‘Australia’ Category Archives

14
Sep

PLEBISCITE NOW UNDER-WAY: hold onto your hat.

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Family, Justice, Lifestyle, Modern Church

Yes, this plebiscite is a waste of time and effort.
Its result will make no difference to anybody.
Regardless of the result, both sides of the debate will continue doing what they are already doing.
Supporters of the transgender “marriage” idea will keep seeking more and better legalistic strategies for destroying the Christian religion and the community which identifies with it.
The churches will probably keep seeking “exemptions” and other strategies to hopefully preserve their rights to legally express and live by their beliefs.
The church might as well forget about exemptions.
They will be meaningless.
They will rapidly be withdrawn.
Better to start preparing believers in how to deal with and how to survive intimidation, bullying and persecution.

Share This
7
Sep

MARRIAGE PLEBISCITE: what will the repercussions be?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Common Sense, Faith, Family, God, Modern Church, Persecution, Politics

What about this “plebiscite” over changing Australia’s marriage laws to permit any couple to be “married” regardless of “gender”?
If the Yes vote wins, will Christians thinking and acting according to an opposite belief be sacked, taken to court etc?
Or will there be “exemptions”?
That question is scarcely relevant.
Jesus told his first 12 disciples they must “take up their cross daily” – i.e. be willing to be persecuted or killed any time.
Jesus himself died, nailed to a cross by those hating his teachings and life.
His modern-day followers can hardly go looking for “exemptions”.
Church leaders clamouring to the government to allow them “free speech” etc., aren’t really on the right track, are they?
God gives us free speech.
It makes no difference what anybody else alleges to give or not give.
One thing is certain, Christians will not and cannot “integrate” into a same-sex-marriage-tolerating society.

22
Aug

NEW YOUNG VOTERS ENROLLING: to have their say about….

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Common Sense, Family, Lifestyle, Youth

Brain research suggests that human beings aren’t “adult” until aged about 25.

So why are people under 25 allowed to drink, drive etc.?

And to vote?

Especially to vote on matters about which they have little idea – like marriage?

What adults owe the young is not to give them “rights” which they can’t handle responsibly.

No. What they owe them is a good example of exercising self-control — and living by God’s laws.

11
Aug

EUTHANASIA: does it achieve what its proponents claim for it?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Death, Ethics, Family, Health, Politics, Suffering, Truth

The Victorian government plans to legalise intentional killing or assisted suicide of people with intolerable symptoms expected to die within 12 months….
The 12 months life-expectancy criterion will mean a premature death based on somebody’s guesstimate.
A similar law in the US state of Oregon — described by the government as an example of safeguards working — is not working very well.
For example, Oregon victims often do not, in practice, have intolerable pain.
In 2016, nearly half (48%) of those whose death resulted from taking prescribed lethal medication gave “being a burden” on family and carers as a motive for requesting death.
We don’t really want that here.
At least we shouldn’t want it.
(http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearc
h/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year19.pdf)

7
Aug

AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CREDIBILITY SELF-DESTRUCTS: ideology trumps facts in AMA statement on same-sex “marriage”.

by Arnold Jago in Abortion, Australia, Beauty, Celebrities, Ethics, Family, Health, Politics, Science

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has issued a 2017 “position statement” claiming, amongst other things, that:
(1) “LGTBIQ-identifying individuals” having the highest rates of suicidality of any population group is “a consequence of discrimination and stigmatization…rather than a symptom of the orientation itself.”
(2) There is research highlighting that health and psychosocial outcomes for children raised in same-sex parented families are “on a par with, and in some aspects comparatively better than, children raised in heterosexual parented families.”
Ex-AMA head, Prof Kerryn Phelps, commented, “I don’t think the religious, cultural right-wing conservatives now have anywhere to hide….”
Conservatives probably don’t want to hide.
What they might like is to get some media space to demonstrate that:
Claim (1) relies on one only piece of 14-year old research which is based on statistically-unsound methodology and ignores other more recent research suggesting the opposite.
Claim (2) likewise is based on selective samples of research while ignoring other peer-reviewed research evidence whci shows that “the longer social scientists study the question, the more evidence of harm is found….”
An 18-page “Medical Critique” of the AMA Position Statement prepared by a groupf doctors headed by Dr Chris Middleton, former AMA State President, can be accessed on the internet.
https://critiqueama.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/medical-critique-of-the-ama-position-statement-on-marriage-equality.pdf

21
Jul

“ASSISTED DYING” TO BE LEGAL IN VICTORIA? thinking about the un-thinkable.

by Arnold Jago in Abortion, Australia, Beauty, Celebrities, crime, Death, Ethics, Prayer

The Victorian government plans legalising “assisted dying” for the terminally ill who request it.
They call the new laws “conservative” because they include 68 “safeguards” to prevent abuses.
Such arguments have emotional appeal but are not based on reason.
The traditional Christian teaching should be our guide:
“An act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator….
“Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted….
“The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable….”
(Catholic Catechism, paragraphs 2277-2279)
Caring for the dying and disabled can be expensive in terms of money, time, love and compassion.
Do we care enough to make the effort – refusing to resort to intentional killing?