AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
If the Rev Fred Nile's proposed legislation to ban the burqa makes any further progress in NSW, I may just consider wearing one.
On the 23rd June, the ABC reported that Nile had succeeded in introducing a private member's bill before the parliament. His proposal, the 'Summary Offences Amendment (Full-face Covering Prohibition) Bill 2010' would make it an offence to wear a face covering while in a public place, punishable by a fine of $550.
Nile noted that France has very recently voted for just such a ban, and that Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and Italy are seriously considering the matter. In fact, the French government's prohibition on the burqa and the niqab in public places passed through its lower house almost unanimously - after President Sarkozy declared in June last year that burqa's were 'not welcome' in France.
But this is where I find Nile's reasoning a little curious. The governments of Europe are attacking the burqa ostensibly because they feel it is an affront to secular liberal values, most especially those to do with women's rights. They claim that a woman wearing a burqa is not representative of the freedom of women to express themselves as they choose. The double-standards abound, of course: no-one seems to bother asking the woman under the burqa why she is wearing it. Or at least, it is assumed that such a woman does not have an opinion worth hearing, so oppressed by her husband and her culture is she.
It's an appalling contravention of the allegedly fundamental liberal values of free speech and tolerance. And shows secular liberalism for what it is - a highly ideological agenda whose supposed neutrality is merely a ruse for the achievement of the aims of its proponents. It's an old style playground bully, but it works by pretending to be the head prefect. The burqa is an easy target - the estimates are that maybe 1900 women wear one in all of France - but the message is clear: the liberal democratic state will not tolerate that which it deems to be 'religious extremism', even when it is as harmless as the wearing of a garment.
So why is Fred Nile attempting to ramp up secular feeling against a religious group in order to achieve his ends - which are to secure the Christian character of Australia? This is suicidal, it seems to me. By strengthening the secular hand against religious and cultural freedom of expression in this country, we are only making the possibility that the state may move against its Christian citizens more likely.
This is exactly what has happened in the United Kingdom. Various pieces of legislation which were introduced in order to restrict Islamic expressions of religious identity, have subsequently been used against Christians. For example: Pentecostal preacher Benny Hinn was recently banned from the UK because of a new law designed to keep extremist leaders - by which is meant Islamic extremists - out of the country. Now, I am no fan of Benny Hinn, don't get me wrong. But a law that bans the likes of him from preaching in a country is simply a dumb law.
As is a law which bans the burqa.
So: who will join me in donning a burqa in the name of religious freedom?
More seriously, can I play devil's advocate for a sec.
Bishop Nazir-Ali is against a full ban but claims there have been examples where Islamic terrorists in the Middle East have used the burqa as a disguise. As a result, he argues, it should be justifiable to 'limit' or constrain use of the burqa in certain public contexts when security is of particular concern. (For example - entering govt buildings). In well-resourced contexts (such as a western airport) there will probably be technological solutions and enough female staff to get around this problem, but that isn't currently the case with every public building. Do you have any thoughts on this point?
Speaking on behalf of the editorial team, please be aware that this thread is very likely to be of interest to the secular media and therefore read by the general public.
As a result I will be moderating this thread very conservatively.
Please reflect carefully before posting comments that could be perceived by a general reader to be racist or inflammatory.
That said, I would encourage people to comment as this is a debate we have to have as a Christian community.
As for security issues: for a long time banks have insisted that you remove your motorbike helmet when entering their premises. Fair enough. However: has there been a spate of burqa-driven crime in NSW? Are they being handed around up on the Golden Mile?
As for cross-dressing: it would be ironic to think that wearing a garment specifically designed to remove all trace of femininity from the wearer could be considered cross-dressing!
I specifically mentioned the Middle East and not our local context to avoid this response (which of course is entirely correct - burqas are so rare in Sydney that a terrorist/criminal who wore one would almost be inviting attention and suspicion. But what if burqas became more common? That dynamic would reverse).
And so, I fear you are merely using local pragmatics to justify an in-principle point about religious freedom. How free should Islamic women be to wear burqas when and where-ever?
What I am really asking is when is the State justified in constraining religious freedom?
Our society will answer along utilitarian grounds, which does Christians no favours on a number of fronts. But nor can we demand our secular State preference Christian priorities.
The answer must lie in how we understand the role of the State: law/order, upholding justice etc.
interesting discussion. Does anyone have a link to the Benny Hinn story, and the legislation and wording of the rationale that banned him? If they could ban silly old Benny Hinn, then surely they could ban any of us radical evangelical bible believing Christians who teach that Jesus is Lord and the only supreme authority worth following above all others? (Even though in following our Lord above all others He requires us to comply with all laws of the State that do not come between us and Him. That is, in most Western countries, 99% of the laws!)
This discussion also poses another question. What other agendas does the secularist (as opposed to the merely secular) government agenda have, especially this election?
Sorry to flog a dead horse, but if one party has some fairly 'liberal, secularist' positions in some fields, yet seems to do the least harm to the most people in other fields, shouldn't I vote for them? To put it another way: aren't many of us being a little bit too precious about the 'supposed horrors' of voting Green?
Imagine your worst case scenario where the Greens were not just in the balance of power, but were THE power! Imagine they formed government. Would God's church and God's work in Australia really collapse in this scenario?
Yours in chasing the secularist agenda through to absurd end-games,
Me.
I was filled with embarrassment at what Rev Nile wants to do in regards to the Burqa though I must confess my reason for thinking that this proposal is wrong was not to do with what you said:
, though I do see where you are coming from and evidence from the UK seems to support what you write, my motivations (and I am not saying that yours are not influenced by this too) arise from the fact that it would be unloving for Christians to support such a law.
I don't agree with Islam, I believe that Jesus loves Muslims more than Allah ever would, but for me to support a law that denies Muslim women the right to express their faith I think would subvert the love that as a follower of Jesus I am to show.
What just popped into my head was what would we do, if a Muslim family came to our worship and the wife was wearing a Burqa, would we tell her to remove it? Of course not, we would love them and accept them.
But in short: No Christian should be afraid of the Greens so-called secularist agenda for reasons both spiritual and temporal. Not least because we have bi-cameral parliament.... that's why I like the checks and balances of our Senate system. No one party can get its entire agenda through.
Indeed, I certainly respect those who think there should be a strong 'environmental' check in our Senate.
Although untested Federally, the Greens could potentially play a moderating role on some of the (potential) Abbott Government's more extreme positions on asylum seekers for example, which concerns many Christians.
Of course! arrghhhh this medium! No nuance!!!!!!!!!! I hear you. There are a lot of things about Islam I don't approve of. My wife spent a month in Saudi and it was a real eye-opener for her (and for me, when she told me of her experiences), but all I was saying is that my reasons for this law not to be passed are to do with loving Muslims and that your reasons are ones that I had not thought of before. That's all MJ.
p.s I always find your writing very helpful, challenging, thought provoking but helpful. Thankyou!!!!! :)
1) Isn't there already legislation which regulates what people may and may not wear in public: is public nudity/indecent exposure still an offense? I understand that public nudity is not an expression of religious belief (at least, not in any major religion, I'm sure it is to SOMEONE) however it was deemed offensive at one time to all good Christians. So then can anyone answer for me,
2) In what way does a law regulating what is (allegedly) offensive to our society (i.e. Banning the burqa) different from a law regulating what is offensive to our society (that is, public nudity)? I'm no lawyer, but in essence they seem the same.
and following on from this,
3)Why were there not 5000 arrests for public indecency at Stanley Tunick's nude photo shoot at the Sydney Opera house in March???
I generally recoil, as do all of us I think, from laws which would ban people from dressing in a particular way.
However I wonder whether your principles Michael, and mine, would survive the repetition in Australia of incidents such as:
- the murder of 41 in a Pakistani refugee camp by a suicide-bomber disguised as a woman in a burqa http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/17/homicide-bombers-attack-refugee-camp-pakistan/, or
- a suicide bomber wearing a burqa blowing himself up in a bazaar - imagine it happening at Myer or David Jones http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=10884175 or,
- the attempted use of the burqa of terrorist suspects to escape detection, as Yassim Omar tried in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6634917.stm
If we are not merely being frivolous, then we must confront these concerns rather than ignore them.
The question of why the burqa is banned in so many Muslim countries is another matter altogether.
Wow. Where?
What I find most frustrating (apart from the damage to Christianity that Fred Nile's very membership of the Legislative Council is) is that he is couching it in terms of public safety. His bill is to amend to the NSW Summary Offences Act which deals with issues of public safety and decency. Knives, sex offenders near schools, traffic, hunting, nudity and the like are regulated by the Act, and if the wearing of burqas needs to be included on the grounds of community safety, I would be much happier if the amendments were proposed by the Police Minister of the Attorney-General, rather than a Uniting Church minister who is widely accused of racism.
check post 13 again.
