PDA

View Full Version : Family First = Brian Harradine



PHAT
10-12-2005, 01:05 AM
I though we had lost the evil fools of Christendom from our parliaments

Chech out this subtifuge (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1528074.htm)

EGOR
10-12-2005, 01:14 PM
I though we had lost the evil fools of Christendom from our parliaments

Chech out this subtifuge (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1528074.htm)
Which part of this is subtifuge?

PHAT
10-12-2005, 01:49 PM
Which part of this is subtifuge?

Where is says:

"The Senator has refused to answer questions about whether he discussed the abortion drug RU-486 with Prime Minister John Howard during a meeting before the vote."

It is another Harradine Moment for RU486, but this time it is clandestine.

bergil
10-12-2005, 02:58 PM
Where is says:

"The Senator has refused to answer questions about whether he discussed the abortion drug RU-486 with Prime Minister John Howard during a meeting before the vote."

It is another Harradine Moment for RU486, but this time it is clandestine.
Yes but what of the other senetors from the Nationals, why didn't they cross the floor with Barnaby? :hmm:

The Howard Government rushed through all the legistration without any real debate, could any of those Senetors say what the laws they were enacting were really about? :mad:

PHAT
10-12-2005, 05:46 PM
Yes but what of the other senetors from the Nationals, why didn't they cross the floor with Barnaby? :hmm:

Because they a politians first, and leaders second. A pox on all their houses.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2005, 06:00 PM
Harradine didn't ever vote for VSU. He always voted against it (although he did so having been fed a load of defamatory nonsense by the then Tasmania University Union president concerning the motivations of local opponents of compulsory fees.)

At this stage the RU-486 deal theory is total speculation. If it was found to be true that would be very disturbing stuff.

Spiny Norman
11-12-2005, 06:51 AM
Harradine didn't ever vote for VSU. He always voted against it (although he did so having been fed a load of defamatory nonsense by the then Tasmania University Union concerning the motivations of local opponents of compulsory fees.)

At this stage the RU-486 deal theory is total speculation. If it was found to be true that would be very disturbing stuff.
This sort of situation (and the debate accompanying it) is the reason that I remain vehemently opposed to anything that smacks of a "political wing of the church". I thoroughly approve of Christians getting involved in politics, but I thoroughly disapprove of any attempt to label themselves as such in the process ... and Family First is sailing way too close to the wind for me.

PHAT
11-12-2005, 09:46 AM
I thoroughly approve of Christians getting involved in politics, but I thoroughly disapprove of any attempt to label themselves as such in the process
In that case this will interest. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621834807.html

Oepty
11-12-2005, 02:56 PM
This sort of situation (and the debate accompanying it) is the reason that I remain vehemently opposed to anything that smacks of a "political wing of the church". I thoroughly approve of Christians getting involved in politics, but I thoroughly disapprove of any attempt to label themselves as such in the process ... and Family First is sailing way too close to the wind for me.

I totally disapprove of Christians getting involved in politics. They should stay out of politics, it is not an appropriate position for a Bible believing Christian. Their allegiance should be to God first and not to a government.
Scott

pballard
11-12-2005, 04:57 PM
I thoroughly approve of Christians getting involved in politics, but I thoroughly disapprove of any attempt to label themselves as such in the process ... and Family First is sailing way too close to the wind for me.

In a sense I take the opposite view. If a party is going to push "Christian policies", it is much better to be up front about it. And I'm happy for a new party to be formed to put forward "Christian policies" if no other party will stand for policies which many Christians believe in. (The more parties in parliament the better, IMHO).


I totally disapprove of Christians getting involved in politics. They should stay out of politics, it is not an appropriate position for a Bible believing Christian. Their allegiance should be to God first and not to a government.


Yes a Christian's first allegiance is to God, but our second is to our fellow people. One way to serve and help people is to be involved in politics and get good laws passed.

Spiny Norman
12-12-2005, 01:09 PM
I totally disapprove of Christians getting involved in politics. They should stay out of politics, it is not an appropriate position for a Bible believing Christian. Their allegiance should be to God first and not to a government.
"Render unto Caesar" .

So if everyone became Christians (even KB and Rincewind!), are you suggesting that our country should change our constitution and do away with Federal, State and local governments?

Or are you saying that the country would be better off if no Christians were involved in politics and it was all left up to the Moslems, the Buddhists, etc?

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2005, 01:28 PM
I'm personally more than happy for most staunch Christians to stay well out of politics! However I do recall Goughfather demolishing Freddy's claims on this during a previous round of this issue.

I think having overtly Christian politicians (those whose religion clearly determines their politics) clearly labelled as such would be very useful for the voters, rather than having most of them hide themselves behind the banner of the so-called Liberal Party.

Watto
12-12-2005, 01:56 PM
I totally disapprove of Christians getting involved in politics. They should stay out of politics, it is not an appropriate position for a Bible believing Christian. Their allegiance should be to God first and not to a government.
Scott

If their allegiance is to God, and unchristian things are being done by a government, then as far as I'm concerned Christians have no choice but to speak out.

Desmond Tutu in South Africa was a brave example of this. His first allegiance was to his God, an allegiance which left him with no choice but to speak out against apartheid. He continues to speak out against 'unchristian' policies/acts in the post apartheid era. Interestingly enough, many apartheid supporters loved to repeat the mantra that politics and religion should not mix. Not the kind of cowardly Christians I'd care to follow.

Watto
12-12-2005, 02:42 PM
I'm personally more than happy for most staunch Christians to stay well out of politics! However I do recall Goughfather demolishing Freddy's claims on this during a previous round of this issue.

I think having overtly Christian politicians (those whose religion clearly determines their politics) clearly labelled as such would be very useful for the voters, rather than having most of them hide themselves behind the banner of the so-called Liberal Party.

I’ve said that churchmen should speak out against unchristian acts committed in the political arena... I tend to think that privately and humbly religious is the way to go for professional politicians.

As for those who have a dishonest agenda, well, it’s a real problem but I don't believe politics (or religion) will benefit by having overtly religious parties in parliament peddling their narrow moral concerns in a fundamentalist fashion. (Almost all religious political parties would be fundamentalist and rather more extreme and less diverse than the mainstream.) So I tend to side with Frosty on this.

Spiny Norman
12-12-2005, 03:13 PM
I think having overtly Christian politicians (those whose religion clearly determines their politics) clearly labelled as such would be very useful for the voters, rather than having most of them hide themselves behind the banner of the so-called Liberal Party.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460161250.html

I object to your characterisation of them "hiding" behind the banner of a party. What then do you make of Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd? Are they likewise hiding, or does hiding only apply to right-wingers? Do you have any evidence of such a "hiding conspiracy"? If it were true, then how do you explain the need for a more overtly Christian "Family First" structure to house "fundamentalist views"?

Personally I don't think there's anything more than a fairly natural alignment between typically-conservative Christians and a typically-conservative party such as the Liberals (I agree that "so-called" Liberals is very apt however!). The Labor Party has been more left wing than the Liberals for much of its history, and as such, those Christians that it is going to attract will be of the more left-wing variety ... and I think they're a minority in Christian circles, hence the skewing towards the Liberals in terms of candidates.

As for mentions in press articles about Liberal powerbrokers selecting, for example, a Hillsong church member to run as a local candidate, I think that's nothing more of less than savvy politics on their part. Hillsong is a HUGE congregation. A certain percentage of that congregation would be swayed to vote for one of their own, even if they personally held more Labor-voting views. Mind you, if something like that happened in my church, I'd probably be tempted to vote Labor for the first time, just as a matter of principle!

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2005, 07:36 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460161250.html

I object to your characterisation of them "hiding" behind the banner of a party. What then do you make of Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd? Are they likewise hiding, or does hiding only apply to right-wingers? Do you have any evidence of such a "hiding conspiracy"? If it were true, then how do you explain the need for a more overtly Christian "Family First" structure to house "fundamentalist views"?

Interesting link.

The more extreme Christians in the Liberal Party are just, quite simply, not liberals, in just about any sense of the word you care to come up with. They should have the guts to market themselves for what they actually are. I'll say that they are not the only ones who could be accused of hiding. Peter Garrett is another example. He should be a Green, but being in the ALP gets him elected.

The Liberal Party has drifted from its original vision. It has become a party for hardline conservatives/reactionaries and those who genuinely fit within the liberal tradition are a small and struggling minority. People like Abbott, Andrews, Abetz, Barnett etc try to pass themselves off as mainstream political figures, but they're not. It would be much better if we had a real secular liberal or libertarian party and another party for all the borderline theocrats and moral illiberals so the voters could tell which is which. And yes, there could be a few in the ALP who would belong there as well, although it is far rarer for them to translate their religions into policy.


Personally I don't think there's anything more than a fairly natural alignment between typically-conservative Christians and a typically-conservative party such as the Liberals (I agree that "so-called" Liberals is very apt however!).

I think there is little natural alignment between economic liberalism and religious conservatism except that socialism is a common enemy. And socialism as a force in the ALP is pretty much dead. Also, I've noticed that within "new Christian" movements, economic-left, social-right combinations of views are actually quite common.

There have long been Christian micro-parties. The new thing about FF is that they are very tactically clever about getting themselves elected.

pballard
12-12-2005, 09:20 PM
The more extreme Christians in the Liberal Party are just, quite simply, not liberals, in just about any sense of the word you care to come up with.

They'd be liberal in the sense of liberal (free market) economy.



They should have the guts to market themselves for what they actually are. I'll say that they are not the only ones who could be accused of hiding. Peter Garrett is another example. He should be a Green, but being in the ALP gets him elected.


In their defence, they are largely forced to do it by Australia's single-seat-per-electorate system, which practically guarantees a two party system. And part of the reason the two major parties are successful is they accomodate a range of views.



The Liberal Party has drifted from its original vision. It has become a party for hardline conservatives/reactionaries and those who genuinely fit within the liberal tradition are a small and struggling minority. People like Abbott, Andrews, Abetz, Barnett etc try to pass themselves off as mainstream political figures, but they're not.

Maybe not to you; from what I know of them they sit fairly well in the mainstream, even if in the right lane :)



It would be much better if we had a real secular liberal or libertarian party and another party for all the borderline theocrats and moral illiberals so the voters could tell which is which. And yes, there could be a few in the ALP who would belong there as well, although it is far rarer for them to translate their religions into policy.


The more parties in parliament the better. But it won't happen while we have single seat electorates.



{snip} Also, I've noticed that within "new Christian" movements, economic-left, social-right combinations of views are actually quite common.


I think it suits the Christian deomgraphic quite well. But it's not totally new: wouldn't that also describe Harradine?



There have long been Christian micro-parties. The new thing about FF is that they are very tactically clever about getting themselves elected.

That's certainly part of it, but also the economic-left/social-right alignment has helped (again, see B. Harradine).

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2005, 09:38 PM
They'd be liberal in the sense of liberal (free market) economy.

Many of them are not liberal in that sense either. The Howard Government uses free market ideas where it suits its purposes, but meanwhile presides over a massively overtaxing administration. They are nowhere near classical liberals. The Nats even less so.


In their defence, they are largely forced to do it by Australia's single-seat-per-electorate system, which practically guarantees a two party system. And part of the reason the two major parties are successful is they accomodate a range of views.

Many of the worst offenders are Senators (eg I mentioned Abetz and Barnett). The single-seat system does not practically guarantee a two party system - consider the rising success of the Liberal Democrats as a third party in the UK, or the number of independents now present in the NSW lower house.


Maybe not to you; from what I know of them they sit fairly well in the mainstream, even if in the right lane :)

I suspect even the Labor Party is to the right on social issues of what voters actually think. Example: euthanasia, very strongly supported by the public, strongly opposed by the Federal Parliament.


I think it suits the Christian deomgraphic quite well. But it's not totally new: wouldn't that also describe Harradine?

Agreed, and Harradine in turn was similar to the DLP. More evidence that the link between religious conservatism and right-wing economics is weak.

pballard
13-12-2005, 01:39 PM
Kevin,

I began drafting a reply, then I realised that we agreed on a lot of things (e.g. we both like the idea of a Christian-based party - me so I can vote for them and you so you can avoid them :) ), and the only disagreement we were still arguing was the merits or otherwise of single seat electorates. I don't mind discussing this (and I have strong opinions on it), but it seems to be a long drift from the original topic. So I'll drop it, unless you're particularly keen to discuss it.

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2005, 02:01 PM
You'd probably find we agreed a lot on that too. I wasn't arguing for or against the merits of single-seat systems, just pointing out that they don't always lead to two-party systems. I'd agree that they tend to.

Also my comment about some of the worst offenders being Senators was a cheap shot because the major parties' historical dominance of the single-seat House of Reps gives them a leg up in their attempts to dominate the Senate.

Garvinator
13-12-2005, 03:19 PM
I began drafting a reply, then I realised that we agreed on a lot of things (e.g. we both like the idea of a Christian-based party - me so I can vote for them and you so you can avoid them :) ),
i dont like the idea of religion having any role in politics at all, but i guess as christianity has been the dominant religion in australia for a long time, i could handle a christian party. As long as they didnt become the major government party of course ;)

At least having a christian party on the ballot paper in my seat would make it a lot easier for me to decide who to put last ;) :cool: