Comments on: Faith, Leadership and Politics http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:52:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: david skinner http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-2/#comment-26237 david skinner Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:21:58 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-26237 Bill, re your suggestion that the Australian government ought to filter-out the internet in or order to protect children from porn. Maybe we can apply this idea to abortion laws; at present doctors are free to opt-out from carrying out abortions, but those days may well be numbered; my neighbour who is a doctor tells me she has no choice but to proscribe contraceptive pills etc for girls who are under the legal age of having sex. It has to be emphasised, I believe, to Marge that liberal, “democratic” laws are no longer liberal with regard to respecting freedom of conscience. Again this is a case of words retaining the old packaging but the goods within being of a totally different brand. Britain has seen the deletion of individual conscience and in its place the government has become the sole arbiter of morality. There is no filter-out clause for the Christian, with regard to conscience, only filter - in. WE ARE BEING COERCED TO ACT IMMORALY. This has already been rehearsed with Catholic adoption agencies having to shut down in America and the UK. Here is the story of a Christian magistrate being forced to resign for the same reason: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/26/ncare26.xml Very soon one Christian, voluntary organisation after another, along with those who receive charitable tax exemptions, will be forced to shut down because they will not conform to secular humanism. Marge, this is the face of Britain. Is this the freedom you really want ? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/14/nstones114.xml David Skinner, UK Bill, re your suggestion that the Australian government ought to filter-out the internet in or order to protect children from porn. Maybe we can apply this idea to abortion laws; at present doctors are free to opt-out from carrying out abortions, but those days may well be numbered; my neighbour who is a doctor tells me she has no choice but to proscribe contraceptive pills etc for girls who are under the legal age of having sex.

It has to be emphasised, I believe, to Marge that liberal, “democratic” laws are no longer liberal with regard to respecting freedom of conscience. Again this is a case of words retaining the old packaging but the goods within being of a totally different brand. Britain has seen the deletion of individual conscience and in its place the government has become the sole arbiter of morality. There is no filter-out clause for the Christian, with regard to conscience, only filter – in. WE ARE BEING COERCED TO ACT IMMORALY.

This has already been rehearsed with Catholic adoption agencies having to shut down in America and the UK. Here is the story of a Christian magistrate being forced to resign for the same reason: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/26/ncare26.xml

Very soon one Christian, voluntary organisation after another, along with those who receive charitable tax exemptions, will be forced to shut down because they will not conform to secular humanism.

Marge, this is the face of Britain. Is this the freedom you really want ? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/14/nstones114.xml

David Skinner, UK

]]> By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25747 Jonathan Sarfati Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:31:28 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25747 Tom Wise has a point. And it's exacerbated by WWJD, if this is not backed up by what He actually said and did! Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane Tom Wise has a point. And it’s exacerbated by WWJD, if this is not backed up by what He actually said and did!
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25730 Jonathan Sarfati Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:48:55 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25730 An old Russian joke from the Soviet era: - What happens if you introduce communism into the Sahara? - For he first 50 years - nothing. Then you'll have a shortage of sand. Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane An old Russian joke from the Soviet era:

- What happens if you introduce communism into the Sahara?
- For he first 50 years – nothing. Then you’ll have a shortage of sand.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Tom Wise http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25715 Tom Wise Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:29:13 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25715 Very interesting comments. After forty years of trying to persuade Christians to judge by the teachjing of Christ, I find that the majority don't understand what Christ really taught, and thus don't make deciasions which are in the best interests of our society. I fear that too many Christian leaders teach religion and not enough truth. Tom Wise Very interesting comments. After forty years of trying to persuade Christians to judge by the teachjing of Christ, I find that the majority don’t understand what Christ really taught, and thus don’t make deciasions which are in the best interests of our society. I fear that too many Christian leaders teach religion and not enough truth.
Tom Wise

