The Canberra Declaration?

I’m a committed Christian (some say nutbag extremist) but personally I get a tad twitchy when religious groups become political. Jesus and his disciples didn’t try to change the politics of the day – he made a more significant change than that – and power often corrupts. That said I do appreciate having a govt that doesn’t oppose my freedom to believe the things that I do, and I’d generally defend the rights of others to practice different beliefs than me. Its fair for any group (religious or not) to try influence the law – thats the law.

The Canberra Declaration: sending all the outed priestly pedos to jail? Start there and ill read ya website.

As I an doing this one from my phone I don’t have the benefit of a link, but the head of ACVI is the same guy who was fired by Nicola Roxon from the Men’s Health Ambassador program a few years back.
Something about having his name as an author on a document about how gays cause drug abuse, are pedophiles, and generally eat babies.
Boringly titled “30 reasons why role models are everything” or somesuch???

On their website they say: “Police states and totalitarian nations inevitably begin….”

I say: “with nutbags like you”!

colourful sydney racing identity said :

georgesgenitals said :

I only had a quick look at the link, and it initially seemed pretty benign, although clearly others here have done more reading and research. I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

We should tolerate intolerance?

A good question. I’m not trying to defend this, just tease out what people really think about it.

Yeah, fair enough.

georgesgenitals said :

I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

As Erg0 said, when they start making calls to there members from the Parliament House to try and spread influence not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public then it becomes something which should be debated in public by rational people. At this point I am able to bring up the fact that they are using 2000 year old heavily revised text purportedly written about a supernatural being to justify the exclusion of people who interpret life differently.

oops, I stuffed that up. I was replying to georgesgenitals’ comment: “but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?”

georgesgenitals said :

I only had a quick look at the link, and it initially seemed pretty benign, although clearly others here have done more reading and research. I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

We should tolerate intolerance?

Reply

Ah, the Boscastle Museum of Witchcraft.

Second only to the Jamaica Inn Smugglers Museum as the worst, and i really do me worst, museum in the world.

Thumper, Swansea is the proud owner of; “a museum which should be in a museum”. (Dylan Thomas)

Oh, and Jamiaca Inn is owned by one of Cornwall’s BNP candidates.

The cat did it said :

so the tribes of the uncircumcised had better look out , or they will be smitten

I’m safe.

georgesgenitals said :

I only had a quick look at the link, and it initially seemed pretty benign, although clearly others here have done more reading and research. I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

I don’t see why not – once religious views are brought into the political sphere it becomes a competitive situation, not a “live and let live” scenario.

screaming banshee said :

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life. Wouldn’t that be four areas?

given the punctuation of this diatribe, ‘marriage and family’ comprise a single clause, so just the ‘one area’ for these two things. that said, “three areas…” should entail are the religious…, not “is”

clearly though, penny wong won’t oppose this, though perhaps she might be picky about the grammar.

Bosworth said :

“when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public, the society is richer and healthier

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life.”

Translation:

We want the Government to enforce our opinions upon others.
Specifically, we want the Government to impose conservative christianity upon the population, discriminate against the gays, and outlaw abortion under any circumstance.

I agree that no-one should have an opinion forced on them.

I only had a quick look at the link, and it initially seemed pretty benign, although clearly others here have done more reading and research. I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

Definitely at the extreme end of the christian spectrum, if the Statement of Faith on their website is any guide-

Bible literalists: ‘We believe that the Bible, consisting of Old and New Testaments only, is verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, is inerrant in the original manuscripts, and is the infallible and authoritative Word of God’
ie creationists, and enthusiasts for Old Testament morals in their entirety (so the tribes of the uncircumcised had better look out , or they will be smitten …)

End of timers: ‘We believe that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent, and that it will be visible and personal.’ They’ve been believing this imminent return stuff for about the last 1980 years.

More half-baked theology inspired by backwoods USA

All the above – enough of these moral crusaders and their ‘Declaration’ – wow, let’s start our own here!

Now, what on earth would our ‘declaration’ be about I wonder…..???

Hells_Bells74 said :

Skid – you have been instrumental yet again in this case. Keep it up!

Seriously, I have a paid job already, if someone wants to pay me to muckrake though…

screaming banshee said :

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life. Wouldn’t that be four areas?

Marriage and family is a boolean statement, your confusion relates to the ambguity of Family and Marriage potentially being two separate topics, and English being a wierd language.
(ie: When I say “I stay inside when it is hot and when it snows” it means for most people “I won’t go outside if it is hot or if it is snowing”)
In this case, I suspect for ACVI Family means conception by sex OR sex for conception OR heterosex (ie: goodsex), and Marriage means marriage between Man AND Woman.
Logically, when issues arise where (Marriage = 'True' AND Family = 'True'),
ACVI are selectively vocal supporters.

By contrast, when issues arise such as:
IF
(Family = 'True' AND Marriage <> 'True')
(IE: unmarried breeders, adultery, divorce, adoption without marriage) or
(Family <> 'True' AND Marriage = 'True')
(childless hetero couples, IVF) or
(Family <> 'True' AND Marriage <> 'True')
(naturally childless gays, lesbians, etc),
THEN ACVI = fiercely against it.

What they mean by religious freedom is goodthink.
What they mean by Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression… in the public [space]… the society is richer and healthier is arguing with me is thoughtcrime.
What they want is even more exceptional treatment.

If they were really asking for religious freedom and equality, they wouldn’t call for only Christian values to be recognised, and would be powerfully supportive of Section 116.

Australian Constitution – Section 116 – Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

and here’s another pearler from the website:

http://www.canberradeclaration.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=18

Apparently people who live together unmarried are the main cause for society’s woes…. with these unholy folk consequently having children being “more than 10 times more likely” to have a broken family by the time the child is 16, and if they do eventually get married are more likley to divorce anyway. Damned if you, damned if dont it seems ;).

Im sorry, but I just had to take the time to read this ‘declaration’ in the hopes that the “freedom of expression” they are seeking is just that. Unfortunately it isnt.

In reading the declaration at their website http://www.canberradeclaration.org.au, it seems just a little bit hypocritical.

It revolves around 3 principles, Religious Freedom, Marriage And Family, Human Life… which are very noble until you read the fine print. Then it gets scary… very scary.

Anyone who signs this declaration is against legislation that prevents- discrimination, hate crimes, and relgious and sexual vilification. Their arguement is that these laws can restrict their right to express their religious views. Absolutely rediculous proposition.

Anyone who signs this declaration is of the view that the only family unit that can provide protection, education, love, support, and nuturing is that provided by a married man and woman… in fact this declaration proposes that the child is “guaranteed” these family benefits soley because each parent is of a different gender.

Anyone who signs this declaration is of the view that the church is ultimately responsible for your life, not you. Those that share this view are against abortion, euthanasia, and some reproductive technologies. They “insist on the right of all persons… to be protected” from such medical intervention, even when those people might actually want it. They are using the word “protect” when what they are really saying is “controlled by a 3rd party”.

And do you know what the really scary thing is here? Almost half the population of Australia is prepared to vote in a man who believes in each and every one of these far right wing ultra conservative points made in this declaration. God help us if Abbott gets in (pun very much intended).

“when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public, the society is richer and healthier

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life.”

Translation:

We want the Government to enforce our opinions upon others.
Specifically, we want the Government to impose conservative christianity upon the population, discriminate against the gays, and outlaw abortion under any circumstance.

“You are free to do what we tell you” – arm waving nutbags!

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life. Wouldn’t that be four areas?

You have to be careful you know, look at Boscastle. They had a museum of witchcraft there, and then they took on a woman vicar. God was so displeased with this he sent a flood of biblical proportions to ruin the village…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boscastle_flood_of_2004

Of course, they repaired it.

Skid – you have been instrumental yet again in this case. Keep it up!

As long as there is ‘freedom’ from religion, we’re pretty right. It’s okay to chose it, lose it or never have it.

I have no time for these sneaks.

The problem with Christian values is that they are not terribly universal (even amongst Christians) and are at times mutually exclusive.

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family…

I trust, then, that they will be fully in support of my religious beliefs which allow gay marriage? Or is the the whole “freedom to believe what we tell you to believe” type of “freedom”?

“… when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public, the society is richer and healthier.

Society is richer and healthier when the values of ALL PEOPLE are respected and allowed freedom of expression, regardless of their religion.

I blame an antheist Prime Minister for the decline in moral values in our society.

Would never happen in the US of A

Tolerance, not so much.
Australian Institute for Christian Values (aka Australian Christian Values Institute) share a Research Director with Salt Shakers, Jenny Stokes.
Peter & Jenny Stokes at ACVI (two thirds of the way down)
Peter & Jenny Stokes at Salt Shakers

Jenny Stokes is something of an active contributor to the various causes of Catch the Fire people.

I could do deeper muckraking on everyone else with the group’s elements, but frankly I have better things to do.

Tolerance from an extremist group? Yeah right. My god is better than your god and he plays guitar and wears cool threads. Mmkay.
Gotta love blind faith. Crackpots.

Society is richer and healthier when people think for themselves rather than follow the teachings of Jesus, the purportedly magic jew; Mohammed; the Great Green Arkleseizure or any other mythical beast.

Seems like a declaration of tolerance more than anything. If this helps people to accept others, then great.