If they won’t pander to the ACL, they’re “anti-Christian”

We still can’t see any footage of last night’s expensive but secretive effort by the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader to promise to use their almost 100% control of the House of Representatives to pander to an extremist sect of “Christians”, the ACL, at the expense of non-Christians’ basic rights, but we can read an ABC report about it:

Catholic Archbishop George Pell told the virtual audience he was concerned about the Greens gaining the balance of power in the next Senate.

“Their program is explicitly anti-Christian,” he said.

If you don’t agree with enforcing our subsect’s dogma on all Australians, you are “anti-Christian”!

Ironically, the Greens’ platform of providing decent services to the poor, opposing the oppression of the weak by the powerful, of treating refugees humanely, of looking after what Pell would describe as “God’s creation”, of opposing unnecessary wars, would seem to me to be more compatible with the Gospels than anything from Labor or the LNP. The vast majority of the stuff Jesus is actually recorded talking about fits much more closely with the Greens’ policy platform than anything offered by the big old parties. You know – ethical policy that treats people fairly, as opposed to policy that’s about forcing someone’s religious dogma down everyone else’s throat. (And demanding that they pay for it.)

Which is why Pell is annoyed. Because the Greens don’t agree with him that government should continue to discriminate against gays, take over women’s bodies, implement censorship laws that put children at risk, or rob the suffering terminally ill of the right to choose when they pass on. By “anti-Christian”, Pell means that the Greens won’t pander to him.

And every time somebody criticises George Pell or doesn’t give him what he wants, an angel dies.

7 responses to “If they won’t pander to the ACL, they’re “anti-Christian”

  1. As a progressive Christian, I see the Greens’ policies as being very much in line with Jesus’ lived beliefs. Consequently they get my vote. Jesus had no problems with society’s ‘outcasts’: as people who are we to judge others’ lives? It is up to us to accept and respect all people no matter what their beliefs (even the George Pells of this world, although I can hardly call them Christians). And I enjoy this blog!!

  2. Maybe he’s confused about what the word “explicit”means. If he’d just said “anti-Christian”, your characterisation would be fair. But “*explicitly* anti-Christian”, that’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s a bald-faced lie.

    Still, as Fred Nile has taught us, it’s ok to tell lies when God’s on your side…

  3. confessions

    There’s some footage here which was screened on Lateline last night.

  4. Maybe he’s talking about that thing Shanahan quoted in Viewpoint, where Pinker and Brown distinguised the old Christian view of man being at the centre of creation with their view of nature being valueable in itself. As Shanahan herself admits that doesn’t attack contemporary Christian views except by their connection with historical church views.

  5. Pingback: Bruce Llama » Politics and jesus – The ACL

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s