Family First: Their policies (1 Viewer)

[beccaxx]

...how dare you deny that person the right to live in a relationship whereby they are legally dependant on each other how dare you not recognise that relationship...the law and government should not be interested in what the church considers morally right...rather the law and government should be interested in what is fair and just......what is reasonable by logic not by often outdated religious rhetoric…fairness and equality before the law and human rights and social liberty? Ever heard of those?

was this directed at me? im not stopping anybody living together? and i am not being discriminatory or watever either. i was just pointing out that the greens are doing more than jst looking out 4 trees. there was not ment to be anything horrible about the way i sed it and i am really sorry if it has offended u or made u mad enuf to use size 4 font sorry. should i be blowing up at the person who was putting down family first cos they wanna bring prayer back into parliament??? so different parties have different policies. i dont understand why ppl can kick up a stink if someone says somethin that may be unfair to the homosexual community... however its fine for u guys to degrade a religion. im sure u wouldnt hav a problem with a homosexual political party, u would say good on them for standing up for themselves. but when the christians stand up and hav a party oh my goodness that is like soooo bad! and wats that bout the countries based on christian stuff is sooo middle ages or watever the quote was???? hahaha australia is based on christian stuff, the 2nd or 3rd verse of the national anthem is about Christ. also, america is a "christian" nation and so is great britain. and they r the ones leading the world.
go figure. when u sed this:
Church and state should NOT be together...liberal democracy was created in order to ensure that the state did not associate with the church. Nations that are religious in their governmental institutions are stuck in the dark ages...by its very nature religious values are conservative; the country would not progress if the church had a strong impact on the way the state operated...the church would continually impinge on your SOCIAL LIBERTY
democracy is the right for everyone to have a say... even the church.

 

[Monkey Butler]

And could I just add that the thing about countries based on religious law being stuck in the dark ages is very true. You cite the US and England as being Christian countries. Well, they're not (although they're moving perilously close, without actually admitting it). Rule by religious law doesn't mean that some of the moral influences of the law are religious (most are anyway, but that's because most religious morals overlap with regular morals), it means that all laws are formed solely on biblical law (or the teachings of whatever religion) - which would be, adultery, homosexuality, premarital sex, etc. would conceivably be made illegal. I hate to make the comparison because it opens the door for a lot of racism, but look at some of the Islamic countries (Iran for example) compared to Australia. That's the difference between religious law and secular law with religious influence.

 

[waterfowl]

of course it should have its say...but not as a political party

That's the best way to have a say...it's unfair to say a party that has religious beginnings and beliefs can't be a party just because of that. That's obviously discrimination. If you think religion doesn't have a place in politics that is your opinion; but others have the opposite opinion.

Do you even care about these people? I thought Christianity was about helping people? Ooops i forgot...only those people who conform to what is 'right and good'...
?

That is so untrue! Most Churches have many programs, initiatives etc to help people. I know my Church looks after an orphanage in Uganda for over 2000 children; and goes on many mission trips to Indonesia etc to help people with AIDs - and many more so you can't say that Christians don't help people!

 

[LadyBec]

They cannot be a cult, because a cult is a group who are considered wrong (the Bible states that homosexual relationships are not acceptable).
They also cannot be evil, because to be evil you need to be morally wrong, and most morals are based on religion (which states homosexual relationships are wrong).

"the bible states". do i really have to tell you that not everyone believes in the bible just because the bible states something is wrong doesn't make it so. In fact many christ-based religions can be seen as "cults" due to the way they encourage total conformaity(sp?). Also, most religions do not, in fact state that homosexuality is wrong. And nor are all morals based on religion. Morals ae based on one's own concept of right versus wrong.

i know up at newcastle there isnt much diversity

Meanwhile to that person^^ i would just like to say that we do have diversity in Newcastle, and it's a bit unfair to jude us all on what one person said.

With regards to the policies of family first, i find the entire notion disturbing in the extreme. There is a seperation between church and state for a reason - The church's "family values" could well mean discrimination and persucation for others. Aside from that, they DO have some good poilicies, but also some very scary ones...

 

[LadyBec]

but of course dear, religous parties ARE the root of all evil after all.

 

[timrie6]

wats that bout the countries based on christian stuff is sooo middle ages or watever the quote was???? hahaha australia is based on christian stuff, the 2nd or 3rd verse of the national anthem is about Christ. also, america is a "christian" nation and so is great britain. and they r the ones leading the world.
go figure.

This is why the world is going insane
religion is a fine concept on its own, but it is consistently used to control and manipulate people, which I don't like

and I also don't like the fact that Family First claims to be supporting the best interests of the family unit, yet they only embrace ONE type of family! The nuclear family.

 

[timrie6]

They cannot be a cult, because a cult is a group who are considered wrong (the Bible states that homosexual relationships are not acceptable).
They also cannot be evil, because to be evil you need to be morally wrong, and most morals are based on religion (which states homosexual relationships are wrong).

They can be a cult, I consider them wrong
They can also be evil, as I consider them morally wrong
my morals are not based on religion as I am an atheist

I have friends that are homosexuals and they are humans and deserve equal rights to heterosexuals. The world is changing, we need progressive leaders to adjust to this change and who accept people who are different

 

[beccaxx]

prayer is already in parliament...they have a prayer before every sitting... I attacked eligion because it attacks, in the form of family first, social liberty and freedom and human rights...

when i sed this: Originally Posted by beccaxx
should i be blowing up at the person who was putting down family first cos they wanna bring prayer back into parliament??? so different parties have different policies. i dont understand why ppl can kick up a stink if someone says somethin that may be unfair to the homosexual community... however its fine for u guys to degrade a religion
i was referring to timrie6's comment

Family First Policy Priorities:

1. The first policy priority is not to family but to "prayers in parliament."

so i dont understand... wat is their policy about if u say

prayer is already in parliament...they have a prayer before every sitting...

anyways, i found this article for ya as well not written by a christian so it isnt biased.

October 12, 2004
Family First
It seems likely though not certain that the government will get exactly half the seats in the Senate, and that the Family First party will get at least one, largely due to preference deals with Labor1. As with all new parties, there's something of a lucky dip quality here. Certainly, it doesn't appear that FF are the hardline religious rightwingers that they have been represented as. I don't have any particular knowledge about this group, but I will offer a few thoughts.

First, as I said in relation to Pell and Jensen, the idea that religion and politics ought to be kept separate is in general a silly one. It's based largely on a misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of church and state. What this doctrine prohibits is action by the state which favors one religion over others or over those without religious belief. In this context, claims that FF is closely associated with one particular church (Assemblies of God) are troublesome. It seems, however, that even if a lot of its leaders have been associated with AOG, the party is broader than this.

Separation of church and state does not mean that there is anything inherently problematic about people holding, and acting on, political views that are derived directly from their religious beliefs. The problem, where there is one, arises from the content of the beliefs and views. Although I don't share the belief that we are morally obligated to follow the teachings of Jesus, I am often in agreement with the political views that follow from that belief. On the other hand, I rarely have much sympathy with policy beliefs derived from the Old Testament, for example, those condemning gays.

From what we've seen so far, it looks like FF have a mixture of policies, some of which will be appealing to me and most readers of this blog and others not. On the positive side, they are sympathetic torefugees and may help in restoring some much-needed decency in this area of politics. More generally, family values are, in large measure, those of the left. Co-operation rather than self-seeking competition, equal sharing rather than incentives and so on. That hasn't stopped plenty of poltiicians espousing family values and pursuing anti-family policies, and we will have to wait and see whether FF lives up to its own rhetoric.

The obvious negative is that, for FF, the traditional family is the only option. I imagine the realities of life impinge to the extent that plenty of FF members and supporters have experienced divorce, blended families and so on, but there will obviously be no sympathy for ideas like gay marriage. But this was never going to come up, given that Labor had already opposed it. In general, this is not an area where governments have a lot of direct impact.

Overall, then we shouldn't despair about FF holding the balance of power in the Senate, though I'm not optimistic they will do much more than blunt the sharpest edge of government policy


family first article

oh well.. watever we say, they r still in the senate so why dont we jst see how they go? if they suck i would be pretty sure they will phase out soon.
personally i dont think they will... but i could be biased and i admit that. as for the comment relating to newcastle, i dont actually live in newcastle, but its the closest "big city" to where i live haha

 

[LadyBec]

anyways, i found this article for ya as well not written by a christian so it isnt biased.
as for the comment relating to newcastle, i dont actually live in newcastle, but its the closest "big city" to where i live haha

honey everyone is biased, there is no such thing as an unbiased person, the best we can to is try to ignore our won bias.
Where do you live if not newcastle?

 

[thorrnydevil]

but of course dear, religous parties ARE the root of all evil after all.

"If money is the root of all evil, why do churches beg for it?"

I love that quote...I don't know who its from though.

 

[beccaxx]

to lady bec:
very very close to warners bay high i go to jackie hills church, the girl in ur legal studies class. in sprs point.

 

[beccaxx]

go to.
and i didnt say wat one it was, i jst sed it was the one that a chic in her class went to

 

[LadyBec]

to lady bec:
very very close to warners bay high i go to jackie hills church, the girl in ur legal studies class. in sprs point.

haha how great is Jackie?
She's in my chem class too lol