If you have true Faith, prepare to defend your rites

Today in The Australian

In a year best characterised as “plot by Dostoevsky, script by Groucho Marx”, it was perhaps fitting that the Senate celebrated Christmas by considering legislation that would have prevented Christian schools from teaching the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

About Henry Ergas

Henry Ergas AO is a columnist for The Australian. From 2009 to 2015 he was Senior Economic Adviser to Deloitte Australia and from 2009 to 2017 was Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong’s SMART Infrastructure Facility. He joined SMART and Deloitte after working as a consultant economist at NECG, CRA International and Concept Economics. Prior to that, he was an economist at the OECD in Paris from the late 1970s until the early 1990s. At the OECD, he headed the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Structural Adjustment (1984-1987), which concentrated on improving the efficiency of government policies in a wide range of areas, and was subsequently Counsellor for Structural Policy in the Economics Department. He has taught at a range of universities, undertaken a number of government inquiries and served as a Lay Member of the New Zealand High Court. In 2016, he was made an Officer in the Order of Australia.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to If you have true Faith, prepare to defend your rites

  1. Perhaps we need to go back to human sacrifice? Oh, we pretty much have with climate change initiatives, sacrificing people around the world with starvation, death from cold etc.

  2. Iampeter

    So much for immigrants coming to destroy our culture when you can read an article with a headline like this, it already feels like you’re in Syria.

    Anyway, the answer to governments regulating what schools can or can’t do is of course to get government out of the business of education, but people of “true faith” don’t have any arguments on that front.

    Which is unsurprising since the doctrine of Jesus Christ is socialism.

  3. withstand

    Agreed, get government out of the business of education. Unfortunatley, too many private and Christian schools have fallen for the state handouts – he who pays the piper …!

    Prevention of teaching of the doctrines of Jesus Christ is not going to happen. Anyone preventing anyone else from teaching the doctrines of Jesus Christ (at a minimum, the Gospel) will be repeating the failed lessons of history. Even the Sanhedrin in Jesus’ day were warned not to take on God but let events transpire; if it is from God, they were advised, then you will not be able to withstand it; if it is not from God then its impact will diminish.

  4. max

    Iampeter say:
    the doctrine of Jesus Christ is socialism.

    let see other view:

    The Bible mandates free market capitalism. It is anti-socialist.
    Gary North

    The essence of democratic socialism is this re-written version of God’s commandment: “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.”

    “Economic democracy” is the system whereby two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner.

    Christian socialists and defenders of economic planning by state bureaucrats deeply resent this interpretation of their ethical position. They resent it because it’s accurate.

    When Christianity adheres to the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces free market capitalism.

    On the other hand, when Christianity rejects the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces socialism or some politically run hybrid “middle way” between capitalism and socialism, where politicians and bureaucrats make the big decisions about how people’s wealth will be allocated. Economic growth then slows or is reversed. Always.

    Free market capitalism produces long-term economic growth. Socialism and middle-way economic interventionism by the state produce poverty and bureaucracy. If your goal is to keep poor people poor, generation after generation, you should promote socialism. But be sure to call it economic democracy in order to fool the voters.

    The Bible is an anti-socialist document. Socialist propagandists for over four centuries have claimed that the Bible teaches socialism, but we have yet to see a single Bible commentary written by a socialist. If the Bible teaches socialism, where is the expository evidence?

    When I say that the Bible mandates a moral and legal social order that inevitably produces free market capitalism, I have the evidence to back up my position. My critics — critics of capitalism — do not.

    The next time you hear someone say that the Bible teaches anything but free market capitalism, ask him or her which Bible commentary demonstrates this. You will get a blank stare followed by a lot of verbal tap-dancing about “the ultimate ethic of the Bible” or “the upholding of the poor in the Bible.” You will be given a lot of blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah is not a valid substitute for biblical exposition.

    Fact: There has never been an expository Bible commentary that shows that the Bible teaches anything other than free market capitalism.

    Beginning in April, 1973, I began writing a verse-by-verse commentary on the economics of the Bible. The first essay, on Genesis 1:26-28, appeared in the May, 1973 issue of the Chalcedon Report.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm

  5. calli

    It was obvious trolling, max.

    If a man will not work, let him not eat.

    Yep. Socialism.

  6. OldOzzie

    Henry,

    an excellent article – as I commented in the Forum earlier today

    watching the news together last night, my wife. who is definitely non-political, out of the blue made the comment that she really dislikes the way the Left and Politicians are attacking Catholics and Catholic Institutions

    Tony Abbot Warringah has 2 1st Preference Votes in our Family in the next Federal Election

    2 things stood out in your Article

    1. The reality is that religious freedom has never meant absolute licence. No one recognised that more clearly than John Locke, whose A Letter Concerning Toleration of 1685 shaped subsequent conceptions of religious freedom.

    Noting that it was “necessary above all to distinguish between the business of civil government and that of religion”, Locke argued that the state’s inescapable obligation was to ensure the security of its subjects.

    As a result, while the state could not intrude on the “worship of the heart which God demands”, the outward actions of the body were “subject to the discretion of the magistrate” in so far as their regulation was required to preserve the peace and involved matters “indifferent to (superior) law”.

    Religious freedom therefore conferred no right to injure others, engage in plainly abhorrent conduct or incite disorder.

    Preaching that infidels were doomed to eternal damnation was consequently permissible. There could, however, be no justification for preaching that they should be summarily dispatched to their fate.

    and

    2. Seen in that perspective, any legislation that forces people of faith to act against their deep conscientious convictions inflicts a moral harm akin to violence, and can be acceptable only when it is shown to be indispensable to prevent a harm that is even greater.

    It is for that reason that John Rawls, perhaps the most influential political philosopher of the second half of the 20th century, argued that no social arrangement could conceivably be called just if it failed to place great weight on the demands of religious integrity.

    Whatever the contentions made on its behalf, Rawls said, government action that trammelled the freedom to live in accord with one’s faith should be required to clear a high threshold of proof.

    Nor should that burden of proof apply only to legislation that limits the freedom to hold a set of creedal propositions.

    Interesting 2 other articles in today’s The Australian

    Protect our faith, multicultural voters warn Bill Shorten

    and

    Keeping religion alive lies at heart of family’s values

  7. max

    yes bible verse but Lenin use it as well

    2 Thessalonians 3:10 New International Version (NIV)

    10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

    According to Vladimir Lenin, “He who does not work shall not eat” is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society.

  8. calli

    Thanks max. Should have known it would be twisted to something evil.

    How about the Parable of the Talents and compound interest? 😃

  9. A Lurker

    Mark 12:17

    Instead of Morrison making freedom of religion a primary issue for the next election, he needs to change his attack to promoting full freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of association etc. Scrapping S18C and other freedom-inhibiting discrimination laws would be a good start. Allow everyone to speak and let sunlight be the necessary disinfectant.

  10. Iampeter

    let see other view:
    The Bible mandates free market capitalism. It is anti-socialist.

    But Max, just like in our other thread on this topic, you’re not presenting an alternative view, you’re presenting a disintegrated view.
    The statement from you that I’m quoting here, is an obviously false statement to someone who is an integrated and clear thinker.
    To demonstrate this, you need to get into the fundamentals of Christianity, capitalism and socialism.
    Christianity is fundamentally about the unquestioning submission to a supernatural dictator for the promise of a metaphysically impossible afterlife. In other words, it’s teachings are mystical and collectivist.
    Socialism is fundamentally about the submission of the individual to earthly dictators for the reason of a physically impossible earthly utopia. In other words, it’s teachings are mystical and collectivist.
    Capitalism is fundamentally about the individual pursuing his life as an end in and of itself, because that’s his primary value and makes all other values possible, as supported by observable facts of reality. In other words, capitalism is rational and individualistic.

    So, even from this very brief summary of the fundamentals, it becomes glaringly apparent how socialism derives from and is very similar to Christianity, while capitalism is the polar opposite of both.

    Also observe how I don’t need to quote a single thing to make my case either. This is what you can do too, if you learn to join the dots and think in an integrated manner.

  11. Tim Neilson

    Christianity is fundamentally about the unquestioning submission to a supernatural dictator for the promise of a metaphysically impossible afterlife.

    Poor old Iamashiteater, still eating your own turds and vomiting them back onto the internet.

    Do you really need to get your bottom spanked about this yet again?

    I wold have thought that you would have died of embarrassment after the caning you got for your “existence exists” bullshit last time.

  12. Iampeter

    I wold have thought that you would have died of embarrassment after the caning you got for your “existence exists” bullshit last time.

    LOL. Just gonna let you think about this sentence for a bit, but I’m not going to hold my breath. Thinking is not something you’re obviously very familiar with.

    I will say though, the Middle East is over that-a-way. It’s full of people that struggle with self evident facts of reality just like you. It’s worked out really well for them. You should go be with your kind.

    Also, I’m sure that those who like to point out that one should back up their points with arguments instead of ad hominem, will be descending all over Tim’s post any second now. Any second now…

  13. max

    calli
    “How about the Parable of the Talents and compound interest?”

    Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? (Matt. 20:15)

    “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” This verse is the most powerful affirmation of property rights in the New Testament. The context of the statement is Jesus’ parable of the employer who hires men at various times throughout the day. At the end of the day, he pays all of them the same. He broke no contract. They had all agreed to work for him for a full day. They had agreed at various times during the day. But those who had worked all day complained. Clearly, those laborers who were hired late in the day received a much higher payment per hour of work.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/16787.cfm

    The Moral Legitimacy of Interest and Banking
    This parable contains several theological messages
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/14833.cfm

    Chapter 18: Time and Interest
    This parable is about good stewardship of God’s property. It is known as the parable of the talents.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/16707.cfm

  14. Roger

    How about the Parable of the Talents and compound interest?

    How about the commands do not steal and do not covet?

    With them, God guards the right to private property, not a socialised system of ownership founded on the alienation of private property in the first instance.

  15. Tim Neilson

    Re Iamashiteater’s “existence exists” supposed “axiom” disproving non-physical modes of existence.
    1. If “existence” means only “physical existence” then the aphorism clearly tells us nothing about possible non-physical modes of existence.
    2. If it is to disprove non-physical modes of existence “existence” must mean “all modes of existence”.
    3. If “exists” can comprise non-physical modes of existence then clearly the aphorism doesn’t disprove non-physical modes of existence.
    4. Therefore the aphorism implies the non-existence of non-physical modes of existence only if “exists” means “physically exists” .
    5. That is, the aphorism implies the non-existence of non-physical modes of existence only if it is read as saying “all modes of existence physically exist”.
    6. Which is not in any way a logical syllogism, but mere unsubstantiated assertion.
    Which has been demonstrated to Iamashiteater before.

    But don’t worry Iamashiteater. Just keep eating your own turds. You know they’re delicious and full of nourishment.

  16. JohnA

    Iampeter #2885651, posted on December 14, 2018, at 10:13 am

    let see other view:
    The Bible mandates free market capitalism. It is anti-socialist.

    But Max, just like in our other thread on this topic, you’re not presenting an alternative view, you’re presenting a disintegrated view.

    You may be peter for anything I know to the contrary (amending Don Alhambra del Bolero) but you are no rock, you do not rock; the best I can say is you know not of what you speak (KoKo).

    Max, don’t feed the troll!

  17. max

    Iampetersay:
    “So, even from this very brief summary of the fundamentals, it becomes glaringly apparent how socialism derives from and is very similar to Christianity, while capitalism is the polar opposite of both.”

    Every social philosophy has an eschatology. Here is the eschatology of modern humanism: the heat death of the universe. The heat death of the universe is the realm of frozen wastes. There will be no discrimination between the realm of humanistic covenant keeping and covenant breaking. The heat death of the universe is the outcome of the second law of thermodynamics. It is basic to cosmology.

    Modern man believes that meaning is imputed only by autonomous men. But men are never autonomous in humanistic thought. They are extensions of the impersonal cosmos. This cosmos offers no autonomous meaning. Only self-proclaimed autonomous man provides meaning in the otherwise purposeless universe, unless there is another, even more powerful species out there, which may not be friendly to man. If we lose in some inter-species war to that species, might will make right. In any case, the victors also face the conquest of meaninglessness. Mankind announces: “No one will take away my meaning until he pries it from my cold, dead hand.” To which nature says: “That’s just what I have in mind.” Here is Darwinism’s alternative to the biblical doctrines of creation, dominion, ethics, imputation, and resurrection: meaningless impersonalism, endless work, situation ethics, personal death, and meaningless impersonalism.
    Darwinism is the epistemological foundation of every academic natural science and every academic social science.

    2. Entropy
    The Darwinist denies any cosmic plan other than man’s, and even here, there is no single plan. Mankind is not unified. There are competing plans. Men seek to gain cooperation with others. The free market enables people to gain considerable cooperation, but ignorance, sin, and conflicting purposes prevent anything like full coordination. Mankind does not speak with a unified voice.
    Entropy produces waste. There is no escape from entropy’s universal waste except by using energy to delay this waste in limited sectors of the universe. This is a central idea of modern physics. The world is running down. There is no way to reverse this process, according to the second law of thermodynamics. Men must expend knowledge and energy in order to establish pockets of order in a universe governed by the second law of thermodynamics. The trend is not man’s friend.
    According to the Darwinist, there is only one source of useful information: people. There is no outside source of order. The cosmos is said to be autonomous. It is on its own. Disorder is constantly increasing. Energy is constantly dissipating.
    The Darwinist denies the idea of a second chance. He denies the final judgment. He denies karma: reincarnation.
    Most men’s plans are limited to what they can achieve in their own lifetimes. Only through gaining converts can men hope to extend their plans beyond their own time of authority institutionally or intellectually. Converts come only to a handful of men in history. Over time, most men’s influence fades. Their ideas are drowned out in a sea of intellectual noise. This is the intellectual equivalent of entropy: dissipation.
    For Darwinism, there is no long-term solution to entropy’s dissipation. It can be delayed, but not reversed.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/17002.cfm

  18. Roger

    …the answer to governments regulating what schools can or can’t do is of course to get government out of the business of education, but people of “true faith” don’t have any arguments on that front.

    Christianity has always taught that the right and duty to educate children rests with the parents, who may delegate that those rights and duties to the church or state. Any government that usurps those rights of parents over children is over stepping its authority.

    On the other hand, the weakness of religious schools as presently constituted (the vast majority, anyway) is that they have accepted government funding with strings attached and have expanded greatly on the back of that deal, so that their schools are now filled with students who do not come from particularly religious families whose parents understand neither Christian doctrine nor the predicament the schools may now face.

    Church education officials would have done well to consider the old maxim before entering into their present symbiotic relations with government via public finding:

    If you’re going to sup with the devil, take a long spoon.

  19. withstand

    Iampeter.

    re: your claim that Christianity is socialism.

    Okay, I will also bite. (Nice post, Tim.)

    If you are a clear, logical thinker, then you obviously have a justification for the laws of logic and the logical structure of the human mind. These are universals. From whence do universals arise? Are they merely the product of human convention? If so, then, as per Mises, we are in a world of polylogism. This or any conversation or communication cannot begin until we agreed on fundamental universal truths.

    The best that man can posit is the particulars of human experience. Try constructing those into universals on which we can all agree. But that is the point, we all do agree on the ontological existence of a reality and realities outside of our particular experience, certain components of which are universal truths, such as the existence of universals, the uniformity of nature and the logical structure of the human mind. The trick here is to bind those particulars into universals.

    Authority for the Christian is primarily in the being of God (and not in man, for whom philosophy has failed to resolve the one over many problem). Only he has the capacity to unite universals and particulars, or unity and diversity, such that there is the capacity for man to discover and enjoy the benefits of these universals. Examples of these are the logical structure of the human mind and the scientific method.

    Scripture declares that individuals are “free to choose” (thanks Milton) to believe in God or not. It also upholds the doctrine of private property (“thou shalt not steal”) (“The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it”).

    If you mean by collectivism, community, then there is some semblance of truth to your statement. However, there is never an intent to pursue socialism in Scripture, certainly not after the Marxist notion, which is a fallacious effort to resolve an apparent problem — a straw man — of surplus profit. Profit is an indication, Iampeter, that by providing a product or service you have solved your neighbour’s problem.

    Iampeter, please read Mises’ “The Anti-capitalist Mentality” or if you have the courage “Human Action.”

  20. Dr Faustus

    Protect our faith, multicultural voters warn Bill Shorten

    Neatly illustrates how transactional the political process of the Left has become.

    Apparently, it’s all about the Alphabetties:

    GetUp’s human rights campaigns director, Shen Narayanasamy, yesterday warned the announcement of a religious discrimination act was “an attempt to divide religious and LGBT communities” and “play our rights off against each other”.

    The faithless Shorten:

    “I could not say to you that religion is in the top 100 issues that get raised with me. But nonetheless I accept for some people it is a very important matter,” he said. “It is a principle which the Labor Party supports.”

    What exactly does the horrid little shit mean here? The Labor Party supports religion being a very important matter for some people? Sounds pretty much like ‘Whatever she said, I agree with her…’

    Or is his bum twitching because “...nine of the 12 western Sydney seats that voted No in last year’s same-sex marriage vote were held by Labor, ­arguing that many communities were more motivated by “family and faith policy” than “social services policy”.

    Imagine the horror of not becoming Prime Minister because of progressives who don’t understand the importance of charity shags and unearned wealth…

  21. max

    For Iampetersay:

    Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism and attributes to C.S. Lewis the best formulation of merton’s thesis that science sits more comfortably with theistic notions on the basis that Men became scientific in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th century “because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.’ In other words, it was belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science”.

    American geneticist Francis Collins also cites Lewis as persuasive in convincing him that theism is the more rational world view than atheism.

    Other criticisms focus on perceived effects on morality and social cohesion.

    The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, saw godlessness as weakening “the sacred bonds of society”, writing: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”.

    The father of classical liberalism, John Locke, believed that the denial of God’s existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos. 

    Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Irish philosopher and statesman praised by both his conservative and liberal peers for his “comprehensive intellect”, saw religion as the basis of civil society and wrote that “man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and that it cannot prevail long”.

    The advocacy of atheism by some of the more violent exponents of the French Revolution, the subsequent militancy of Marxist–Leninist atheism and prominence of atheism in totalitarian states formed in the 20th century is often cited in critical assessments of the implications of atheism.

    In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke railed against “atheistical fanaticism”.

    “After the French Revolution and its outbursts of atheism, Voltaire was widely condemned as one of the causes”, wrote Geoffrey Blainey. “Nonetheless, his writings did concede that fear of God was an essential policeman in a disorderly world: ‘If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him’, wrote Voltaire”

    In A Letter Concerning Toleration, the influential English philosopher John Locke wrote: “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all”.

    Although Locke was believed to be an advocate of tolerance, he urged the authorities not to tolerate atheism because the denial of God’s existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos.

    novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky after him, argued that “when God is excluded, then it is not surprising when morality itself is sacrificed in the process and chaos and horror is unleashed on the world”.

    Critics assert that natural law provides a foundation on which people may build moral rules to guide their choices and regulate society, but does not provide as strong a basis for moral behavior as a morality that is based in religion.

    In his book First Principles (1862), the 19th-century English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer wrote that as regards the origin of the universe, three hypotheses are possible: self-existence (atheism), self-creation (pantheism), or creation by an external agency (theism). Spencer argued that it is “impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence” in any of the three hypotheses and concluded that “even positive Atheism comes within the definition” of religion.

    In an anthropological study on modernity, Talal Asad quotes an Arab atheist named Adonis who has said: “The sacred for atheism is the human being himself, the human being of reason, and there is nothing greater than this human being. It replaces revelation by reason and God with humanity”. To which Asad points out: “But an atheism that deifies Man is, ironically, close to the doctrine of the incarnation”.

    In his essay On Atheism, Francis Bacon criticized the dispositions towards atheism as being “contrary to wisdom and moral gravity” and being associated with fearing government or public affairs. He also stated that knowing a little science may lead one to atheism, but knowing more science will lead one to religion. In another work called The Advancement of Learning, Bacon stated that superficial knowledge of philosophy inclines one to atheism while more knowledge of philosophy inclines one toward religion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism

  22. Roger

    GetUp’s human rights campaigns director, Shen Narayanasamy, yesterday warned the announcement of a religious discrimination act was “an attempt to divide religious and LGBT communities” and “play our rights off against each other”.

    You wanted diversity and pluralism… you got it.

    Where social cohesion fails, laws are required to step in and protect rights that were otherwise tacitly understood.

  23. Iampeter

    Which has been demonstrated to Iamashiteater before.

    What are you trying to demonstrate? That something that doesn’t exist, also exists? No wonder you’re so triggered. Anyway, I’ll stop winding you up or you’ll fly a plane into a skyscraper or something. That’s what people as profoundly confused about everything like you do when angry enough.

    But don’t worry Iamashiteater. Just keep eating your own turds. You know they’re delicious and full of nourishment.

    I’m sure all those people who pop up to police me whenever I say a meanie word are going to be here any second to take Tim to task. Must’ve stopped for coffee or something. Any second now…

    You may be peter for anything I know to the contrary (amending Don Alhambra del Bolero) but you are no rock, you do not rock; the best I can say is you know not of what you speak (KoKo).

    Did you read the rest of the post your quoting or just that one sentence? You seem to have ignored everything, which makes you the one who does not know of what you speak. Also how is making an argument “trolling”? Also, I’m sure if trolling was an issue to you, you’d be addressing Tim’s posts.

    As to max, you’ve ignored everything I’ve said in post #2885651 and are just making the same random posts, with random quotes, that aren’t arguing or proving anything.

  24. stackja

    Roger
    #2885721, posted on December 14, 2018 at 11:56 am

    For years Left have been working hard at destroying cohesion.

  25. Roger

    For years Left have been working hard at destroying cohesion.

    Aided unwittingly by LNP politicians who have presided over the social and cultural acids of mass migration.

    “A house divided cannot stand”.

    Multiculturalism further weakness a society that has already lost any religious or ethnic unity.

    Large numbers of migrants from societies that are not civil cannot readily grasp the bonds that tie a secular democratic society together (which have developed over centuries) and retreat into social and sometimes actual ghettos. Compounding the initial error, we then underwrite the existence of those ghettos with public funds. In short, we are governed by idiots who have no idea of the damage they are inflicting on the society they purport to serve.

  26. max

    “As to max, you’ve ignored everything I’ve said in post #2885651 and are just making the same random posts, with random quotes, that aren’t arguing or proving anything.”

    same as you –did not prove anything.

    what is capitalism?

  27. calli

    we are governed by idiots who have no idea of the damage they are inflicting on the society they purport to serve.

    You are a very kind man Roger. Bless you.

  28. max

    “Capitalism is fundamentally about the individual pursuing his life as an end in and of itself,”

    yes — slavery, war, theft, murder, prostitution all in the name of pursuing his life as an end in and of itself

  29. Boambee John

    Roger

    Multiculturalism further weakness a society that has already lost any religious or ethnic unity.

    Multiculturalism emphasises what is different between us, not what we share in common.

    Its proponents are then surprised when the social bonds break down. The left screamed loud enough to be heard on Mars when Maggie Thatcher said there is no such thing as society, then proceeded to ensure that her statement (which was actually somewhat more nuanced) became true.

  30. Dr Fred Lenin

    The restrictions will of course apply to AlL religous schools ? Including muslim ones teaching hatred and islamofascist terrorism . Also children being taught ecofascism and narxism at taxpayer funded schools and places of learning . This is good legistlation if it does that, but bet your socks it will only apply to Christian places of education ,we cant go upsetting the mussofascists and narxist idealogues ,they would scream like hell and maybe destroy a few career pollibludgers .lucrative jobs ,we cant have them going on jobstart .

  31. bespoke

    max, Imp isn’t very deep, its all narrative built on supposition fuelled by outdated stereotypes. And very typical of thee debating style encouraged today.

  32. Iampeter

    bespoke, that’s called “projection”.

    And another ad hominem with no arguments to back it up, I might add.

    Where are all the white knights today? I’m sure they’ll be here to address all these ad hom’s with no arguments any minute…

  33. Ellen of Tasmania

    I was listening to Ben Shapiro’s Sunday interview with John Macarther this week and they both thought the idea of a ‘theocracy’ was scary, but then they went on to describe what they thought the role of government should be – which is a religious/worldview idea. Other people, with other religions or worldviews have different ideas on the role of government.

    You just can’t escape it. Everyone and every institution is inherently religious in that it has a set of presuppositions that determine what they believe to be right or wrong.

    The clever move by Secular Humanists is to pretend that they are not a religion – they are ‘scientific’ and materialism is assumed to be true, so therefore they should rule over everyone else and every other religion. So we get new commandments, new rights and wrongs, new means of salvation, new sacrifices and a new culture. Secular Humanists are only tolerant of dissent until they don’t have to be.

  34. triggered

    Exodus 21:7 talks about selling your daughter into slavery so Christianity is definitely capitalistic.

  35. Tel

    yes — slavery, war, theft, murder, prostitution all in the name of pursuing his life as an end in and of itself

    Or anything else you want … if the individual owns his or her life, then the individual also gets to decide what those ends might be. Not every other individual will agree though.

    Having ownership of yourself is the starting point, not the conclusion.

  36. max

    Hi Tel no point of resoning with peter.

    Iampeter is folower of Randian ideology

    The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard

    not only was the Rand cult explicitly atheist, anti-religious, and an extoller of Reason; it also promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence; adoration and obedience to the leader in the name of every person’s individuality; and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.

    Since every cult is grounded on a faith in the infallibility of the guru, it becomes necessary to keep its disciples in ignorance of contradictory infidel writings which may wean cult members away from the fold.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/understanding-ayn-randianism/

  37. What are you trying to demonstrate? That something that doesn’t exist, also exists? No wonder you’re so triggered. Anyway, I’ll stop winding you up or you’ll fly a plane into a skyscraper or something. That’s what people as profoundly confused about everything like you do when angry enough.

    LOL. Tim Neilsen skewered you coldly at 11.23am and your entire response has been pathetic dribbling canned gnu atheism. Begging rhe question is so boring, by the way.

  38. Tim Neilson

    Which has been demonstrated to Iamashiteater before.

    What are you trying to demonstrate? That something that doesn’t exist, also exists?

    I rest my case.

    Poor old Iamashiteater, utterly incapable of understanding the most basic logic.

    Define “existence” Iamashiteater, then re-read what I wrote, and realise how laughably you’ve beclowned yourself.

    No, on second thoughts, just keep eating your own turds. That’s a task within your capabilities.

  39. Pat

    Iampeter

    If you talk about existence and being, how about using your cold hard logic to try and justify your claim that your view of reality is correct. However, before you do that, use your theory of reality to justify the laws of logic you claim to use to assert your position.

  40. Iampeter

    Ah the Cat.

    It’s like debating with the worlds stupidest socialists who also manage to sound like junior ISIS members.

  41. None

    You just can’t escape it. Everyone and every institution is inherently religious in that it has a set of presuppositions that determine what they believe to be right or wrong.

    Spot on, Ellen. Anytime someone makes a statement that something should be a certain way is to make a moral all or religious statement. If atheist were truly areligious as they claim to be then they cannot even make a statement that religious people should not exist or should not have a say or whatever. Atheism is a religion and state-sponsored atheism aka socialism marxism and all its other many forms is just another religion as well.

  42. None

    But back to the topic at hand. It’s a pity that all Australians won’t read much less understand Henry’s fine article, not least out Uber stupid politicians. It grieves me everyday to see our beloved country sleepwalking into oblivion. And given our Uber stupid meisters are importing people at the rate of knots who have no understanding of our heritage, our traditions, our polity, our liberties, and certainly do not share them, I wish to promote them, I’m not sure that I can see a fight back on the horizon.

  43. TFX

    I see a positive side in government getting involved in religious affairs. I have no doubt that eventually there will be a change of government in the future to a rational government determined to protect its citizens. This might be a few elections away.

    The obvious place for government intervention in religious affairs is dealing with the tenets and proponents of the “religion of peace”.

    Powers that could be used include no acceptance of any preachers of Salafiism/Wahhabism or undertaking of pilgrimages to sacred sites under the control of that strand of the “religion of peace”.

    Look to the advantages in the long-term not just the short term costs.

  44. None

    Whenever I see Iampeter my brain thinks lumpeter and I imagine one of those Oompa Loompa blokes from Willy Wonka Who all look remarkably like Bill Shorten.

  45. Iampeter

    If you talk about existence and being, how about using your cold hard logic to try and justify your claim that your view of reality is correct. However, before you do that, use your theory of reality to justify the laws of logic you claim to use to assert your position.

    I didn’t say anything about existence in this thread, I just made the straight forward and logical argument demolishing the laughable suggestion that Christianity has anything to do with capitalism.
    This triggered the usual dumbos who are still struggling with grasping self evident facts and are trying to “logically” disprove facts that have to be accepted before you can logically do anything, stuck in a circular argument they can’t see because they are not very smart.
    Hence the comedic value they unintentionally provide those of us who actually know what we’re talking about.
    Since you seem to share their confusion, I’ll just say that no argument is needed on my part to prove self evident facts, what’s needed is for you to drop the evasion and be intellectually honest.

Comments are closed.