[Stephan Jänsch]

I couldn't agree more! I remember once hearing Peter say in an interview on
whether he was a religious person that he was "religious in a very
non-dogmatic, non-pragmatic sense" or something like that. Him being a
fundamental Christian certainly doesn't fit in. Concerning the debate on
abortion: I found it virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on
it. Whatever you say, its hard not to put your foot in it or get your words
twisted in your mouth...

Stephan 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
[mailto:powderworks-bounces at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu] Im Auftrag von Julian
Shaw (Man Myth or Monkey?)
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. September 2004 09:16
An: <; Erin Oneill
Betreff: RE: [Powderworks] PG in the Financial Review

Interesting...where is powderpolitics when you need it?

I'm not a Christian and I disagree with a lot of Christian ideas. But I
think this is a bit one sided.

1) Being anti-abortion is not a Christian idea it is a piece of Church
dogma. 
I myself am anti-abortion but I'm for a woman having the right to chose.
There is no reason to think that PG would try and force his views on other
people.

2) Just because people don't subscribe to a major religious faith doesn't
mean that there decisions aren't marked by dogma. In fact you will find that
most political parties are filled with people who will always vote with
their side, loyalty to the party and all forgetting any reason or
principles. In some cases being Labour, Liberal, Communist becomes like a
religion with all the conditions that you should believe in set out for you
before you join the brotherhood...even if some of them make no sense.

3) In the Oils lyrics the Christian images have always been very universal
and carefully balanced with other forms of spirituality. There is no reason
to think that PG has suddenly become a right-wing religious fundamentalist.
I think he has too much intelligence for that.

Julian


>===== Original Message From Erin Oneill <Erin.Oneill at newcastle.edu.au> 
>===== hello one and all...
>
>Last saturdays' financial review had an article on PG.  They commented 
>on how
he is anti-abortion etc (ie has very conservative Christian views) and may
use his public tenure within the Labor Party as a possible pro-Christianity
push using the Labor Party as his vehicle.
>I have to say this worries me.
>I can appreciate his concerns about abortion, but when push comes to 
>shove I
don't think he should have the right to dictate to women (of all religious
persuasions) how to live their lives just because he believes in a the
Christian god.  My second concern is how so much of parliament (both sides)
is being dominated by God-botherers (e.g. Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott).  I note
that Mark Latham (leader of the opposition) is not religious and is
criticised for this.  Perhaps that puts him in a good position to assess
policy on it merits rather than what will make him feel good about his god.
I'm afraid my experience with religious people in general (of any religion)
has shown me that they put their god and their beliefs before the masses
(especially those not of their persuasion), and so good public policy is
severly compromised or stuffed entirely.
>
>I have to say though, I'm not suprised.
>
>If you want to find the article here in Australia, public and 
>university
libraries usually carry copies of the sat. Fin. Review.
>
>Cheerio,
>Erin.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Powderworks mailing list
>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks

_______________________________________________
Powderworks mailing list
Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks