Straw dollies

It's the usual "straw dolly" ...set up a false assumption and then knock it down..How clever are you!

There are/is at least one/or more alternatives.
1) The Heimlich is not without consequence...and can cause damage.
Inappropriate intervention..particularly by amateurs can/could/perhaps should leave you open to assault charges
2) Not all "choking" is appropriately treated by the HM..eg. serious internal regurgitation and vomiting. However
3) I would say the BEST treatment is to:
Perform the appropriate action, (if you know how/are qualified/can actually accurately diagnose the condition)
and ALSO pray.
Most good doctors get this!

Some would say..'well prayer can't hurt'
Others, myself included have experience which suggests that when I put my arrogance aside; Prayer does considerably more than just 'not hurt'

As for the esteemed Professor Krauss, one would expect considerably more intellectual integrity than the establishment of such straw dollies ( I do recognise that he may not have been specifically responsible for this meme...but I suspect he did say the words!)

a classic straw dolly

just bash it and it will fall apart!

aka The Easy Target

Plebiscite schmebiscite..this post is worth repeating

In democracies, by definition, plebiscites must be almost always:  deceitful, deceptive, manipulative & unhelpful

 In a democracy we delegate responsibility to our elected representatives...occasionally we have a Referendum...when matters are so great that it is good to get whole-community consensus

Plebiscites, it seems to me, are when our elected representatives are so weak-kneed that they lack the courage and conviction to do what they were elected to do...that is DECIDE
To not be too cynical, it is the sort of thing our Lords and Masters ( for they are largely male) do when they are too lily livered to actually make a decision...God forbid that they might actually declare their hands!

Sooooo....the dilemma we now face in the Parliament which looks increasingly hung is this:

• Turnbull has declared that there will be a Plebiscite  
• Shorten, whilst not committed  to a Plebiscite, suggests that there should be resolution of this issue within 100 days

What it seems to me.....neither of these luminaries rate this issue as primary within their present DIFFICULT PARLIAMENT scenario

Even more importantly, neither Shorten nor Turnbull, seem to be able to  actually effect their agenda...

So my, SAD,  suggestion is that the expectation about Marriage Equality is not going to be addressed by either Turnbull or Shorten...they will both have their reasons.

None of them will resonate with people on either side.

I suspect it will make Australians seem like Luddites.
The people of a generation  a hundred years or more ago!...no wonder we don't trust them

The nonsense of the mandate

I grit my teeth every time the modern politician talks about a mandate.
The truth is the Westminster system does not deliver mandates.
It delivers government.
We elect a team to govern, not simply or only to implement the declared and limited list of policies that may have been identified during the election campaign.
I am not saying that these should be disregarded, ....but I will come back to that in a moment...
Then truth is it nonsense for any party to say it has a mandate to implement every single policy that may have crossed their lips during an election campaign simply because they happen to have been elected (and in this latter case by the slimmest of majorities)
Just let me walk you through my logic.
During the last election campaign, just to take the presently elected team, they talked about: Marriage Equality, Superannuation, Budget Reform, Submarines, Education, Refugees and the hideously named  lie "Border Protection", let alone the duplicity on both sides about Health Care
Now I agree with them about some things..and indeed some aspects but not necessarily all of their policies. I do not agree with them about some others
Now I, and everyone else, did not get a chance to say what I was particularly "giving a mandate" for.

Indeed I was NOT giving a mandate! I cast my vote for an individual and/or a party whilst not necessarily agreeing to absolutely everything they were promoting.

Indeed I actively disagree with both major parties about their hideous policies to do with refugee resettlement.

Though they can erroneously claim that they have a "Mandate"...they have no way of knowing which of the broad range of policies people actually approve.

I would suggest that most Australians...however they voted... did not give "mandates", they thought some things were good and other things were not.
We vote not a "mandate" ...but on balance.
Indeed we vote for the team.
We recognise that not everything is solved, or sorted. But by and large one team has got the balance we prefer.  This does not commit us to support the details.
Rather we empower the team.

We do not implement the mandate. We elect a government.

This would rather expose the  current Marriage Equality discussion.