Regards
BTW Dave - I think you will like this article from Frank Brennan on why Christians can vote Green.
If Fred Nile advocates it, it is reasonable to assume that it is another attention grabbing scheme as NSW moves, if at snails-pace, towards an election. He needs to constantly appeal to that tiny section of society that bothers with him.
The use of proportional voting, with preferences, results in absolute minority values being given a seat in parliament and an influence in government, that is arguably a source of corruption and diversion. Everyone is yelling that Rudd failed on emissions issues. Well, three goes rejected in a hostile minority ruled Upper House is the reason, not any failure by Rudd.
Getting back to the burqa, let's be careful about imposing upon others what we would strongly whinge about if someone started picking on any of our idiosyncracies — I think Jesus said something along those lines.
But for those who like strong, even extreme measures, why not bring back flogging for spraypaint vandals, that'd teach them to behave. Doesn't it work in Singapore and ensure short hair cuts. By all means let us stop the boatpeople by turning them back and if the boat is sabotaged or sinks, well, that's their bad luck.
And think of the knitting Mrs Defarge did as the heads rolled.
now that's what I'm talking about!
and of course:
So strategically thinking we might do better with the Greens there voting on issues that WILL come up, than if they weren't there because of 'greenie' policies that won't come up anyway.
Strategic voting is one way to think about it.
Some Christians will be concerned to elect Senators who will uphold 'life' issues if there is a conscience vote. Perhaps surprisingly Labor's got the only 'pro-life' candidate of the three most likely to be elected.
If I am reading my ballot sheet properly it will come down to a contest between Steve Hutchins (Labor), Fiona Nash (Nats) and Lee Rhiannon (Greens).
According to this list, the National's Fiona Nash voted for human cloning and abortion drug RU486. Labor's Steve Hutchins did not.
This is the opposite result to what most conservative Christian voters will expect when they tick 'Lib/Nat". (or indeed given Michael's original blog vote for Fred Nile's CDP).
In fact, funnily enough "above the line" votes cast for the Christian Democrats or Family First will go towards electing the pro-choice Fiona Nash (CDP and FF votes go straight to the Lib/Nats).
On one level that is somewhat amusing.
And cliché objections against voting Labor or Greens on the grounds of abortion is completely ignorant at best. Again, when we examine actual policy differences the cliche's just collapse.
As we were discussing in the other political thread, 'life' issues now include our response to climate change, how we deal with mental health and suicide issues, and the fact that supplying good welfare can reduce actual abortion rates where all attempts to outlaw abortion seem to have failed.
Because that is exactly how the religious right are trying to paint them!
According to Fred Nile and friends the Greens are a threat to religious freedom.
http://onevote.com.au/
Have you written an article on the Christian attack add above? It's a real piece of work that conflates State issues with this Federal election.
This SMH blogger had some interesting quotes from a Pressie minister.
But not so we can preserve a semi-Christian society. Not because we owe it to feminist ideals. Nor because we're liberal democrats.
It's wrong because we as a community, value community.
Communities thrive when people know each other. When you can walk out your door, spot your neighbour and say "how are you?" Or, better still, spot that your neighbour looks a bit ill, and say, "Oh, you don't look so well, anything I can do to help?"
Two of the biggest blocks to community I can think of are muteness - where people simply don't talk; and covering your face.
To religious women in Australia who say they need to where face covering, we need to say there is a higher value than their individual sense of piety, it's community. They're part of it, and we want them to participate in it.
I'd be inclined to agree with everything about the need for community, and add another: Suburbia destroys community as we drive our metal boxes up the long concrete drive into the garage and get out in the concrete boxes we call McMansions... I mean homes. This is why I've come to see that bad city design can destroy community. This Science Show discusses how good communities can enhance mental health, and at one point even questioned how suburban town plans are negatively impacting on our ability to relate naturally to each other as a normal, 'structured spontaneous' part of our day.
< / aside >
However I'm not sure community is the first thing that I think of for reasons to ban the Burqa?
Every man and his dog uses that excuse now. Artists use it to publish art work that the rest of society consider disgusting! The boundary for freedom of liberty is pushed further and further down the road until anything is possible it seems.
