Comments on: Churches today, political parties tomorrow

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:02:26 +0000

Sadly society needs these groups. We need to see where the rightards reside. Keep your friends close but keep societies enemies in your sights.

By: Julius

Julius — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:46:54 +0000

Thank goodness Charles that you still have the stamina to keep up the warnings that regrettably every generaton needs to hear repeated about trusting governments with too much power (trusting anyone with a lot of power is problematic of course). Otherwise the young articulate person, or just someone who has thought about public affairs for the first time, will come up with a bright idea and immediately decide that something must be done and of course done by the most powerful agent of deliberate and planned change, namely government. Well they will do that but they need then to come across the antidote warnings and be made to consider the implications of that attitud. You have made a contribution to the likelihood of that occurring.

By: Gail Tuft

Gail Tuft — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:01:49 +0000

There’s no good reason why the churches can’t be treated in the same way as the rest of the society. They are part of society and claim all the benefits of being an established part of society. If there are instances where they take a stance on an issue, let’s hear their arguments out in the open and subject to public scrutiny, not assumed as being valid just because they claim religious status.

Why should the Westboro Baptist Church not be subject to the same laws as other people. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25067362-2,00.html

By: Mark Duffett

Mark Duffett — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:45:55 +0000

“”whether the law should require [churches] to employ people who are indifferent or hostile to their religion in their schools.” But that is largely a red herring. No one seriously suggests that churches should have to employ atheist priests”

Eh? Surely the question Costello is getting at is whether church schools should have to employ atheist teachers. For mine the answer is a clear ‘no’, which is why the exemption should stay.

By: Jim Reiher

Jim Reiher — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:42:52 +0000

I would suggest it is not hard to see why some black folk might want to join the BNP.

The gutsy ones might decide to do so, in order to cause discord and help undermine it. Others might join it in the hope of helping to change it. They might join it to spread their message of tolerance and equality and anti-racism. They might have an agenda to win individuals from out of it. (And good on them for their ideals!)

But if you really don’t want to support the British government acting to allow that (and that seems to be the direction the article takes at the end) then you would need to hold a consistent position here in Australia.

To be wary of the British and suggest they are making a mistake in fighting the racism of the BNP, but then to want religious institutions to be forced by government to employ non-religious people, is inconsistent.

Would such a person seriously suggest that the only reason people would test that law in Australia when it is passed is “because a job is a job”? Would no one try to get jobs in those religious institutions in Australia, for any of the reasons I have just outlined above for black British citizens joining the BNP?

Let’s either support both, or reject both. But I don’t think you have found a good enough distinction to support one but reject the other. Govenrment power; dangerous precendets … if you wont use these arguments in the Australian context… why use them in the British context?