That Family First will attract significant support at the next State election seems without doubt.
I will find myself unable to vote for them. Despite the fact that I am myself a religious person I find I am some what at odds with their policy focus which is narrowly to the social and moral right and clearly dominated by a religious framework, which they have steadfastly denied though surely no one believes this ingenuous spin.
As a leader of a local church I get a stream of unsolicited emails from them and the last is clearly appealing to me to support fellow Christians. I shall come to that in a moment.
There is a certain naïveté about some of their promotions….."Family First is against killing old people”.
As far as I know, about 99.9% of us feel likewise. While you can no doubt imagine what was being promoted here…the spectre of euthanasia…what I find disturbing about their stance is that they seem to preclude the possibility of constructive debate in this area. We will just say NO! is their policy. I think that is not helpful, and is in a way dishonest.
Their latest polemic contains a number of gems which should dispel any notion that they are not simply a front for various Pentecostal churches
They write: Family First will oppose any legislation that is ‘anti-church.’ I would feel happier if they were supporting everyone’s religious rights …I don’t hear them asserting the rights of Moslems
Family First will vehemently oppose and vote against any legislation that seeks to weaken the status of marriage. I don’t disagree with the sentiment, though it is rather a “carte blanche”. Banning passive smoking would seem to support marriage; encouraging safe driving likewise. Since marital law lies firmly within the Federal sphere I am not sure what it has to do with this State election unless of course it is about
Family First will also oppose any legislation which seeks to recognise homosexual relationships and grant rights to such relationships. I don’t quite understand why Pentecostals and other fundamentalists seem to hate homosexual people more than anything else. I personally want to live in a society where all members are free from persecution and injustice. We might not like people’s chosen lifestyles but we do not live in a narrow society where everyone is required to conform to Pastor Evans peculiar view of what family relationships should be like. I despise the tactic which names those who voted for the earlier readings of the Relationships Bill as though they some how are dishonourable. Not all Christians, myself included, support this narrow view of human sexuality which seems to be filled with a hatred that is far removed from the love of our Lord Jesus..
They go on Family First will fight for increased funding from the State Government for Independent, Catholic and Christian schools. and
We will also strongly oppose the intentions of the Minister for Education, The Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith, to substitute the name ‘chaplain’ for an alternative (sic)
I don’t disagree with either of these positions but am interested that for an allegedly broad-based party they have more than their fair share of interest in the peculiar interests of right wing churches.
I don’t think this is good. I am happy for churches to have their say and contribute to the debate but it is undesirable, I suggest, for churches to masquerade as political parties.
5 comments:
Thank you for your post. It means a lot to me; this topic -- church and state -- is something I've struggled with over the last few months.
While I have no doubt that the folks at Family First are well-meaning, I can see only trouble in their refusal (inability?) to distinguish between religious authority and political authority. Wielding political power hypothetically enables churches to do immense good; but I can see that political power is itself a temptation, and I worry and wonder at Family First's reticence to acknowledge the nature of its ties to AOG.
What makes me terribly sad is that, in this pursuit of political power, groups like Family First compromise their ability to nurture authentic faith, spiritual wonder, and affirmation in others. A religious group that is willing to keep mum about its religious origins in order to win political votes is, as you say, disingenuous, and ultimately encourages people to see religion as little more than a form of organized power, piety as little more than party membership.
I think you are right about compromise.
I feel they should read the Hebrew Scriptures to see what the pusuit of politics does to God's good people.
Glad you seemed to enjoy MG and hope you have now put your shirt back on!! I am sitting here in black clericals off to say Mass on a very hot Sunday!!
And what is the level and stability of the parochial ground upon which we dwell? For whose remembrance did God set his bow in the clouds? How do WE see things in (or should it be through?) a glass? Do WE earnestly strive to see clearly? Are we heretical about what we choose to see and to not see? Do we 'get' what Robbie Burns said? How honest are we with each other and with our own selves? Are these pertinent questions?
I guess "anonymous" as you rightly note you should begin by asking yourself questions about personal honesty . As indeed we all should.
Amen.
Post a Comment