From the ABC’s news:
More than 20 politicians will take to the stage at the Hillsong Church’s annual conference in Sydney this week.
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was among 30,000 people who gathered in Sydney’s Olympic Superdome last night for the opening of the conference.
Mr Costello received a thunderous reception when he addressed the crowd.
…Joining Mr Costello were Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, Communications Minister Helen Coonan and Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews.
New South Wales Premier Bob Carr also took the opportunity to preach to a captive audience.
A couple of weeks ago the NSW Fabian society held a forum at Parliament House in Sydney, on the topic ‘Are Moral Values The New Politics’. A number of bloggers and LP commenters went along, and the event was written up the day after by Guy from wsacaucus.org and, through my hangover, by me.
Senator John Faulkner, during the question-and-answer sessions, pointed out that he’d been to a Hillsong service in order to invite Pastor Houston to the event. His point—which almost goes without saying—is that no politician of any stripe can afford to ignore any social movement which packs so many thousand people into such large halls, or as Pastor Houston termed them, ‘the new suburban cathedrals’. Speakers David Marr and Stephen Crittenden made the simultaneous point that the Hillsong business enterprise had not been slacking in its own embrace of political lobbying and support.
There seems to be a feeling, not confined only to the political left, but also to the sections of the liberal and libertarian right, that such close relationships between the State and religious bodies cannot be healthy for democracy. Churches, which implicity reject democratic decision-making in their worldviews, and hold to absolute truths unshakeable by such things as ballots, seem to make bad bed partners with Parties and Governments in electoral systems. Of course, the very odd beliefs about gender and about sexuality held by many of the Churches don’t help their cause.
This feeling is misplaced. Pastor Houston, at the forum, seemed genuinely baffled that anybody would disagree that religious groups have a right to be involved in politics, and it’s hard not to understand that confusion. Pentecostal churches, in their support of the Family First Party, are only following in a long tradition of Australian religious support for specific parties: the Democratic Labor Party is the most obvious example.
Political participation has been sliding throughout the twentieth century, in Australia and elsewhere. Phil posted here earlier this week about the rise of Non-Government Organisations as a part-replacement for explicitly political activity. It’s true that these days, it’s much more socially acceptable to wear a white bracelet than a political badge, Bono’s exclamations about ‘justice’ notwithstanding.
If NGOs can replace Parties and politics as vehicles for political involvement, the same principle must apply to religious groups. It’s only the most mystical sects these days which reject the idea that followers should not try to effect change in the temporal world. The rise of Hillsong shouldn’t only be seen as the success story of a religious doctrine or a business enterprise, but also the failure of party-political involvement in modern Australia. Why should people attend Labor or Liberal Party branch meetings, when they can have political involvement at the same time as communion with God?
Is it just me or was Costello really bizarre on Lateline last night?
Glad to hear that the government should be encouraging young people “hearing great biblical truths”. Separation of church and state anyone?
Do they send delegations to gatherings of young Muslims?
Churches, which implicity reject democratic decision-making in their worldviews, and hold to absolute truths unshakeable by such things as ballots, seem to make bad bed partners with Parties and Governments in electoral systems.
The same could be said for ideologies.
I see no fundamental difference between a political position based on religious doctrina and one based on a sociological doctrine. The beliefs of Marxists, feminists, multiculturists and so on are every bit as rigid, irrational and undemocratic as those of any religious fanatic.
As far as I’m concerned, leftocracy is no different from theocracy.
It’s always interesting that atheist, agnostic and secular righties defend right-wing churches so vigorously. A bit like the crowing from some rather unreligious columnists when Benedict was elected – look – it’s a defeat for THE LEFT.
EP, Jesus has the answer to sperm theft – celibacy!
Churches exist as institutions in our society and, as such, they have a perfect right to put their case to politicians personally or during election campaigns. There’s nothing particularly democratic about those football fields full of blokes putting their hands up in unison in a ‘democratic’ vote on anti-Howard industrial action. Church/State interactions are not as problematic as the fascist alliance between Labor and the extortionists, compulsionists and autocrats of the union movement.
for once(?) I agree with CL.
CL, I’m with you on the rights of Churches to be involved in politics. I didn’t argue otherwise. We’ve never had the same US-style separation of Church and State in Australia, which I think is a good thing.
The rise of mega-churches, though, is a defeat for political organising on the left and right.
Hillsong is probably to christianity as Holly Valance is to popular music. But I digress.
I think the emergence of the pentecostal churches is more of a reflection of changes in the way people choose to practice their religion, as opposed to a sudden re-emergence of religious belief throughout the community.
There is a market out there for the consumer’s minute just as there is a market for the consumer’s dollar. Hillsong is evidently filling a void in the market for both categories of commodity.
Homer’s criticism of the Hillsong worldview – that it preaches a fatuous gospel of prosperity – is one with which I agree entirely. This is the real cultural sadness here: the bowdlerisation of Christianity; the attempt to make it a kind of scientology-like movement focused on ‘personal success.’ The Cross has no value in this sort of theology, except as symbol of all that may be left behind.
Note that Costello is already sowing the seeds for moving away from one of the preference deals made with Family First. Welcome to politics.
Also in the same article creationism rears its head which is interesting. Costello’s pluralist statement on creationism is simply bizarre.
What’s so bizarre about pluralism? It’s healthy for a society to have competing ideas.
CL, that’s the biggest problem I had with Carr’s speech. It was reported (in The Australian, I think) that he endorsed prosperity theology.
Shame.
Cozzo; ”It lifts me. I said that tonight – it lifts me, and I hope it lifts everybody else in the auditorium… ”
[to vote the right way at the next elections]
”…my job was to bring a greeting and to welcome the crowd on behalf of the Australian Government…”
[ meaning the liberal party is co-opting new youth movements---makes a change from takeovers like One Nation---methodology the same though , it makes it so practical to subtly get behind them before stabbing them in the back !]
I’m all for pluralism except that creationism is to biology as phlogiston is to chemistry. Should we resurrect phlogistion theory as competing idea for the chemistry class EP?
The biggest problem I had with Bob Carr’s speech was this:
“Mr Carr criticised Victoria’s religious vilification laws and lectured on the importance of accepting personal responsibility rather than rushing to sue.”
http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/07/04/1120329388593.html
When the Labor Party met Hillsong
So it turns out Bob Carr decided to pander those good old Penacostal Christians on from the Bible Belt of Sydney (the Hills District): Hillsong Thats fair enough… they vote, they are potential supporters and Carr may need the votes to toe him over th…
I hope the last two pars of that article Irant is just sloppy editing. Evolution –> rap music = bad?
At the Fabian stoush Houston made some statement that if he doesn’t accept thre first few pages of the Bible he has to through the rest out too, but that “doesn’t necessarily” leave no room for evolution. What ever that should mean.
what’s wrong with their ‘prosperity gospel’and the ethic of personal responsibility? sounds like perfect commonsense to me. Margaret Thatcher said it best – no one would remember the Good Samaritan if he only had good intentions. And Hillsong aren’t the first, I seem to recall a book by that great rationalist/deist and American founding father Benjamin Franklin who had his own prosperity gospel and tried to instill a sense of ethics by pointing to their beneficial consequences. All this is latent in Protestanism, hence its association with modernity and the rise of finance/industrial capitalism. More power to them for their ethics, shame about the metaphysics
‘Glad to hear that the government should be encouraging young people “hearing great biblical truths”. Separation of church and state anyone?
Do they send delegations to gatherings of young Muslims?’
Well no they don’t Mark, but any politician is free to do so to hear some great Koranic truths. Wonder why they don’t?
‘The biggest problem I had with Bob Carr?Äôs speech was this:
“Mr Carr criticised Victoria?Äôs religious vilification laws and lectured on the importance of accepting personal responsibility rather than rushing to sue.”‘
And you have a problem with freedom of speech and freedom of worship Mushroom?
One of my friends from school has become a born-again christian. He discovered Jesus at uni like other people from school discovered. Like 99% of the population he doesn’t really care about politics, and before 2004 he voted Labor because of his parents and the area we live. But they told him to vote for Family First at church. He says he didn’t really like them, but they got his vote because he wants to be a good christian.
‘The biggest problem I had with Bob Carr?Äôs speech was this:
“Mr Carr criticised Victoria?Äôs religious vilification laws and lectured on the importance of accepting personal responsibility rather than rushing to sue.”?Äô
And you have a problem with freedom of speech and freedom of worship Mushroom?
_______________________________________________
No… but I do have a problem when a Christian group perpetuates such nonsense as:
“the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons…. Muslims had a plan to overrun Western democracy by violence and terrorism and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation.*”
And is allowed to do so without any recourse from the offended party.
Which is what it Bob Carr has some sort of disagreement with, unless I have read his quote incorrectly or he has been misrepresented – both of which are likely possibilities
*http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Pastor-ridiculed-Muslims/2004/12/17/1102787278055.html
Be relaxed and comfortable people because Carr will be singing with Sufis and waltzing with Whahabbis too it seems
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15829035-1702,00.html
‘No… but I do have a problem when a Christian group perpetuates such nonsense as:
“the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons…. Muslims had a plan to overrun Western democracy by violence and terrorism and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation.*”
And is allowed to do so without any recourse from the offended party.’
Those Zionist apologist infidels didn’t say that, without any recourse did they Mushroom?
above post should say: “discovered radical communism”
“Mr Carr criticised Victoria?Äôs religious vilification laws and lectured on the importance of accepting personal responsibility rather than rushing to sue.”
Good on him.
“the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons…. Muslims had a plan to overrun Western democracy by violence and terrorism and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation.*”
Apart from the “demons” bit, all the rest of it comes straight from the Koran.
Mushroom has a problem with truth as well as with freedom of speech.
Golly gee the economy has been booming for 15 years without any downturn and a ‘christian’ group promoting prosperity christianity has been getting large attendances.
I have to wonder why.
They do have a large turnover because they cannot help anyone who encounters melancholy.
When the downturns comes I will await with interest to sees how hillsong prospers.
Islam is an inherently violent religion and that fascist buffoon Steve Bracks is not going to stop anyone from saying so.
Not really the point, Jason. Nobody would have remembered the Widow without her Mite, that’s what the Hillsong capitalists aren’t interested in. Our Lord promised a Cross for those who followed Him. Not a beach-house and a Range Rover.
Evil Pundit,
Have you ever read the Qur’an or the Bible in their entirety?
I’m sure you are aware of the tactic of selective quotation.
Perish the thought that someone would take your aphorisms out of context.
I’ve read the Koran in its entirety. The Bible is a bit too long and repetitious.
Naturally, in evaluating the Koran, one must take history and cultural context into account. When one does this, it’s pretty obvious that Islam is an inherently violent and expansionist religion.
This nature is exemplified by the many, many militant Islamic terrorist movements currently active around the world, from Hamas to al-Qaeda to Jemaah Islamiyah to …
“Islam is an inherently violent religion and that fascist buffoon Steve Bracks is not going to stop anyone from saying so.”
Herein lies the problem with Brack’s Vilification Laws, which are really an attempt to enforce political correctness in some very grey areas, which is a veritable goldmine for lawyers. In fact ‘fascist buffoon’ could by itself be outlawed as political vilification if legislators so desired. Where would, religious, political, racial, sexist vilification end? Who would be qualified to judge? Given the wisdom of your maker that would be required, we need to fall back on absolute free speech. The ‘sticks and stones’ view essentially. Your right to verbally abuse or vilify me needs to be absolute, but must stop at the hair on the end of my nose, or the paint on my picket fence(disturbing the peace?) That said I think there is a need for ‘public correctness’ or plain good manners and if you cross that social line publicly, you should be fair public game. A meeting of Pentecostalists casting aspersions at muslims is entitled to free speech, but equally entitled to social and political opprobrium for it, in the same way a like gathering at a mosque might be. Name calling should be sanction free, but plot the use of sticks and stones and you should feel the full weight of our pre-emptive law.
Heated debate about the truth or wisdom contained within the Bible or Koran are healthy, even if it descends to ad hominem abuse. CL, you need to be aware of the many interpretations of these texts and the way in which they are cherry-picked for self-satisfying ends. The bible was used to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition, just as the Koran has been for Jihad. It is true that with the development of hierarchical christian churches, the worst interpretations of the holy word have been reformed. That is something that muslims have lacked, but nevertheless, there is still much debate about current interpretations. Try homosexual marriage, women priests, abortion, stem-cell research, to name a few. I’m no theological expert, but as far as I’m aware the bible and the Koran have little to say about beach-houses or range rovers or Howard’s IR reforms, but some are finding such interpretations in their good books. Some might emphasise the prodigal son as a lesson for aspiring to self-reliance and a Range Rover, while some find evidence of Marxist philosophy there. Whatever, their public interpretations and utterances on the matter are fair game for public debate.
EP, if you have read the koran then anyone would say that it is repetitious.
I have rarely heard that said of the bible.
The Bible is much, much longer than the Koran, and the bulk of it consists of tediously described histories of tribal warfare and customs.
Once you’ve read about a couple of primitive desert tribes, you’ve read about ‘em all — only the names change.
Breaking: New Zealand Moslem Labor MP says stoning homosexuals to death is OK.
as I’ve been noting here many times, the Left are riven by too many internal philosophical tensions to hold together for long -
its radical multicult wing vs its pro enlightenment wing
its working class conservative wing vs its latte wing
C.L., that link not work. No need for stops in archives [the title of my next novel - hehe].
Seriously:
You’ll make a Catholic of me yet. Seriously.
Yes the philosophical tensions must be enormous Jason. It might come as a rude shock to some of them that sharing in getting stoned together, loses a bit in the cultural translation.
Hey, get the flavour of Kiwi politics on the blog CL linked to here http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/archives/cat_labour.html The usual themes.
I see we’re their bogeyman (kids off to Austwaylia) just like the US is for Oz politics. Almost makes you come over all guilty as a hegemonic tall poppy don’t it?
“One of my friends from school has become a born-again christian. He discovered Jesus at uni like other people from school discovered.”
It’s funny, isn’t it? I reckon all the Bible Study spruikers was the final straw that turned me into an atheist. Not that I’m terribly dogmatic about it, I’ve seen what that approach does to people. It just strikes me that texts like the Bible and the Koran can be interpreted to say whatever the reader feels like.
Interesting that about the mention of Bono, too, who famously opined “the God I believe in isn’t short of cash, mister…”
CL: ”Islam is an inherently violent religion ”
And Bush’s fundamentalist Christian supporters see nothing inconsistent with impeaching one president for a free blow job and egging one another who is responsible for murdering 20/100,000 Iraqis?
The only president who ever murdered any Iraqis was Saddam Hussein — who is now out of business thanks to the forces of democracy.
Yeah that’s so right EP, especially for the cluster bombed Iraqi kids, but that’s democracy, US style, the freedom to be murdered for democracy and Halliburton.
A tad OT, but that 100,000 figure has turned out to be the crap we said it was from the start.
That’s why Rob, I said 20/100,000 .
Nah, Peter, the good science is with 24,000. Still too many, even for a war. But Saddam is estimated to have killed 300,000 of his fellow Iraqis.
(Talking of socialist war crimes – Saddam was a socialist too – Norm Geras has a great post up on the Red Army’s literal rape of Germany in 1945.)
I’d swear that link worked in preview, dammit.
Actually, 24,000 is a pretty low casualty rate as wars go. Especially when you consider that the number includes active combatants as well as victims of the insurgency.
By comparison, casualties in the Iran-Iraq War of the eighties are estimated to be around 500,000 to 1,000,000. During WWI and WWII, there were numerous occasions when more than 24,000 people died in a single day.
Probably true, EP, especially when the figure includes those killed by the insurgents and in various forms of internecine strife.
Yeah right EP that must make some Iraqis feel much better.
My goodness, you put up one single post on political involvement and you try and be fair and the RWDBs come out. Suddenly it’s all Islam and Saddam and shit.
I’m going to bed, ‘night kids.
Horrible, aren’t we? Just a distant whiff of blood carried on the evening air and we emerge to batten and feed.
Vampire bats without names, you said it !
Kim and Mark should be here around midnight, when they’ve shaken the soil from their shrouds.
EP,
I take you at your word that you have read the Qu’an in its entirety.
Obviously being a well informed Pundit, you would be aware of the strong influence of Sufism on Islamic thought. You would be aware that Sufis converted most of Indonesia & Malaysia as well as significant parts of the Subcontinent.
Being aware of historical factors, you would be aware that Sufism is still very much alive and vibrant in these countries as well as in Egypt & Turkey. You would be aware through the writings of Schuon, Nasr, Schimmel and Burkhardt that Sufism is an inclusivistic form of Islam & many Sufi schools openly welcome non-Muslims into their fold. You would be aware that great Sufi thinkers like Ibn al’Arabi etc have had a far greater influence on the history of the Islamic world than the likes of Osama bin-Laden.
You would be aware of the ongoing diversity of the Islamic world and the struggle between the Mut’azila (“Modernist”) & Asharite (“Traditionalist”) traditions in Islamic thought. You would be aware that radical Islam is an offshoot of Wahhabism (born out of the destitute poverty of 18th century Saudi Arabia) – which is itself an extreme form of Asharism that only claims at most 20% of the mosques in the Sunni Islamic world.
As a knowledgeable reader of the Qur’an, you would be aware that this document is a composite contruction made up of divergent threads including the following passages which appear to actually promote tolerance & inclusivism (shock! horror!) [Please note, I have kept the original masculine gender of the nouns where they appear in the Qur'an. Presumably, these masculine nouns were intended to apply across the genders universally. However, the Arabic language lacks gender neutral personal pronouns.]:
Surah 2:256 “There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way.”
4:79-80 “Saying to them- ‘Whatever good comes to you is from Allah and whatever evil comes to you is from your own self and that We have sent you (ie. Muhammad) to mankind only as a messenger with Allah as sufficient witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper.’”
6:107 “Yet if God had so willed, they (ie. non-Muslims) would not have ascribed Divinity to anyone besides him. Hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them.”
11:28 “Noah said ‘Oh my people! Think about it! If one acts upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful gift of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?’”
16:82 “But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Words.”
17:53-54 “And tell my servants that they should speak in a very kind way (to those who do not share their beliefs). Indeed, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men. because truly, Satan is man’s foe …. Therefore, We have not sent you (Muhammad) with power to determine their Faith.”
21:107-109 “‘We have not sent you (Muhammad) except to be a mercy to all mankind:” Declare, “Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your Allah is the only One Allah, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?’ But if they turn away then say, “I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to everyone, and I do not know whether the promised hour (of Judgement) is near or far.”
22:67 “To every people have We gave ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, don’t let them wrangle over this matter with you, but ask them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do.’”
36:16-17 “They said, ‘Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent to you, but we are not required to do any more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.’”
39:41 “Indeed, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. He who guides himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.”
42:6 “And those who have patrons others besides Allah, over them Allah keeps a watch. Remember, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is only to preach ….”
48:28 “He who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, whether it prevails over every religion, none can bear witness to the Truth as Allah does.”
60:8-9 “Allah forbids you, with regard to those who fight you not for Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just…Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship). It is the turning to them that is wrong.”
64:12 “Obey Allah then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (there is no blame therein), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.”
67:25-26 “And they ask, ‘When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?” Say, “The knowledge of it is truly with Allah alone, and truly I am only a plain foreboder.”
88:21-22 “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”
Finally as a student of religious history, you would be aware that the same theistic religious documents have often been used by competing religious interpreters.
EP, as with all religious texts, its the “eye of the beholder” that largely gives meaning to texts like the Qur’an. It seems to me that your eyes only see what they choose to see.
Perhaps then, we should refer to you as One-Eye Pundit?
Sapienti Sat!
Antonio, I think you just frightened some here present who read the dust jacket only, going by their silence for 20 minutes.
Antonio, I think you just frightened some here present who read the dust jacket only, going by their silence for 20 minutes.
Antonio, I think you just frightened some here present who read the dust jacket only, going by their silence for 20 minutes.
Saying it three times doesn’t make it more sensible Peter mate.
That’s very nice, Antonio.
Perhaps you can tell al-Zarqawi and his merry gang of beheaders that they’ve got it all wrong, and they’ll stop killing people.
Or you could perhaps lecture New Zealand’s Muslim Labour MP, Ashraf Choudhary, about what he really believes:
Or maybe you’d care to go to Melbourne, and correct the denizens of the Brunswick Mosque:
Your theories are very pretty, but they have little relevance to the real world.
“When the last tree is felled, Jesus will return”
I hope you’re not vilifying Christianity, Graham. Steve Bracks will punish you!
”Books sold at the store attached to the Brunswick mosque tell Muslims they should “hate and take as enemies” non-Muslims, reject Jews and Christians, and learn to hate in order to properly love Allah.”
Where did EP find this out? From his Chinese fortune cookies obviously. Notice how in making these allegations he does it by assertion only and behind an acronym, meaning he does not have the intestinal fortitude to defame/impugn/malign under his real name. People who engage in reasonable discussion may have good reason for withholding their names, ie civil servants and the like. Others whose byword is casting mud and hiding themselves in the process—well, reasonable people can draw their own conclusions.
Peter, this discovery was widely reported in the media.
I don’t know why you’ve got this thing about names. It’spart of the blogging/commenting thing that we don’t know who we really are if we don’t chose to make it known. You come on like a secret policeman.
Peter, you should learn how to follow links to document sources before you make silly assertions.
Rob: And the media is undoubtedly gospel. If you are going to vilify/defame, have the courage of your convictions otherwise belt up. In law your ”blogging commenting thing” holds very little water if you insist on vilifying/defaming.
Actually I’m hoping Howard soon makes it law that for political purposes anonomous websites and authors will become illegal ie as with election law, an authorising name will be necessary. In vilifying and defaming you also potentially make the host of this site potentially liable, so if you really want to screw yourself, bring it on.
The thing is, it’s pretty likely that you can go into churches – not just tithing centres like Hillsong, but quite moderate ones too – and find books critical not just of Islam, but also of Judaism, and of course that most pernicious of evils, secularism.
I mean, goodness knows, at least religious fanatics have never, I dunno, taken over England and beheaded the King or something!
Well, if you want to prosecute me for commenting on Mark’s blog – and Mark too, by the sound of it – yes, bring it on. There’s a word for that and it’s ‘fascism’.
I assume though that you were joking. Good one! You had me worked up there for a minute.
Uh oh Peter’s getting weird.
That’s right, Graham.
Churches, mosques and synagogues all over the world are breaking Victorian laws. Bracks has a lot of work ahead of him if he’s to prosecute them all.
I’m being perfectly reasonable Graham, if one is going to vilify or defame, one should have enough intestinal fortitude to say it under one’s own REAL name. It’s called media law.
Well, yeah, EP, I do think that law is silly, as is Peter’s suggestion above. So I agree with you there.
You’re not a lawyer are you, Peter?
Media law says that people should vilify and defame others under their real name? The things you learn on the net.
Yes EP, its ever so helpful!
I know what to do. I’ll just change my name to “Evil Pundit”.
Well, let’s put it this way, whilst at times I wonder at time whether a pseudonymous person would’ve made a particular statement under their real name, I’d rather allow it as part of open debate than ban it outright or whatever. Not to mention that what you’re suggesting seems to be yet another unneeded extension to our egregious defamation laws. Bugger that for a joke.
Besides I don’t want to know who EP is in real life. It might turn out that it’s Richard Neville taking the piss. Although I doubt that since Richard ossified sometime in the 70s and is incapable of, well, taking on a stupid pseudonym and pulling off such a long campaign of guerilla iconoclasticism.
This discussion is stupid. The bible says we should stone people to death for adultery, the other book says we should stone people to death for homosexuality, so what’s the big deal? They’re both relics of history, and anyone, of either persuasion, who thinks that they ought to be literally applied to modern circumstances deserves ridicule.
But so does anyone who thinks quoting from one book is enough to discredit its followers, when they overlook similar passages in their own.
I think the point is, Robert, that an awful lot of Islamists seem to believe it – and carry their beliefs into fulfilment in the present day and around the world.
And ‘ridicule’ of religious belief, as EP has pointed out, is now illegal.
Also, I thought Christianity was specifically against stoning women to death for adultery (“let he who is without sin cast the first stone”), but it’s a state-sanctioned afternoon’s entertainment in Iran.
Yeah. At least in the US they just zap them behind closed doors.
Peter: could you provide links to where you criticised Phillip Adams for saying Pope John Paul was resposnible for the deaths of millions of Africans?
Do you believe he should be in jail?
Yes or no.
This blog’s going to get a bit boring if RWDBs can’t stir up some decent left-wing opposition.
It’s past the witching hour. Where’s Kim?
Maybe it’s a conspiracy.
CL: Same type of question as ”Have you stopped beating your wife—answer yes or no” Not my argument at all, besides you haven’t yet? responded to my question re the US fundamentalists, Clinton, Bush and that blow job.
besides you haven?Äôt yet? responded to my question re the US fundamentalists, Clinton, Bush and that blow job
That’s yet another bit of religious vilification and defamation from you. You would be a criminal in Victoria.
What question are you talking about?
Peter is referring to his earlier question, in which he defamed and vilified Christians as follows:
CL: ‘?ÄôIslam is an inherently violent religion ‘?Äô
And Bush?Äôs fundamentalist Christian supporters see nothing inconsistent with impeaching one president for a free blow job and egging one another who is responsible for murdering 20/100,000 Iraqis?
I’ll get around to answering it in the next, I dunno, 20 to 100,000 minutes or so. Somewhere in there.
I’ve dealt with Clinton’s responsibility for today’s tragedies before, however.
Some of your points are very questionable, C.L.
For instance:
Where were they supposed to bomb?
I guess it’s arguable that the USS Cole as a military platform was actually a legitimate target for bin Laden, who had after all declared ‘war’ on America. ‘Soft’ civilian targets like the east African embassies and of course the World Trade Center are very different, though.
Though I imagine the distinction would be lost on bin Laden. As he said in his fatwa, it is the religious duty of Muslims to kill Americans wherever they find them. Period.
So, how about them Cowboys, hey?
Sorry, just trying to break the tension by pretending to be a Queenslander.
I’d be much more impressed by C.L.’s list if he revealed his sources and expanded on his points.
Reference links are your friends, Mark.