There is NO mandate to implement or not implement Marriage Equality; there is no mandate for a plebiscite.

What there is, is a requirement for the elected member to exercise their conscience.
And not to hide behind the false wall of the illusory mandate.

Let's move on..... but doesn't look like we will

I just wrote to Warren Entsch about  marriage equality

Dear Warren

I am an Anglican priest and stand in awe of your commitment to promote the cause of marriage equality even against the strident views of the Prime Minister, which I would suggest are more in touch with conservative Roman Catholicism than the view of the people. 

I would, and do, regard myself as a conservative and orthodox  Christian; this does not preclude my agreeing with you about the justice of this issue.

And this email is really to let you know (as I am sure you already do) that not all Christians think Marriage Equality is wrong. 

I am sure that this will eventually pass into law. The Church, sadly in my opinion, will struggle with this for some what longer. I would happily marry a same-sex couple tomorrow! (even today!) but the laws of our Church are slow to catch up.

In my congregation ( a city congregation in Adelaide) there are a number of people who are same-sex attracted. One couple, much loved by us all, has been in a stable relationship for over 40 years.

My impression is that most middle of the road Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, & Uniting Church people  and many others  even Baptists and Churches of Christ folk…..long to love and allow love to prevail.

The ‘conservatives’ in all traditions will try to tell us otherwise.

Frankly the secular community couldn’t care less about the irrelevancies of the various religious bodies' internal machinations; 

So stick in there!

Stephen

Stephen Clark

frstephenclark@gmail.com

0407718786

stephenclarks.blogspot.com.au

Lots of stuff going on

My head is buzzing at the moment. Quite a lot of big issues.
The Greek Economy, Marriage Equality, Terrorism....and so it goes on
I am thankful that life does not get smaller.

As we were leaving church on Sunday my dear and faithful parishioner said "What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
I suggested to her that  the 2 mins for such conversations was not going to allow me to discuss this with her on the doorstep of the church.

I also had a bit of a feeling that I was being corralled ....as  a trendy lefty....( a descriptor I steadfastly deny) to say stuff I would almost surely entirely regret.

First of all let me say that I eschew being driven into a corner where what is not being sought is freedom of expression but the capacity to put my foot into my mouth

So surprisingly I feel a bit sorry, for Barnaby who  has been told that he will not be allowed to be on Q&A tonight. Bully boys at Government Head Office ( it goes right to the top) will be stopping national dialogue...no senior ministers will be allowed to be on the national broadcasters flagship program Q & A...and Barnaby is the first casualty.
Now, I am no Barnaby fan.....but at least he is usually unafraid to confront his critics.


Democracy is threatened when power says "You are not allowed to speak!"

We all wait with baited breath to see what Malcolm will do !  He does appear to buckle
And we had all hoped he was better than that!
Let's wait for next week

Expressing yourself

I was faintly bemused at a meeting a couple of weeks ago when B, a key proponent of certain new manifestations of how you might express Christianity, said "I don't ever want to hear the phrase 'Fresh expressions' again"

He was particularly referring to a recent conference in our Diocese that had been pursuing this idea.

My understanding is that the "fresh expressions movement" is challenging Christians to offer the Gospel in ways that might be more readily understood by the 21st century woman and man.

This idea has much to commend it but also needs to be carefully critiqued.

Not a few people have been expressing to me in the last few weeks a certain disquiet about this idea of "fresh expression"

Not the least of which is the whole idea of what "expressions" might be acceptable.

The sad resignation of openly lesbian priest Ali Wurm who has had a powerful and confronting ministry at Semaphore leads us to wonder what on earth we are on about.

I was struck when reading Ali's statement to her parish a couple of weeks ago about how innovative and fresh her ministry had been ( see an interesting account of Ali's church community engaging with popular culture here).

But, you see, although this is one of a number of powerful examples of how a fine priest has tried to freshly express the Christian faith...the powers that be do not seem to be interested in traversing the area of homosexuality.

No wonder the world find us ridiculous!

Worse than this, the world recognises that for all our talk about "fresh expressions" we actually are only prepared (on an official level) to countenance those things which are already well catered for by the narrowness of our own moral world views!!!