I think it should be restricted though. Some women in the Muslim culture seem to want to use the burqa in places where it shouldn’t be possible. There is an article talked about where the judge is deciding wether a lady can wear one in court even when her own faith says she shouldn’t. I know there is more to the story than that but this is our own legal system. I know of times where it has been requested to have a licence photo taken with it on even though this is a form of identity. I will try find the story online but no luck so far sorry.
Banning I agree is wrong but restricting full use should be on the cards though.
I wonder if the Burqa debate is less about religious freedom and more about the needs of the community? Is this really about protecting religious freedom, or more about a gut-level political reaction?
Just as in the climate change and peak oil debate, some of us are just plain horrified to see the government 'tell people what to do' in the name of the public good.
So while I'm cynical about Fred's motives in pushing this, I wonder if an actual risk to our Australian religious freedom has been demonstrated? We don't even have a clear statement as to why Benny Hinn was banned in the UK, let alone how that might play out here.
Sorry folks, but sometimes a supposedly petty matter like wearing a bike-helmet into a bank can become a real matter of public safety and accountability. Sometimes the government has to lay down the law for the public good, whether it's which side of the road to drive on or not wearing bike helmets, or burqa's, in certain situations.
I'm not convinced either way on this one yet. More evidence is needed.
thanks for that. Any links?
I must admit to mixed feelings on a law to ban burqas in Australia. As yet it is not a problem here but is driven by European responses to encroaching Islam in Europe (note that I say Islam and not Muslims).
Personally I would be affronted by a woman appearing before me veiled. I think Matt Busby Andrews gives a good explanation for my feeling.
Quite possibly if **** *** is half as bad as I think it will be. (It is that which should not be named — at least in this election!)
According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18.3.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Which brings me back to Michael’s criticism of Fred Nile.
Fred Nile speaks as a politician not as a churchman. He is a member of Parliament, i.e. part of the civic authority. We can oppose his position as citizens, using religious reasons if we wish.
However part of our heritage as Christians, especially for those of us who value our reformation history, is to hold to two kingdom theology. Without using this thread for an exposition of two kingdom theology (though were I asked to do so, would be pleased to oblige) I would say that this matter of banning the burqa is definitely not an issue on which the Church should be telling the civil authorities how to go about their job – frankly, it is difficult enough for them as it is. (I’m not suggesting that Michael proposes to speak for the Church, but as Jeremy points out the media may be interested in this thread which is on an official Sydney Anglican website).
Law may have a symbolic power. However, using the heavy hand of the law isn't the way to move people towards knowing their neighbours. Soft power is always the best way to effectively ban behavior. It's not the law that really phased out tobacco chewing, cock fighting and racist language. It's social consensus, led by teachers, commentators, political leaders, and, intimidated as they may feel, preachers too.
It may be harder to get to know Burqha wearing women but it is not impossible. I know Christian women who've done just that - and their loving movement towards them has stood in powerful contrast to the usual Australian stance of exclusion.
You're walking down the local shops, and see 5 ladies wearing the same Burqa. You know your neighbour wears a Burqa, but on this day all 5 Burqa's are the same colour and size. So you don't stop and chat with your neighbour because, well, is it really them?
I wonder what social customs accompany the Burqa? How ladies recognise each other? It seems to me that this could only work in a society that assumes women will mainly stay at home, and not need to negotiate the threatening outside world of men too frequently... let alone actually engaging in conversation with other women. I just don't know how it would work practically, and think Matt has a point.
I have been thinking about this issue for a while now. It's often mixed up with a lot of different issues, and concepts, like husband domination etc.
Its also mixed up with the religion and cultural views, by many people.
I'd like to know if we as Christians, can say what this section of society should wear/do? In particular, are there any conceivable Biblical references saying that we should make such decisions for non-Christians?
Although I can barely remember, Fred Nile used as evidence, I think a case in South Australia, where there was a robbery by a man using a Berqua. I can also remember news stories about people leaving the country with a Berqua. This is just background info that Fred Nile used. From my memory, It could of also been used by Cori Bernardi, a Liberial Senator from South Australia, who blogged on this issue.
I wonder too if Western & Christian are being conflated a bit too quickly? When some women want to dress in a way that they say expresses their modesty and to avoid the terrible sexual disaster of western culture, shouldn't we be a little more sympathetic?
