In regards to “Hate Crimes” laws which are currently under review at this stage until september in Victoria. With the recommendation that “harassment be defined as ‘conduct that offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person”. I’ve signed a petition, if anyone is interested here’s a link:
www.ipetitions.com/petition/mccnphatecrimesreview/

More info at salt shakers also (you’ll need to scroll down the page for the information)
www.saltshakers.org.au/take-action/campaigns

Keep up your good work Bill!!

Many Blessings,
Elisha McKenzie

Thanks and take care for now,

Sam Hol

“Gays are entitled to the same protection of the law as any other human” sounds like ‘equality’ to me. But my apologies for using it like a direct quote – I should’ve framed it as a summation, which I think is fair and hardly a “straw man”. You clearly think there is something unequal about the current situation, otherwise you would never have used that phrase.

FYI, my workplace (23+ years) has a disproportionally high number of those who practice homosexuality – some of them have been my bosses or trained me on specific tasks. So what exactly is your point about having coffee? What we’re discussing here bears little relevance to everyday dealings with individual people but about radical agendas to fundamentally change societal norms for everybody. This is not mutually exclusive with treating people with “respect” or “human dignity”, btw – why would you think it is?

1. My point with Chris is that it is people with his level of motivation who will beat down the authorities until they get their way. It’s already happened many times throughout the world in recent decades. Of course I agree, blog posts matter little, but unfortunately activists don’t stop with blogs. My problem is that you seem to be OK about people with that level of motivation and vacuous argumentation influencing the direction of politics unchallenged, regardless of the fact that it will kill people. You appear more concerned with being “moderate”. I don’t think that’s anything to display “proudly”.

2. You’ve missed the point. (But then maybe I wasn’t being clear enough.) I wasn’t thinking of party affiliation or specific politics (you seem to be stuck on that more than me), merely the fact that because of their faith they were prepared to rock the boat, something you seem to be at pains to avoid because that would somehow “cause divisions” or not be “moderate”. I could care less about being “politically conservative” as much as I care about being faithful to God. You seem to care more what other people think. I’m simply pointing out that that’s not the pattern of major biblical figures and is indeed usually a very important factor in why they became ‘major biblical figures’.

3. How “complex” is it to advocate those simple principles that save lives, Sam? Just where are coming from and why are you muddying the waters like this? Homosexuality often kills. Even more often it causes sickness. It is always infertile. That’s not complicated. Contrary to you, I think that that information would “solve” plenty and I don’t see how this would infringe upon freedom of speech or freedom of conscience to make it more widely known to the world. It is, after all, just truth. I just don’t see how your approach is going to do anything else but allow those with darkened consciences go about their business without being challenged or stopped.

Also, I find your outrage at the situation in Africa in regards to AIDS a bit odd. I have a somewhat different view. For example, there’s more than enough evidence now to condemn the ‘condoms and education’ idea as a failure and the moral-based programs such as the ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, or for those who refuse to do either, use Condoms) one in Uganda as much more successful. What do you think Western churches are more likely to be supporting? I can remember the unhinged response at the Pope last year for daring to question the prevailing secular mindset about Africa even though what he was saying just sounded like common sense. I would agree of course there’s always more that can be done, but I get the very strong impression that you should check your sources more carefully.

FYI, I don’t actually belong to any political party because I don’t think I am called to do that. Others here have a different view and I respect that some of that has to do with personal calling too. So you’re just making assumptions about my “earthly political preferences” and quite possibly many others here. But I do think that there is a minimum that any Christian should be prepared to do – to speak up from biblical principles, even if it is viewed as unpopular. Furthermore, it’s clear some parties more closely resemble Christian ideas than others. One only needs to look at the list of Australian Greens policies detailed as Principles, Goals and Measures (check Bill’s recent post) to see how far removed they are from Christianity.

It seems to me that you think your position allows you to maintain the status quo of society because you think the ‘moderates’ won’t allow big changes if they are tabled. Allow me to point you to the 2008 Victorian Abortion Bill where 90% of submissions to the VLRC pleaded against it. What did we get? – only a minor detail less than open slather where the unborn are unprotected by law for the full 9 months. Pardon me if I don’t think much of the likely future success of your approach.

And your point about disagreeing with Dobson making you a “heretic” is just pure theatre – I never said anything of the kind, neither did anybody else here. I merely point out that it was you who used him as an example of someone prone to be “extreme”, something quite unjustified given that so much of his work is informed by Christianity. God has already made “the call” on many issues (including homosexuality) – so the standard any Christian should employ here is to see how closely what Dobson says conforms to what the Bible says, not caring so much whether something makes you uncomfortable. All that’s being pointed out here is that you appear to be using the wrong yardstick.

Finally, your last comment deserves a mention concerning the right to reply. Your tactic seems to be a Head you win (I don’t reply so you get last comment), Tails I lose (I do reply, but you’ve gone) proposition. This is not a proper way to conduct oneself in my view. My two cents. I would usually read what you wrote even if I didn’t reply. It wouldn’t bother me if you change your mind and reply this time either, btw. But thanks for the challenging discourse.

Mark Rabich

Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

As for facts about homosexuality: www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=pUzt8U7HQrQ

David Skinner, UK

But because you asked me, Mark:
1. Chris and his modus operandi? You mean his missives on internet forums? Hateful trolling is not restricted to people on his side of the debate. I don’t intend to compete with any of these people on their terms. Forgive me for my lack of moral outrage but I’m not going to burn with righteous anger every time I see a bit of hateful scrawling on a lavatory wall.
2. That’s really begging the question – you might as well ask how many would call themselves “politically conservative”? Such political labels are thoroughly contextual to a time and place as they relate to policy and ideology with respect to the broader body of thought. They are not measures of faith or their relationships with God, which are more what you’re referring to in reference to these characters. I prefer to look at these characters’ faith, lives and decisions for inspiration. It would be interesting to talk about how we would define these characters’ political postures in the context of their day but to be dogmatic about it is dangerous and pure isogesis.
3. In relation to matters you’ve raised – HIV, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience are all important issues. Again, forgive me for not having a hot head about it as I think they’re very complex issues and I don’t think that is going to solve anything. On one thing though, am I outraged at the western church’s lukewarm response to the millions of Africans that die of AIDS each year – be it as a result of homosexual or heterosexual sex ? You bet.

On your last point – I agree: truth is more important than politics. But somehow I doubt such a principle will cause anyone here to abandon their earthly political preferences in a hurry. The thing is there seems to be a lot of assumptions made about my Christian beliefs based purely on political preferences.
Which leads me to address Jane Petridge’s point: I do disagree with many of James Dobson’s approaches to policy. If you think disagreeing with him makes me a heretic or brings into question whether I or others are Christians then you’ve only proven my point. How about letting God make the call on that?

Ok, you’ll be pleased to know that I’m getting a bit weary of this thread. Feel free to have as many last words as you wish, I’ll be quietly shifting my attention elsewhere.

Goodnight,

Sam Hol

1. Whose voice will be heard by politicians if extremists like Chris follow their modus operandi and you follow yours?

2. Please name for me those major figures in Biblical history that were ‘politically moderate’ like you. Because when I think of guys like Moses, Jeremiah, David, Daniel, John The Baptist, Paul and others, it seems to me they caused a great deal of upheaval during their time. The phrase “proudly Christian (or Israelite) and proudly politically moderate” is one I simply can’t imagine being said by them. I would rather have them as my role models, wouldn’t you?

3. When the ‘gay’ agenda (ie. ‘marriage’, teaching children about homosexual acts, donating blood, etc.) gets forced upon people by lawmakers, should Christians get involved before it gets that far that they get fined, lose their jobs or thrown into jail? You can lookup Ake Green, David Parker and Peter Vadala for starters. And where is your outrage about the possibility of blood transfusions having their safety diminished?

In your first post you mentioned ‘equality’ as if that had not yet been reached. That tells me all I need to know. It’s pretty obvious your desire of appearing politically sophisticated is being used against you and you have discarded truth in this issue as any compass worthy of heeding. And what would happen if I were to detail for you the risks of homosexual sex for transmission of HIV compared to normal sex? Is that ‘cringe’worthy enough for you? I get the impression all somebody needs to do is make the truth unpopular and you will ‘moderate’ your view. That’s lame. People will die, don’t you care?

If I may rephrase your last words: Don’t talk down the truth. It is what it is without regard to politics and will determine a lot more than just election results, but actually affect people’s lives greatly. What is more important?

Mark Rabich

“I know plenty of conservative Christians who privately cringe when they hear some of the extreme things that have been said by the likes of James Dobson et al or perhaps some things written on this blog…”

Sorry, but I need to correct you on this. People like James Dobson are preaching true to the Christian/Catholic faith. The ‘conservatives Christians” you speak of are actually “Christians” who do not essentially follow Christian teaching on this matter. If so, they would not be reacting in such a manner. They have to struggle with their own conscience on this one.

I detest any form of sexual sin and homosexuality just happens to be one of them. It is, to be straightforward, sickening and physically harmful behaviour.

Not once has any blogger on this site who is prepared to praise homosexuality yet addressed the issue of the medical risks regarding homosexuality.

I assure you, I would fear for my health if I were dabbling in ‘homosexual sex’.

Jane Petridge