Family First

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
Well the (Australian) election is already well upon us. I just wanted to know what people think about this real f***ed up Family First party. The entire thing is a front for the Assemblies of God

Here is their statement on the matter, one may find that at odds with the facts.
The party is not a church party or an Assembly of God party, nor is it funded by AOG churches. It does see itself as SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE, with Family Values based on Christian ethics. Like any main-stream party we do not have on record the religious affiliations of any of our members. The Board of Reference in South Australia includes business-people, members of the medical profession, as well as ministers and people from Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran and other church groups. The rapid national growth of the party leding into this election and the late decision to contest in all seats possible, has meant that in some states there are candidates, with strong family values, who have been introduced to the party through personal relationships they have from their involvement in community/church networks.
I do not like this religious political party, their attitudes and policies are obviously a direct offshoot of Christian Fundamentalism and should have no place within secular governance.

> Pornography: Enforce national ban on X Rated Videos. A Mandatory Filtering Scheme at the ISP Server Level to remove all pornography from Australian internet connections. Now I for one think that such censorship goes beyond the role of the government, criminal instances such as rape, children etc. they can be banned and those using tracked down and punished to the full extent of the law but to have blanket censorship, thats not good - freedom of choice, I do not want the government to become the moral police.

> Embryonic Stem Cells: Why should Government funding be wasted on the unethical pursuit of the unscientific equivalent of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?. Now honestly, if you have research into something which may yield such benefits is it not better to pursue. It is not unethical to use embryo's leftover from IVF for such research.

> Oppose of official recognition of same sex relationships, again basically everything that I argued in the locked "controversial spanish marriage initiative threadf'.

> Oppose late term abortion on demand

> Prohibit the import and use of RU 486 abortion pill

> Strengthen ABA to enforce moral standards on TV & Radio, moral standards again, what does this mean. Would Buffy or Angel suddenly become morally unacceptable because they are "satanic" and created by a 'gasp' atheist (Joss Whedon; good writer). Maybe video games with blood will be outlawed and relaced with those wierd christian ones, /shudder.

> Overturn ratification of International Criminal Court, I see no reason to do this at all. As much as I do not like the UN or some of the principles of international law there is an important place to test it. If it fails then we can have some proof of why the UN should be scrapped.

> Introduction of Young Earth creationism into the science curriculum in the name of balance :mad: this one gets me pissed off, the most unscientific set of lies and distortions given time next to actual science in the name of "equality", One may as well attempt to teach science in a theology class. This ties in with the Answers in Genesis crowd. Ignorance in the name of God - it sickens me.

I detest religion interfering in governance, now this is not anywhere near the levels one finds in political Isalm but it would be a step in the wrong direction if such a party were to gain enough power to hold sway. They represent minor authoritarianism, using the tools of government to control peoples morals and restrict their choice. I do not like it one bit, give me a party that I agree with, Labour spends too much (medicare gold is ludicrous, I do not want to be paying for blanket healthcare for the over 75's, Liberal is going nuts on spending. I just want a party that sees a limited role of government, one that does not interfere into peoples lives, that is based on reason not belief and a few other policies that would just derail this thread.

Anyway religious parties :madspit:

http://www.familyfirst.org.au/

http://baliset.blogspot.com/2004/10/family-first-one-christians-view.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/05/1096871859778.html?oneclick=true
 
Last edited:
Parts taken from their website, then pulled a few from comments by candidates. Check their website for full policy statements; which are all very ambiguous. Its a wedge tactic, bringing religion into the fray with an inoffensive pitch and then expanding once they have their foot in the door.
 
I agree with some of the things they say, like a ban on late term abortions. Actually I think that's all I agree with. I cant follow the list properly, but the rest seems ludicrous. Still, none of them are a reason to vote for a political party.

I still dont know who to vote for. Seems a few people around me are as stuck as me. It's not seemed to be as divided before now. Hmm.
 
Aaaaiiiyyeeee.. I detest politics but since we're voting in a few days I've paid a small amount of attention - politics is dodgy enough without mixing religion into it! Australia doesn't need that (please!). Mind you, I'm in one of the safest Labour seats in the country, I think, so even though I'm a good girl and always vote, it wouldn't matter if I wrote "Bono For Pope" across the page instead. :|

I'm not up for spending hours writing a detailed response (yeah, Ok, lazy) so I'll nitpick by bullet point :

Censorship :madspit:
I'm all for classification, no problem there. Not allowing normal adults to access stuff to make up their mind is stupid & wrong. I see a difference between criminal and perverted, unlike many policy makers.

Late term abortion - :ohmy:
Sick! I'm pro choice, but that idea makes my skin crawl - I think I agree with Angela on this one, subject to medical need a cut off point is reasonable.

"Introduction of Young Earth creationism into the science curriculum in the name of balance" :eyebrow:
Eh? WTF? They can stick this one!

Ok, enough or I'll wake my brain up & get into a rant - cheers ~Ultra
 
Last edited:
I resent political pressure groups that use 'family values' as a trojan horse to push a rightwing agenda for society. Do they think only Christian conservatives have family values? That's insulting, and that's really all I have to say on the subject.

As as side note, I've seen the Family Fist (oops I mean First) ads on tv, and they are truly among the worst I've ever seen in any election campaign. Worst in every way.
 
Last edited:
To all the 'undecided's, is voting for a local independent who seems worthwhile, perhaps a viable option? Believe me, I could see worse things than a lower house with a healthy contigent of independent MPs. I know, I know, we're supposed to believe they never achieve anything for their electorates... but Peter Andren must be doing something right. He's held his seat for as long as the Howard Government has existed.
 
that's a good point K. this election comes down to two local issues for me, which is sad, but on the national front, each has a list of woes i cannot justify.
independant might be the answer.
 
I think it's getting so late I'll mess up my babe's schoolday, so I don't have time to read thru all your lovely posts, folks,
but I can't help but comment that I really do believe kids need their parents *a lot* while they're young.
I'm flashing on Al Franken's (my hero!) book called...what is it?...Oh The Things I know?...and how he claimed that kids would rather have their parents yell at each other day and night then have them be apart.
I think the yelling might be critical, but whatthehell do I know...

cheers!
 
Kieran McConville said:
I resent political pressure groups that use 'family values' as a trojan horse to push a rightwing agenda for society. Do they think only Christian conservatives have family values? That's insulting, and that's really all I have to say on the subject.


:up:
 
the people that show up on Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura are dumb though.

As for this, is this party getting alot of support? Or no?
 
I agree or don't care enough to disagree with most of the stuff you listed (and it could get WAY more "Christian Fundamentalist" that that!!). I guess everyone has a right to speak up just like everyone has the right NOT to vote for these folks. I wouldn't vote for them either, not b/c I don't agree with them, but b/c from what was posted it seems like they place more emphasis on ethical issues than things like foreign policy and economics. Seems like their cause might be better received if they stuck to their own religious organization and not a political party.
 
nbcrusader said:
Is the problem the platform of this party or that the party's platform is based on their beliefs?

It is based on religious beliefs which do not fit a majority and only divide. I'd think all political parties are based on beliefs, but the difference is they are beliefs which encompass social and economic issues, not something so narrow and personal as a religious conviction.
 
Angela Harlem said:

I'd think all political parties are based on beliefs, but the difference is they are beliefs which encompass social and economic issues, not something so narrow and personal as a religious conviction.

Again, I don't support religious political parties, but I don't think it's fair to label religion as "narrow". Religious conviction influences every aspect of a person's life and yes, it is pretty personal, but I guess if enough people are feeling the same way, they could form a political party based on their religious beliefs. I don't think that this particular political movement appropriately addresses social and economic issues, but that doesn't mean religion is seperate from these issues or that a more properly formulated platform based on religion couldn't thoroughly address social and economic issues.
 
I saw this in somebody's Live Journal:

1436041


Sometimes for some of the Christian right, I think it's right on.
 
anitram said:
I saw this in somebody's Live Journal:

1436041


Sometimes for some of the Christian right, I think it's right on.

I like that! And sadly, it's all too often true.
 
Sorry Livluv, I dont mean narrow as in close minded, but that religion encompasses only so much of society - it's a narrow section of the broader community. Important and significant to some and maybe even many, but religion is not a well rounded base for political platforming. It's not about education or health or social justice. The things which I want my political party to be concerned with.

I dont think this is any clearer lol
 
but....it IS about all of those things

:scratch:

I'm not trying to be a bitch, I just don't understand. I mean, what you said is clear, but I don't think we're on the same page. Religion is NOT just going to church on Sunday or deciding what prayer to say before a meal. Religion help me decide where I go to school, what organizations I support, what political or social issues are most important to me, who I'll vote for, what I want to do with the rest of my life, how I will raise my kids, what stock I plan on buying, where my children will go to school, what job offer I will accept, where I will live, on and on...... I don't see why I'm narrow minded for being religious....?
 
I can understand if you vote based on your religous beliefs but to have a party based solely on Christian belifs excludes other religions and a good group of people who either don't believe in anything or believe in something else.

I've been reading up on the Jewish religion and found something quite interesting. If you ever see people rallying to have the Ten Commandments in schools or see the recent case in 'Bama, you see alot of Christians rallying around the Commandments. The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament, they are supported by Jews, Christians and Muslims. So why don't you see Jews at these rallies? It is because Jews see that this is a Christian issue, that it pulls together a Christian base. They see it as a Christian power grab and therefore don't participate.

I worry about Bush's obsession with being placed in office by God, with the fever he stirs in fundamentalist Christian groups. Jewish leader originally supported the president's faith-based iniatives until those plans began to exclude Jewish groups to the point where a very very small minority of money for faith-based initiatives go to anything that is not Christian. We should have a president that supports all religions, all people. You can vote based on your religious beliefs -- mine are a factor in my voting -- but you have to also be aware of people who are completely different from you aside from your nationality. As Americans, Australians, etc. we have to watch out for each other and that includes not supporting a party that would only support you.
 
I dont think you are narrow minded :huh:

I'll start again. It might be easier. And I'll use me. If I am deciding how I feel about a political party, I want to know a few key things. I want to know about health, education, social services, policing, morals, economy, their willingness to fix potholes in the road - whatever. Religion might be a part of that. But it isn't and cant be the only part or focus of it for me. And where religion comes into it, religion differs so vastly from person to person, it is very difficult to find a religious base which we can base a set of principles on which fit the greater community.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
but....it IS about all of those things

:scratch:

I'm not trying to be a bitch, I just don't understand. I mean, what you said is clear, but I don't think we're on the same page. Religion is NOT just going to church on Sunday or deciding what prayer to say before a meal. Religion help me decide where I go to school, what organizations I support, what political or social issues are most important to me, who I'll vote for, what I want to do with the rest of my life, how I will raise my kids, what stock I plan on buying, where my children will go to school, what job offer I will accept, where I will live, on and on...... I don't see why I'm narrow minded for being religious....?

And this is exactly why many of us don't like government based on religion. And a political party based on religious belief is a step towards a theocracy. I think it is fine for you to base all those decisions on your religion, but I don't want them determining what I do, because we see things very, very differently.
 
They are a 'religious' party, although as a political outfit they try and deny that. They say they have no links to a particular religion (despite a number of them being pastors at a particular church, and many more of their leadership being from the same church) and that is where I think people are being duped.

The 'Christian' church they belong to has preached/promoted among other things, that homosexuals do not deserve to live and that their congregation should pray for the destruction of 'places where Satan lives'. This includes mosques, Hindu and Buddhist places of worship, gambling houses (casinos), anywhere that serves alcohol etc. There is plenty more than this...

You can read a lot about them here...
http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2004/09/21-0001.html

What I think about them is that there is nothing more despicable than people like these who;

to the majority of the country hide behind the soft and cuddly "Family First" banner, which should really read "Extreme, Crazy Right Wing First".

and who to their own congregation and followers hide under the banner of "Christian". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible is a Christian book right? And Jesus Christ is a fairly important figure to Christians right? My understanding of both was that it was a religion that preached love, tolerance, acceptance etc. I do recall Christ happily hanging with prostitutes etc. There's some phrase in there "Love thy neighbour" or something.

I have no time, cannot stand, any person or group such as Family First that preaches pure hate in the name of Christ.

As for "are they influential" time will tell. This is there first real hit at a federal election. I hope not. I'd like to think this country wouldn't accept it at all.
 
indra said:


And this is exactly why many of us don't like government based on religion. And a political party based on religious belief is a step towards a theocracy. I think it is fine for you to base all those decisions on your religion, but I don't want them determining what I do, because we see things very, very differently.

Yes, I agree, which I why (as I said before) I would never support a religious-based party even if I was the one that got to pick how it stands on all the issues.

Angie, I see what you're saying. I understand it now, we're just different is all. How my religion deals with issues is always the most important factor with me because it's essential to who I am and even if I tried, I couldn't segregate the two (religion and politics) b/c I can't make a decision without my own soul, lol.

Earnie, (unfortunately) I don't think this part is as extreme, crazy, or right wing as they look, compared to some. I wouldn't even label them Fundamentalist (even if that's what the think they are).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom