SAINT MARY OF THE CROSS
Last week, Australian Senators voted on a motion for senators to receive no pay increases until a budget surplus is achieved.
It was moved by independent (ex-Liberal) Senator Cory Bernardi.
Sad to say, only 6 of our 75 senators voted for it.
The Coalition, Labor and the Greens senators all voted against.
Anyone moving a motion that’s rejected by all three of the above-mentioned parties is probably doing something right.
Senator Bernardi is a conscience politician.
We’ll be hearing a lot more from him.
Hopefully his movement will continue to propose common-sense policies which level-headed people will happily support.
On March 20, Herald Sun columnist Rita Panahi wrote that “as an atheist”:
“I don’t want the government to censor free speech (or) to dictate who can marry….”
She goes on about how good the joy that same-sex marriage may bring some couples….and how bad is mis-labelling some people as homophobes and bigots….
If she’s an atheist, the question of good and bad can’t arise — the difference between them being absolute only if there is an Absolute Being who judges between them.
Don’t forget, God is the only Absolute — the living difference between good and evil.
God exists because it’s his nature to exist.
We exist because he gives us our existence.
It’s not very complicated.
Rita has some thoughtful ethical instincts – but seemingly only by accident and by being inconsistent.
Is she a closet believer who may benefit by coming out as such?
New ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, says, “I believe in the rule of law.… But when it’s unjust I don’t think there’s a problem with breaking it.”
OK, so who decides whether it’s just?
Apparently not the voting public or their elected law-makers.
Perhaps Sally herself wants to be the decider. She’ll need assistants, skilled in standover tactics, to make it happen.
However unsatisfactory democracy is at times, it’s never as unsatisfactory as that.
In my youth, I was a doctor.
I made it clear that if any patient requested a referral for an abortion, I could not/would not supply it.
Under Victorian law, that’s a punishable offence. As it happens, I was never arrested.
Anyway, to justifiably break a law, one must be sure it relates to an absolute, utterly black-and-white moral issue.
You can’t think in terms of absolutes unless you believe in THE absolute — namely God.
Coopers Breweries are currently in panic mode – terrified of being boycotted by the homosexual lobby.
They’re busily disclaiming any support for a televised polite discussion between two politicians about same-sex-marriage (SSM) — which happened to advertise their product.
What might be the attitude of ordinary NON-homosexual beer-drinkers to SSM? It’s on them that Coopers depend most of all to make money.
Nobody knows for sure.
However, their attitude to spineless inhibiting of free speech by big-moneyed corporations — I think we can guess that.
The debate itself was wishy-washy and missed the main point.
Isn’t the worst thing about SSM that such couples will use their being “married” to reinforce their claimed “right” to adopt children – thus unnecessarily depriving children of a mother-father-based family unit to belong to?
That aspect didn’t get a mention.
In Australia it’s illegal to say, write or draw anything that offends anybody regarding their background.
We have bureaucrats paid to decide whether the offended-ness is justified — or if the expression of opinion was legitimate.
The bureaucratic decisions seem usually biased (towards the complainers).
Instead should we have panels of reasonable, typical, un-biased citizens — not bureaucrats — to decide?
Bondi tram passengers? Pub patrons?
But are not many pub-dwellers regular alcohol-drinkers? A possible worry, brain function-wise?
Tram-travellers could be a more reasonable cross-section.
Am I allowed to mention that people younger than 30 shouldn’t be eligible?
It’s well known that brain development is incomplete until at least one’s late twenties.
We could argue all day.
But it’s really not so complicated.
Best simply scrap Section 18C and deal with intimidation etc. under other already-existing legislation.
by Arnold Jago in Australia, Celebrities, Common Sense, Education, Faith, Family, Lifestyle, Media, Women
1. Australia’s “progressive” media are making a celebrity of a woman who calls Islam a “feminist” religion.
Don’t they know that in the countries where Islam is practiced most, women are stoned for alleged infidelity?
Didn’t an official Islamic spokesperson recently tell Australia’s Sky News that sometimes it’s OK to beat one’s wife?
Islam needs to “progressively” convert its own traditionalist adherents away from violence-prone fundamentalism.
2. Some Australians consider themselves “progressive” when Sydney streets are filled with persons promoting anal sex as normal.
Many Australians let their youngsters go to “progressive” schools which groom them to condone (if not to practise) that kind of thing, and to vilify anybody discouraging it?
Perhaps Australia needs to “progressively” eradicate those ideas.
Perhaps the Australians loudest in their claims to be progressive are progressing down the wrong track.