human Morality

Matt Dillhunty (president of the Atheist Community of Austin, co-host of “Non-Prophets Radio“, and “The Atheist Experience”) recently debated Father Hans Jacobse (an Antiochian Orthodox Priest) at The University of Maryland on 16th November.  Full video of the event can be found here (although only 6 of the 9 videos have been posted online as…
Read more …

Aunt Matilda’s Cake

In the book “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” by John Lennox he puts forward the example of Aunt Matilda’s cake to illustrate the limited nature of science. The scenario has Aunt Matilda baking a cake and number of scientists are asked to describe it. A nutritionists might tell us about the carbohydrates, fats, sugars,…
Read more …

Atheism 2.0

“Atheism 2.0” is a 20 minute TED presentation by Alain de Botton in which he proposes a new approach to evangelising atheism. Alain suggests (apparently without evidence) that we have “secularised badly” and we should sift through the rituals, traditions, and behaviours of religion to identify and adopt their efficient mechanisms. “I have come here…
Read more …

The Bizarre Bible

Atheists are often told by believers to read the Bible and it will all become clear.  Trouble is, many of us have tried that and it doesn’t seem to have helped.  Take these verses for example: This does not sound like a great night out to me. “But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master…
Read more …

Vaccinations save lives!

Measles is a highly contagious viral infection of the respiratory system, whose symptoms include fever, cough, runny nose, red eyes and a generalised skin rash. Typically the incubation period (from initial infection to the onset of symptoms) is around 4 days, after which the disease lasts approximately another 4 days. The patient will usually cough,…
Read more …