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25602 Bill Muehlenberg Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:17:12 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25602 Thanks Bernard I speak briefly to this issue in my follow-up article, "More Public God-Loathing". Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Bernard
I speak briefly to this issue in my follow-up article, “More Public God-Loathing”.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25596 Ewan Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:39:00 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25596 Also there is the issue of public funding where political parties are paid by the tax payer for every primary vote received once the minimum threshold of 4% primary vote is attained. By giving a Christian minor party your first preference vote, you are denying the major parties the benefit of this rort. Ewan McDonald, Victoria. Also there is the issue of public funding where political parties are paid by the tax payer for every primary vote received once the minimum threshold of 4% primary vote is attained. By giving a Christian minor party your first preference vote, you are denying the major parties the benefit of this rort.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

]]> By: Bernard Tibbs http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25594 Bernard Tibbs Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:22:20 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25594 Dear Bill and Fellow Posters My earlier post stated that Howard and Rudd missed an historic opportunity! But are we not ourselves in the process of squandering a similar historic opportunity, by focussing principally in this Webblog on issues such as 'climate change' or 'internet porn', 'same sex marriage' or 'parenting issues', 'religious vilification' or 'humanitarian crisis in Iraq', rather than first making unequivocally clear affirmations on 'into whom' our 'Christian' faith is posited? Bill, near the end of your article I believe you were nailing to the mast what concerns me here: '... whether there was anything new or noteworthy or significant or specifically Christian that emerged from the two men is debatable.' 'Specifically Christian'!? Is this true of Rudd's 'personal faith'? Why is it PC for him to say words like these only, but not to posit that 'personal faith' unequivocally as being 'into the person and character of Christ’, for example as revealed by John, in Jesus' claims such as, 'I Am the Bread of Life ...', 'I Am the Good Shepherd ...', 'I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life ...', in the way Jesus enjoined Nicodemus to do? And what about Howard's PC in positing his faith as a politician in the principles of Jesus' Parables of ‘the Good Samaritan’ and ‘the Talents’? Even Gandhi or Shirley Maclaine, Mohammed or Marx, Dawkins or Rorty (died June 8, 2007) could do that! Does that make them or any of us 'specifically Christian'? By wrong focusses such as these, are we not as Judaeo-Christians allowing, by default, Howard and Rudd to leave wide open the door for Old-New Agers, Islamists, Communists, Humanists and Postmodernists to further undermine and destroy the clear Judaeo-Christian Biblical base of our Australian Constitution and way of life? With respect, such worldviews are parasitic on the Judaeo-Christian worldview and fundamentally destructive of it. None of them could have arisen unless God's Word in the Bible had been declared from of old, and our societies built upon them. But now, they, by building their positions on a denial of the Bible Truths of 'Who Jesus Is' are engaged in the age-long Cosmic Struggle of overthrowing that Word and all that is built upon Him. Why should they and we muffle our identity as Judaeo-Christians in PC terms such as Howard and Rudd have used, before scurrying away, discomfited and paralysed to 'boldly' declare how we are going to change the world? Should we not first 'boldly' position ourselves 'into Christ', before then 'humbly' formulating our policies for cooperating with Him in bringing salvation into all the areas of life under his Sovereign Lordship? John and Kevin, ‘quit you like men; be strong!’ (1 Cor. 16:13). Only then will you find that you have a majority of the electorate ‘truly’ following you. And in the democratic political process, is not our Triune God the quintessential Rightist, Centrist and Leftist, allowing us to debate and discover the political balance between ourselves ... as we keep looking to Him? I was emboldened to raise this broad perspective today from the insight of Adolphe Monod (1802-1856) in my daily prayer notes: 'LOOKING UNTO JESUS and not at our creeds, no matter how evangelical they may be. The faith (that) saves, which sanctifies, and (that) comforts, is not giving assent to the doctrine of salvation; it is being united to the person of the Saviour. "It is not enough," said Adolphe Monod, "to know about Jesus Christ, it is necessary to have Jesus Christ." To this one may add that no one truly knows Him, if he does not first possess Him. According to the profound saying of the beloved disciple, it is in the Life there is Light, and it is in Jesus there is Life (John 1:4).' What blessings would come from our parliaments if their leaders and our representatives, gave the priority for their electioneering and legislative programs to 'Who Jesus Is', and debating how his Person and Character addresses the current needs of our National and International Life, corporately and individually, and only then applying these insights to the policies that need to be promoted and supported at the ballot box?! Bernard Tibbs, Wollongong NSW. Dear Bill and Fellow Posters
My earlier post stated that Howard and Rudd missed an historic opportunity! But are we not ourselves in the process of squandering a similar historic opportunity, by focussing principally in this Webblog on issues such as ‘climate change’ or ‘internet porn’, ’same sex marriage’ or ‘parenting issues’, ‘religious vilification’ or ‘humanitarian crisis in Iraq’, rather than first making unequivocally clear affirmations on ‘into whom’ our ‘Christian’ faith is posited?

Bill, near the end of your article I believe you were nailing to the mast what concerns me here: ‘… whether there was anything new or noteworthy or significant or specifically Christian that emerged from the two men is debatable.’

‘Specifically Christian’!? Is this true of Rudd’s ‘personal faith’? Why is it PC for him to say words like these only, but not to posit that ‘personal faith’ unequivocally as being ‘into the person and character of Christ’, for example as revealed by John, in Jesus’ claims such as, ‘I Am the Bread of Life …’, ‘I Am the Good Shepherd …’, ‘I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life …’, in the way Jesus enjoined Nicodemus to do?

And what about Howard’s PC in positing his faith as a politician in the principles of Jesus’ Parables of ‘the Good Samaritan’ and ‘the Talents’? Even Gandhi or Shirley Maclaine, Mohammed or Marx, Dawkins or Rorty (died June 8, 2007) could do that! Does that make them or any of us ’specifically Christian’?

By wrong focusses such as these, are we not as Judaeo-Christians allowing, by default, Howard and Rudd to leave wide open the door for Old-New Agers, Islamists, Communists, Humanists and Postmodernists to further undermine and destroy the clear Judaeo-Christian Biblical base of our Australian Constitution and way of life?

With respect, such worldviews are parasitic on the Judaeo-Christian worldview and fundamentally destructive of it. None of them could have arisen unless God’s Word in the Bible had been declared from of old, and our societies built upon them. But now, they, by building their positions on a denial of the Bible Truths of ‘Who Jesus Is’ are engaged in the age-long Cosmic Struggle of overthrowing that Word and all that is built upon Him.

Why should they and we muffle our identity as Judaeo-Christians in PC terms such as Howard and Rudd have used, before scurrying away, discomfited and paralysed to ‘boldly’ declare how we are going to change the world? Should we not first ‘boldly’ position ourselves ‘into Christ’, before then ‘humbly’ formulating our policies for cooperating with Him in bringing salvation into all the areas of life under his Sovereign Lordship?

John and Kevin, ‘quit you like men; be strong!’ (1 Cor. 16:13). Only then will you find that you have a majority of the electorate ‘truly’ following you.

And in the democratic political process, is not our Triune God the quintessential Rightist, Centrist and Leftist, allowing us to debate and discover the political balance between ourselves … as we keep looking to Him?

I was emboldened to raise this broad perspective today from the insight of Adolphe Monod (1802-1856) in my daily prayer notes:
‘LOOKING UNTO JESUS and not at our creeds, no matter how evangelical they may be. The faith (that) saves, which sanctifies, and (that) comforts, is not giving assent to the doctrine of salvation; it is being united to the person of the Saviour. “It is not enough,” said Adolphe Monod, “to know about Jesus Christ, it is necessary to have Jesus Christ.” To this one may add that no one truly knows Him, if he does not first possess Him. According to the profound saying of the beloved disciple, it is in the Life there is Light, and it is in Jesus there is Life (John 1:4).’

What blessings would come from our parliaments if their leaders and our representatives, gave the priority for their electioneering and legislative programs to ‘Who Jesus Is’, and debating how his Person and Character addresses the current needs of our National and International Life, corporately and individually, and only then applying these insights to the policies that need to be promoted and supported at the ballot box?!

Bernard Tibbs, Wollongong NSW.

]]> By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25591 Jonathan Sarfati Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:14:50 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25591 Ewan is right. The stupidly named First Past the Post (stupid because there is no "post" as such. Well, a silly name is appropriate for a silly system) or more properly "plurality voting" has serious anomalies. The worst is that a popular position can attract a lot of candidates, which split the vote for this position, resulting in a candidate for a less popular position being elected. Our preferential voting system minimizes the effect of such "spoilers", and usually results in the most <i>preferred</i> candidate being elected. Most Americans to whom I've explained preferential voting agree that it is much better, and even the traditionalists can't come up with a rational reason to prefer plurality voting. The usual excuse is "too hard for the voters", but really, all a voter needs to do is be able to count to 10! And there is nothing difficult in deciding "I like D better than B" etc. Let the officials worry about what it all means. Those serious about voting for the Christian CDP or quasi-Christian FFP should mark them 1. If you put them behind the Coalition, it's unlikely they will be counted (hard to imagine that a CDP or FFP voter would want Labor since it's likely to bring the fascist and divisive anti-vilification leglislation). But if you put the Coalition next, then it is likely to count, so it won't be a wasted vote. And it will help the candidate recover his deposit. Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane Ewan is right. The stupidly named First Past the Post (stupid because there is no “post” as such. Well, a silly name is appropriate for a silly system) or more properly “plurality voting” has serious anomalies. The worst is that a popular position can attract a lot of candidates, which split the vote for this position, resulting in a candidate for a less popular position being elected.

Our preferential voting system minimizes the effect of such “spoilers”, and usually results in the most preferred candidate being elected. Most Americans to whom I’ve explained preferential voting agree that it is much better, and even the traditionalists can’t come up with a rational reason to prefer plurality voting.

The usual excuse is “too hard for the voters”, but really, all a voter needs to do is be able to count to 10! And there is nothing difficult in deciding “I like D better than B” etc. Let the officials worry about what it all means.

Those serious about voting for the Christian CDP or quasi-Christian FFP should mark them 1. If you put them behind the Coalition, it’s unlikely they will be counted (hard to imagine that a CDP or FFP voter would want Labor since it’s likely to bring the fascist and divisive anti-vilification leglislation). But if you put the Coalition next, then it is likely to count, so it won’t be a wasted vote. And it will help the candidate recover his deposit.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Andrew Kulikovsky http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25585 Andrew Kulikovsky Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:27:26 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25585 Rudd stated in his address that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. I knew this was a lie straight away because Rudd and the ALP were willing to support the invasion provided the UN Security Council gave them the go ahead. It now appears also that Rudd in fact sent a letter to Howard supporting the invasion and offering policy suggestions! http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22228212-952,00.html What a hypocrite Rudd is! Andrew Kulikovsky Rudd stated in his address that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. I knew this was a lie straight away because Rudd and the ALP were willing to support the invasion provided the UN Security Council gave them the go ahead.

It now appears also that Rudd in fact sent a letter to Howard supporting the invasion and offering policy suggestions!
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22228212-952,00.html

What a hypocrite Rudd is!

Andrew Kulikovsky

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-25543 Ewan Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:21:33 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/09/faith-leadership-and-politics/#comment-25543 There is quite a range of opinion within the CDP on the AGW issue, but from my own observations I think the skeptics are in the majority. In the FFP it appears the alarmists are in the majority since that party has had a pro Kyoto policy since before the last federal election. On the issue of economic policy Jonathan would be right in what he says but I think there is still a wide difference between CDP and FFP in this area. Ewan McDonald, Victoria. There is quite a range of opinion within the CDP on the AGW issue, but from my own observations I think the skeptics are in the majority. In the FFP it appears the alarmists are in the majority since that party has had a pro Kyoto policy since before the last federal election.

On the issue of economic policy Jonathan would be right in what he says but I think there is still a wide difference between CDP and FFP in this area.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

]]>