Hugo…

This post is a voicing of ideas I was reminded of when the website of The Australian posted a poll regarding politics in Australian religion. This is a crucial ideal that is misrepresented by virtually all concerned. “Should Christian values influence Australia’s political agenda?”

Hell No. Someone justify to me why it should.

Christians will say “It’s obvious, do you want good or evil to influence politics?” Everyone always focuses on the bible as being a guide book to leading a good and wholesome life. That notion is utter BS. Everyone has allowed biased massaging of the text in the bible for long enough!

Let’s start by looking at some of the presiding morals and themes in the first half of the bible;

• it starts with a woman being blamed for cheating a man out of eternal life in paradise. She is vilified, sexism is born and she is told her kind will now endure pain for her transgressions.
• a predisposed group of people determined only by race (and one in which you can’t join unless by blood) is told that god will kill anyone who opposes them on their quest to a promised land.
• gays are vilified for no reason. Don’t even think of trying to say that marriage between a man and a woman is the way it always was. It was only the rich who married up until several centuries ago (and then it was only for asset consolidation). It was the Catholic church who wanted more control over peasants lives and thus decreed that marriages were to take place in churches. “In Catholicism, the Council of Trent made the validity of marriage dependent upon its being performed before a priest and two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, “The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.”^[10] Marriage has changed throughout the history of Europe, in the 1200’s in England it was unlawful for a woman younger than 24 years to marry but this changed in the beginning of the 1500’s to 20 years of age.^[11]” And Anglicans know very well that their church only exists because King Henry VIII wanted an annulment (numerous times).
• slavery was considered the norm and the bible says that slaves were to respect their masters.

Now the second half. I know what you’ll say, “the new testament is the only one that counts, jesus wiped the slate clean”;

• we are talking about politics here so I think it highly irresponsible to follow the teachings of a man (if he even existed) who often and blatantly went against the established authorities of the day. Evangelicals love to think they are “out there, free thinkers” and often say that jesus was a rebel.
• this ends with all people not in the club dying a horrible death and being tortured for all eternity - even babies and those not exposed to the “gospel” (yes, yes “he reveals himself in the majesty of the world” - bollocks) And don’t say that god is just and babies will be given grace because it’s very insistent on the fact that everyone is born a sinner (otherwise jesus would have been pointless).
• THE BIGGEST AND SCARIEST POINT THOUGH IS THAT “WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT THE COUNTRY LEAD BY SOMEONE WHO THINKS THE WORLD IS TEMPORARY AND LIKELY TO END VERY SOON?????????? IT BAEGGARS BELIEF THAT SOMEONE WITH THIS MINDSET WOULD NOT BE COUNCELED AND POSSIBLLY PUT ON MEDICATION - LET ALONE ALLOWED INTO PARLIAMENT. THEY SHOULD ALL BE RUN OUT OF CANBERRA WITH DUNCE HATS ON THEIR HEADS.

You might now say “Well what better source is there from which to get our values and ideals, etc.” Look around I say, broaden your horizons. The “good” ideals in the bible spring up in almost all religions (monotheistic or otherwise) and have been around a lot longer than the bible. By these I mean the “do unto others…” stuff.

There is scientific reason for behaving in “good” way towards others and without religion we would not all be killing each other. All these “for the common good” and “treat others kindly” notions are so obviously part of tribal living so that it could function as one unit and survive longer than other tribes or wildlife. Read some Richard Dawkins. We see it today in many facets. Sport is only enjoyable for the competition and in many things we continually side ourselves into smaller and smaller niches. To feel a sense of belonging - in rubgy, a NSW fan will hug a Queensland fan while the Wallabies are playing and then stab him in the back when state plays state. It’s survival and selfishness.

We look for science for the latest medical advances why not look the ethicists for the latest on the ethics frontier. Let’s pay the great forward-looking thinkers the respect they deserve. The philosophers, futurists, physicists, ethicists, etc.

Anyway have a think about it for yourself and hit me up on all the points so I’m forced to back everything up.

Then take this quick poll here. *edit: the poll is no longer available and i can’t find the results*

(wow a whole post with no youtube video… I must be passionate about this)