I don't think anybody in Australia will be interested in banning the burqa for all the reasons enunciated here - me included frankly - until one day, someone uses one to blow up himself, along with a bunch of innocent bystanders - in Australia (rather than say, Pakistan - where it has already happened). Then, but only then (and I hope it is never), will we change our minds on this subject.
It seems as though it only becomes a problem, when it bothers and affects us.
It may surprise some people (I say some, because I think the vast majority of society would agree on this issue,) that if Islamic women were being effected about this we would hear about it. It's head wear over the face, the mouth or a persons opinion is not removed.
Frankly, if someone wants to commit explosive suicide in a public venue, there are hundreds of ways of doing so, none of which are overly abetted by wearing a burqa. I wear a large trenchcoat and carry a medium sized backpack through the city on most winter days. Either could conceal a sizeable quantity of explosive. If I wanted to conceal my identity, I'd just stick a floppy hat on my head. I don't see how dressing in a garment that - in Australian society - actively draws attention to you as being different acts as an enabler of terrorist activity.
This is particularly relevant to the protection of public installations such as railway stations and train lines, or preventing people from escaping arrest.
Yassim Omar, who attempted to bomb a Tube train in London on 21 July 2005, used a burqa to try to escape - fortunately for the Metropolitan Police and the British public, his choice of disguise didn't match his tall male frame and he was identified.
It is also worth bearing in mind that had the July 7 bombers been disguised in burqas, they might never have been identified, and the numerous persons who have been charged with assisting them might not have been arrested.
Seeing as though the use of a burqa disguise has become a "modus operandi" for men wishing to commit acts of mass-murder in the Islamic world, it wouldn't hurt to discuss this issue on a slightly less frivolous level.
There are a lot of things that a terrorist might do to avoid being identified. To single the burqa out suggests an ulterior motive, perhaps...oh, I don't know...racism?
A modus operandi eh? Ordinarily it takes more than one example to become a modus operandi. And if you can't enjoy a bit of frivolity when discussing the the Rev. Dr Jensen in a burqa, when can you?
Jensen's next post: Bring me my cassock!
It would be very interesting to reflect on how dissimilarly modern western women (including most Christians) dress compared with Middle Eastern women from the New Testament period. The Burqa may be more similar to what was seen as normal back then than we care to acknowledge.
Great point! And given some of the straw-man arguments Nile has used against climate science, I wouldn't put using this to attract the Pauline Hanson element.
Only taboo in some places.
JB
Damn!... Busted! I thought that if I avoided the white hood and burning cross, I'd get away with it, but I can see you are too smart for the likes of me, Christopher.
On the subject of "playing the race card" - "Senior Black Correspondent" Larry Wilmore must be allowed the last word: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
P.S. as to modus operandi, you don't need to be particularly skilled at using google to find examples of this: The UK Independent Newspaper - not usually associated with the rabble-rousing right, has reported the deaths of 22 people by terrrorists disguised in this way only last month; and then of course there is the 41 people killed in a marketplace in Pakistan in April this year.
um. maybe not.
You aren't making much of a point. Female suicide bombers in Muslim countries (and those trying to pass as female) wear the burqa because it is a common form of dress. In Australia you would just stick the bomb in a backpack and it would be just as inconspicuous.
There are plenty of methods that criminals can use to try and disguise their faces (hoodies, baseball cap, glasses etc). We shouldn't ban them because they can be misused.
The reality is that there is no way to prevent a committed group of people carrying out acts of terrorism without turning a country into a prison. The solution to terrorism is to fix the socio-economic conditions that allow radicals to get support.
With respect, Mark, there's a fair bit going on in this discussion, so I wouldn't take it too personally that your questions haven't been answered. Happens to the best of us!
Also, I think your questions have some similarities to comments, and thus they may have been falsely identified as such. They were also at least somewhat confusing. But I'll give it a crack...
Your first question
There is a law banning public nudity. See section 5 of the Summary Offences Act.
Likewise, I seem to recall from a past life (criminal lawyers, police prosecutors feel free to jump in) that the wearing of certain articles of clothing have been deemed to constitute offensive conduct under section 4. So I guess there might exist a scenario, under the current law, in which a court deems that the wearing of a burka is offensive conduct. What Nile's bill does is remove the ability of the court to make that determination; a change which would be reasonable if there was a clear and present security concern.
