Leading up to the 2016 federal election what is the best Aussie party?

I think safe schools needed some tweaking, but as an anti-bullying initiative it was really important. I think the balance we've found where it still exists but has been slightly modified is not a bad thing.

But yes, accountability is always good.

Paidiske said:

I think safe schools needed some tweaking, but as an anti-bullying initiative it was really important. I think the balance we've found where it still exists but has been slightly modified is not a bad thing.

But yes, accountability is always good.

Click to expand...

Some involved with it have had questionable views in other organisations. That as you say needs accountability.
All christian teachers I know think it is a great program.

ken777 said:

Glad to know you think I am the problem with discussion around politics. TBH I think it is your long rambling posts. Anyhow, those who prayed for a LNP win have had their prayers answered.

Click to expand...

Well it is a problem when you make assumptions about others out of ignorance. You refuse to discuss anything and then wonder why it turns into the farce that it is.

It is a problem when you want to suggest complex matters are actually very simple.
What I provided was detailed information on various issues and you just call it rambling. In other words you have no interest in the actual issues but want to just blindly support one party for who knows what reason since their policies and actions go against the bible.

ken777 said:

Even the ALP has one or two sensible people!

Click to expand...

This comment shows you have no clue as to how it works. If a party decides on a policy then its members are expected to vote according to the decision made by the party even if they disagree with it. So it doesn't matter if there are what you call "sensible" people in the labor party they still won't support it just like there were those in the coalition who disagreed with policies but supported it in parliamentary vote.

Me I have personal reasons to oppose this program, as I used to be a practicing homosexual. I was out and out of the closet. I hear stories of live gets better when you embrace your sexuality and it gets better but for me it was not necessary the case. In addition embracing my sexuality did not make my life better. I would support the safe school program if they included the downsides of the gay lifestyle and people who have left the homosexual lifestyle. Also have people who have become transgender and have eventually lived to regret their choice. Of course I was bullied in school because there were people who believed I was gay but I was not out then. Yet even so safe school programs are not the answer.

Of course there should be anti bullying campaigns and the school should have zero tolerance of bullying even in regards to sexuality.

dude99 said:

I agree with him is the safe school scheme and like to see it go. Even so I very much disagree on the liberals on the plebiscite on marriage equality and it is such a waste of money with a cost of over $100 million and that money be much better spent on the elderly, homeless and other disadvantaged sectors of society. Also there is an element of people that have a hatred for gay people and it give them much more publicity if a plebiscite is ever held.

It is rather strange that Cory Bernadi is opposed to multiculturalism even though he is of Italian heritage Anyway it is good to see that the Liberals have less power in government and will have more accountability to other parties.

Click to expand...

The plebiscite on ssm is important so that the argument for religious freedom can be put to the public. The consequences of legalizing ssm will be that Christian business owners will be subject to prosecution if they decline to participate in a ss wedding. Caterers, florists, photographers, etc have been successfully prosecuted in the US.

My SIL supplements her pension by making & decorating special occasion cakes - if she places a small ad in the local paper or places a sign in her front yard advertising her services, she will open herself up to prosecution if a ss couple ask her to provide a cake. She holds traditional Christian beliefs and could not provide a cake for a ss wedding.

My daughter plays in a string quartet that plays at functions including weddings - she also will be subject to prosecution if she declines to play at a ss wedding. Christians do not have the option of lying and making an excuse for not participating in a ss wedding other than their beliefs.

The question is not whether ssm will be legalized - that is a foregone conclusion - but how much religious freedom in Australia will be protected. We have already seen a Greens political candidate lodge a complaint against Archbishop Porteous in Tasmania because of a pamphlet distributed to students of Catholic schools outlining the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage.


...

TheDag said:

Well it is a problem when you make assumptions about others out of ignorance. You refuse to discuss anything and then wonder why it turns into the farce that it is.

Click to expand...

I just find your manner of communication ungracious so its better we ignore each other.

ken777 said:

The plebiscite on ssm is important so that the argument for religious freedom can be put to the public. The consequences of legalizing ssm will be that Christian business owners will be subject to prosecution if they decline to participate in a ss wedding. Caterers, florists, photographers, etc have been successfully prosecuted in the US.

My SIL supplements her pension by making & decorating special occasion cakes - if she places a small ad in the local paper or places a sign in her front yard advertising her services, she will open herself up to prosecution if a ss couple ask her to provide a cake. She holds traditional Christian beliefs and could not provide a cake for a ss wedding.

My daughter plays in a string quartet that plays at functions including weddings - she also will be subject to prosecution if she declines to play at a ss wedding. Christians do not have the option of lying and making an excuse for not participating in a ss wedding other than their beliefs.

The question is not whether ssm will be legalized - that is a foregone conclusion - but how much religious freedom in Australia will be protected. We have already seen a Greens political candidate lodge a complaint against Archbishop Porteous in Tasmania because of a pamphlet distributed to students of Catholic schools outlining the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage.

Click to expand...

I think that the argument that making a cake, or providing music, is "participation" in the marriage is ethically dubious.

Certainly it is important that the right of the churches to continue to decline any wedding they do not wish to solemnise (which we already have - and you don't see, for example, law suits against the Catholics for declining to marry divorced people), continue to be in place. That would be participation in the marriage. And we have been given assurances that this would remain so. (Personally, I'd like to go further and remove the legal element from any religious ceremony, and that would make the whole question much easier, but I'm not sure how popular that sort of French model would be here).

But to provide a cake, flowers, or what have you - that's not "participation" in the marriage. It's providing a service which in no way furthers or supports the marriage, and just as I wouldn't support the right of a bakery to refuse to sell an ordinary cake to a gay man, nor do I support the right of the bakery to refuse to sell a wedding cake; selling a cake in no way involves the baker in a sin. It's just a cake, and the occasion for which the cake is used is irrelevant.

Paidiske said:

I think that the argument that making a cake, or providing music, is "participation" in the marriage is ethically dubious.

Certainly it is important that the right of the churches to continue to decline any wedding they do not wish to solemnise (which we already have - and you don't see, for example, law suits against the Catholics for declining to marry divorced people), continue to be in place. That would be participation in the marriage. And we have been given assurances that this would remain so. (Personally, I'd like to go further and remove the legal element from any religious ceremony, and that would make the whole question much easier, but I'm not sure how popular that sort of French model would be here).

But to provide a cake, flowers, or what have you - that's not "participation" in the marriage. It's providing a service which in no way furthers or supports the marriage, and just as I wouldn't support the right of a bakery to refuse to sell an ordinary cake to a gay man, nor do I support the right of the bakery to refuse to sell a wedding cake; selling a cake in no way involves the baker in a sin. It's just a cake, and the occasion for which the cake is used is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

"It's just a cake" would certainly raise my SIL's eyebrows! She interviews the couple to find out their personal preferences and decorates the cake according to their requests. Some cakes are quite elaborate and require assembling by the maker at the reception site. The 'cutting of the cake' is a significant & symbolic part of most wedding celebrations.

But apart from that, what a person feels is violating their traditional Christian beliefs is really a matter for his/her individual conscience.

No Christian business I know of declines service to homosexual customers, though some would not provide service for specific events (eg, a caterer who refuses to cater for a football club that has strippers, or an organization similar to KKK).

It is interesting that in pre-Christian Rome, believers were mostly persecuted not because of their Christian faith but because they refused to attend the temple sacrifices.


...

ken777 said:

The plebiscite on ssm is important so that the argument for religious freedom can be put to the public. The consequences of legalizing ssm will be that Christian business owners will be subject to prosecution if they decline to participate in a ss wedding. Caterers, florists, photographers, etc have been successfully prosecuted in the US.

My SIL supplements her pension by making & decorating special occasion cakes - if she places a small ad in the local paper or places a sign in her front yard advertising her services, she will open herself up to prosecution if a ss couple ask her to provide a cake. She holds traditional Christian beliefs and could not provide a cake for a ss wedding.

My daughter plays in a string quartet that plays at functions including weddings - she also will be subject to prosecution if she declines to play at a ss wedding. Christians do not have the option of lying and making an excuse for not participating in a ss wedding other than their beliefs.

The question is not whether ssm will be legalized - that is a foregone conclusion - but how much religious freedom in Australia will be protected. We have already seen a Greens political candidate lodge a complaint against Archbishop Porteous in Tasmania because of a pamphlet distributed to students of Catholic schools outlining the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage.


...

Click to expand...

I still stand on disagreements on the plebiscite. Even if it be held, same sex marriage will pass just as it did in Ireland. It be like Ireland all over again. Also polls state a majority of people in Australia support same sex marriage, just like the polls in Ireland showed a majority of people supported gay marriage before the plebiscite.

If I had my view it would be the government to get out of the marriage business, and bring civil unions for couples no matter what sexuality if people wish to register their union to the ruling government authorities. Those that wish to be married can be married by a priest or minister. Yet it unlikely to happen.

With religious freedom, people still have an opportunity to share about Jesus Christ, and Christians are still free to share about him even in the business sphere even in the face of persection. Even so with persecution, it can result in Christianity growing. Infact the biggest growth of Christianity in this world is in regions where there is major persecutions of Christians such as Iran and China. Even during the first few centuries of Christianity, the persecution did bring a huge increase in number of people turning to Jesus Christ.

What ever happens God is in control. Governments are temporary, but God kingdom is eternal.

dude99 said:

I still stand on disagreements on the plebiscite. Even if it be held, same sex marriage will pass just as it did in Ireland. It be like Ireland all over again. Also polls state a majority of people in Australia support same sex marriage, just like the polls in Ireland showed a majority of people supported gay marriage before the plebiscite.

If I had my view it would be the government to get out of the marriage business, and bring civil unions for couples no matter what sexuality if people wish to register their union to the ruling government authorities. Those that wish to be married can be married by a priest or minister. Yet it unlikely to happen.

With religious freedom, people still have an opportunity to share about Jesus Christ, and Christians are still free to share about him even in the business sphere even in the face of persection. Even so with persecution, it can result in Christianity growing. Infact the biggest growth of Christianity in this world is in regions where there is major persecutions of Christians such as Iran and China. Even during the first few centuries of Christianity, the persecution did bring a huge increase in number of people turning to Jesus Christ.

What ever happens God is in control. Governments are temporary, but God kingdom is eternal.

Click to expand...

You make some good points.
Do you think the church has a role in trying to influence government policy?


...

ken777 said:

You make some good points.
Do you think the church has a role in trying to influence government policy?


...

Click to expand...

Society has changed and these days the church has a less influence in society than it did several decades ago due to the increased secularism in Australia. It still has a role of striving to influence government policies.It still has and will continue to strive to influence government policy. Even so these days, people in power can have a different worldview than a Christian one. Even those that are professing to be Christians can act in manners or bring about in laws that is offensive to a very large number of Christians. Another point is less Australians are identifying themselves as Christian and by the next census Christians may be a minority of the population.

dude99 said:

Society has changed and these days the church has a less influence in society than it did several decades ago due to the increased secularism in Australia. It still has a role of striving to influence government policies.It still has and will continue to strive to influence government policy. Even so these days, people in power can have a different worldview than a Christian one. Even those that are professing to be Christians can act in manners or bring about in laws that is offensive to a very large number of Christians. Another point is less Australians are identifying themselves as Christian and by the next census Christians may be a minority of the population.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the church still has a role of striving to influence government policies. I think the ssm plebiscite will give the church the opportunity to influence the outcome, especially as people are made aware of all the consequences. The Church will also be able to clearly enunciate their opposition to the emergence of any hateful voices.


...

I think there are at least two different approaches for the church to take in influencing government policy.

One is the approach which seeks to make a difference in justice issues and the like (environmental policy, refugee policy, decisions around armed conflict, and so forth). I see that as a legitimate and helpful approach.

The other is the approach which seeks to legislate Christian morality and impose it on non-Christians (marriage policy, contraception, censorship and so on). I see that as unhelpful; it doesn't actually bring a single non-Christian into relationship with God, but it does play into the idea of the church as controlling and adversarial.

Paidiske said:

I think there are at least two different approaches for the church to take in influencing government policy.

One is the approach which seeks to make a difference in justice issues and the like (environmental policy, refugee policy, decisions around armed conflict, and so forth). I see that as a legitimate and helpful approach.

The other is the approach which seeks to legislate Christian morality and impose it on non-Christians (marriage policy, contraception, censorship and so on). I see that as unhelpful; it doesn't actually bring a single non-Christian into relationship with God, but it does play into the idea of the church as controlling and adversarial.

Click to expand...

I think there is something to be said for your dichotomy.
However, I do not think it is wrong to contribute to shaping the sort of society that our children grow up in. The Church cannot make laws but arguments can be presented to our legislators as to why we support certain laws. I remember when capital punishment was abolished with the support of the Church.


...

ken777 said:

I agree with you that the church still has a role of striving to influence government policies. I think the ssm plebiscite will give the church the opportunity to influence the outcome, especially as people are made aware of all the consequences. The Church will also be able to clearly enunciate their opposition to the emergence of any hateful voices.


...

Click to expand...

Ireland had a plebiscite and striped away the religious freedom for Christians that opposed to same sex marriage not long after the plebiscite. Ireland has stripped away laws which protected the rights of people to freedom of religion when in conflict with gay rights. The move comes just weeks after the first Irish gay weddings went ahead, following a referendum to allow gay marriage earlier this year.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/...r-religious-freedom-in-wake-of-gay-marriage-v

Ireland after all has been up to recently been a more socially conservative country than Australia and where there is even more restrictions of abortions there still.

dude99 said:

Ireland had a plebiscite and striped away the religious freedom for Christians that opposed to same sex marriage not long after the plebiscite. Ireland has stripped away laws which protected the rights of people to freedom of religion when in conflict with gay rights. The move comes just weeks after the first Irish gay weddings went ahead, following a referendum to allow gay marriage earlier this year.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/...r-religious-freedom-in-wake-of-gay-marriage-v

Ireland after all has been up to recently been a more socially conservative country than Australia and where there is even more restrictions of abortions there still.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Signs of what lies ahead for us here.
Voting is not compulsory in Ireland and the referendum was passed by just over one third of the population because one third did not vote.
If the vote is made compulsory in Australia the result may be closer though I expect the Yes vote will prevail.


...

ken777 said:

I just find your manner of communication ungracious so its better we ignore each other.

Click to expand...

Fine but you should probably bear in mind that you basically told me I was talking gibberish. Do your actions reflect gracious communication? Having gone back through the whole thread I can see your aggressive and insulting responses started before I even first made a comment in this thread. My first comment that was ungracious was post #74 where I got fed up with your making assumptions about other peoples views (on this occasion also happened to be me). So perhaps check your behaviour as well and I will try to not retaliate in future.

dude99 said:

Society has changed and these days the church has a less influence in society than it did several decades ago due to the increased secularism in Australia. It still has a role of striving to influence government policies.It still has and will continue to strive to influence government policy. Even so these days, people in power can have a different worldview than a Christian one. Even those that are professing to be Christians can act in manners or bring about in laws that is offensive to a very large number of Christians. Another point is less Australians are identifying themselves as Christian and by the next census Christians may be a minority of the population.

Click to expand...

I think a big reason people don't like the church is that they are more than happy to tell others how they should live but are very poor at following biblical instruction which is to correct fellow believers in love when they are wrong. The church responded very slowly to child abuse. Some parts are still reluctant to take proper action by going against biblical teaching and instead talking about how they are following expert advice from the 50's or 60's which focused on the perp and didn't care about the victim at all. Why do the Salvos have such a great reputation and get into places that other groups (both christian & secular) can't?

Take a certain christian lobby group. You can look at their website and there are regular media releases about SSM. However you have to go back three years to find a statement on disadvantaged and struggling families. Even then that statement is just a link to a statement made by a different orgainsation. In reality what right does the church have to say anything? They have basically lost the right by their actions.

I am aware where there has been a lack of action of churches on child abuse. God will judge these people that have committed these crimes. If I had my way I think certain child abuse crimes should deserve the death penalty. I am aware many have turned against the church due to this.

I believe the Australian Christian Lobby is going a bit too far on SSA especially with the plesbite. I already agree that safe schools should be abolished and against gay marriage. Gay marriage will be legal soon and there are more important issues than gay marriage. Acting out in same sex attraction is no worse of a sin than someone looking at inappropriate contentography, or for a couple to have sex outside marriage or looking at someone lustfully.

All the wrongs in this world and even illness is caused by the sins originated by Adam and Eve. Only through Jesus Christ there can be truly healing in people of what ever pain someone been through even if they have been sexually abused by a priest.