Your second question
They are not the same at all. The current legislation requires the prosecution to prove that the conduct, not only occurred, but was also offensive. Under Nile's bill, the prosecution need only prove that the conduct occurred (i.e. that a person wore a full-face covering in public).
I was amused when you said,
I've regarded Nile's reasoning a curiosity for some time. He is a politician, not a theologian. We must, therefore, apologise (in every sense of the term, for Fred); defending God's character with Scripture's testimony.
He gives us free will; rather than legislating Christian standards, we should live out Eph 2:8-10 and prove God's ways work, so that more people CHOOSE to follow Jesus. We must challenge the CDP's unbiblical misrepresentation of God, and remind Fred that people's salvation is at stake.
Glad to see it's starting to happen, through voices that get the airplay (personally could have done with your backup in this forum during the last 2 elections)!
We must also remind Tony Abbott and those who will vote for him "because he is not an atheist", through Scripture, that God hates hypocritical religiosity. We must see Julia Gillard through Jesus' eyes, and pray He'll prove His existence to her, through a "road to the Lodge" epiphany, or through Christians loving her as He does.
A lot of my class mates at college were thinking along the same lines and were asking me why noone had answered the question.
That's a very significant distinction.
Again, thankyou.
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007sep01_alp.html
Christians have to realise that they can grovel to the secular left as much as they want, but the secular left will never respect or support them. The conversion never happens.
At least Fred Nile has the courage of his convictions and I will be voting for the CDP in the Senate.
Mark 10:26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"
27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." cf Luke 18.
If Jesus can transform Paul, the Jewish hit man, for his purposes (ie the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles), then I'm convinced there is hope here for Julia, the atheist and pro-abortionist, to be transformed if God should choose to prove His existence to her.
I don't believe I'm grovelling, nor do I care if I have any person's respect or support [though it is nice to know my views are not abhorrent to those wiser than I (see "World View" section in August 2010 Southern Cross)]. In fact, I'm reminded in the Scriptures that support is probably the last thing I'll get if I stand for Christ.
My conviction, however, is that there is something terribly amiss (ie Christ Himself) in the CDP's policies, and the courage of my conviction dictates that I need to point that out, for if I don't, I sin against my conscience. I pray that my convictions are honouring to God, and I try to allow God's Spirit to form my world view, through Scripture.
It is, most respectfully, just incomprehensible to me why in an election any Christian would attack a Christian party, while simultaneously pursuing a vain hope that the "withered fig tree" of Green-Left politics could become hospitable ... Our yes should be yes and our no should be no. (Your email reminds me that the low church has a naivete when it comes to embracing politicians, ever since the early puritans first promoted the ruthless regicidal tyrant Cromwell!)
In all seriousness, Christians should not be divided against ourselves out of some naive belief that Julia Gillard - a product of EMILY's LIST and the secular left - can be converted by Christians who pillory each other. The Christian Left in America did everything for candidate Obama and President Obama then sold them out on abortion, gay marriage and appointing pro-abortion judges. How many times do political Christians need to have their principles undermined before the fight back and resist?
I fear Christians are again supporting an opponent in the hope of converting her ...
Godfrey
can you please explain what the "low church" is please?
While you're at it, could you also explain what a "Christian party" is? The very concept is a non sequitur. Two examples:
The Christian position on abortion is pretty self-evident, but the Christian political position is not so. I think abortion is wrong in every circumstance, and some politicians probably do too, but they have to work within the system. If the CDP (et al) were consistent in its Christian-ness, they would have nothing to do with a system that allows the frequent and indiscriminate slaughter of babies; it would always vote against any bill that allows the government to collect revenue, knowing that it would be used to fund abortions and the hospitals which provide them. As it happens, apart from their rhetoric, the CDP is only as consistent as any other Liberal, National or Labour politician who, for whatever reason, opposes abortion.
The 2nd example has to do with housing development on the North Shore (I choose this state issue because we're talking about Nile, and because it is certainly a live in my part of the world, but one could use any number of state, Federal or local issues). But what I want to know is, what is the Christian position on housing development? The Bible speaks very clearly on abortion, but it doesn't as clearly articulate God's will when it comes to unit blocks in Lindfield. The CDP has become a Christian-issue party, rather than part of a responsible legislature fit to wield the sword of secular government.
Godfrey, just wondering whether you will be voting above the line or below it?
Because if you vote above the line for the CDP, it is almost certain you will actually be electing the National's Fiona Nash who is pro-choice on abortion.
I only mention this cause of your comments about Emily's List.
Ron Bennett: Low Church is a well-known term, which refers to the more Protestantised form of Anglicanism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_church
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09399a.htm
I do not mean it in any critical manner at all. I am more Anglo-Catholic (as anyone named Saint probably would be!) but am respectful of differences on the "all can, some do, none must" principle. I am voting CDP which, I think, is based on some form of Presbyterian or perhaps even Catholic bases. I admire Rev. Nile's forthright views and believe he does a good job of speaking for many Christians who are shut out of major parties.
Christopher Ashton: A Christian party is simply a party that derives its stance on issues from Christianity. I have no super definition to offer. Clearly there is room for respectful differences in some areas. But I do not think abortion, gay marriage etc are those areas. Frankly, more Christian "leaders" should be doing what Cardinal Pell did and attacking the Greens for the anti-Christian party they really are, in which the environment is a figleaf (pardon the pun).
Jeremy: I am voting CDP in the Senate above the line. I did not know Fiona Nash was pro-abortion but, then again, she is not running for PM and her low profile suggests her influence is limited, cf Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon.
I hope this answers all questions.
Just ensuring you are properly informed Godfrey.
You can check Nash's voting record here. In short, she voted for human cloning and the abortion drug RU486.
Jeremy: also I should say that I very much enjoy your balanced and well-researched articles. Sorry if that compliment to your professionalism is off-topic but while many here criticise, some praise was also due. This is an excellent forum for both agreement and polite disagreement. Long may it continue.
How many chiristians sitting in churches have any for m of contact with muslim women either hijhab or burqa wearing women. How many of us christians can honsestly say we understand the real issue and danger the burqa poses to the face of Australia, beyond the superficial of what some regard as mere culture. The bleeding heart civil libertarians both christian and non chritian would have us believe that it should be up to the woman. That I as a woman should ignore women who have been oppressed suppressed and regarding as sex objects - Now its a given not all women of the middle east are treated as so...But many are, and many worse yet don't know they are being treated with less dignity than they deserve.
forgive my long dialogue however I am very passionate about the issue affecting many women whom I as a christian say I will show love to.... consider the following The sexualistion and separation of women by Islamic men in an effort to divide and conquer putting women into one of two baskets either they are good or bad..
Think it can’t happen here? Read the following http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.
The sexualistion and separation of women by Islamic men in an effort to divide and conquer putting women into one of two baskets either they are good or bad..
Think it can’t happen here? Read the following http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm
The burqa, the full covering head to toe, prevents women from driving safely, prevents them from accessing as such is available to other Australian men and women...They are totally reliant upon their men to get them from A –B.
Talk with the womens resource centres who deal with muslim women oppressed...and they aren't even wearing a burqa just a head scarf…
Want to talk of womens rights? Then start addressing the very issue that threatens all womens rights down the track…
Food for thought? Start digesting the lifestyle that some of these women actually live there and now here….
And can this happen here? http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/in-milan-protests-against-the-burqa-politician-la-santanchè-socked-in-the-face-by-muslim.html
Are we so afraid to actually stand up and say we hate all false Gods and false religions?
When women like myself who have been spat on by a middle eastern man I dared to stand up to when he was loudly commenting on women passing by at a local shopping centre - for my trouble tests several times for communicable disease, and coughed on in another incident whilst exiting a white goods store - again I acted boldly against these middle eastern men only one was shamed enough to apologise for his mate when I told him such a disgusting act against a God fearing woman was dispicable and against the faith of God, he ashamed of his mate continued to apologise whilst his mate continued his defiant judgment of a modestly dressed woman in Australia...people need to understand how and why the burqa came into prominence in the middle east and how it is used by the taliban and what is being preached and fear that is instilled into muslim women on Australian soil
I am not going to sit back and pretend they are representing Biblical Christianity when I don't believe they are. Mr Nile may have "courage of convictions", but I am convinced he is misrepresenting Christ through his policies. I don't believe I am being naive when I say this, based on a comparison between their policies, their propaganda, and God's Word.
Christianity cannot stand (to use your language in the argument. Actually, God is Sovereign, and His Kingdom is indestructable) if we allow the Gospel to become denatured, by not contradicting those who claim to represent Christ, but do not.