A close look at the Rise Up Australia Party

When people are dissatisfied with their elected representatives, they have a few options open to them.

They can protest, lobby, or mount advertising campaigns to pressure politicians. They can join a party and attempt to change it from within. They can decide to run for office as an Independent. They can ‘opt out’ of voting altogether.

Or they can do what the Australian Democrats and Australian Greens did before them – start their own political party.

This weekend, two groups did exactly that.

Independent MP Bob Katter announced the formation of his Katter’s Australian Party.

And evangelical Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries launched its Rise Up Australia Party.

Since Katter is already a serving MP, he’s attracted a lot of media attention already, particularly since he declared his intention to break the stranglehold of Coles and Woolworths on Australia’s grocery markets. As such, I’m not going to spend time on them here, because I want to get to the party that’s so far gone under the radar.

The RUAP is headed up by Pentecostal minister Reverend Danny Nalliah and Catch the Fire Ministries. The parent group has been in the headlines more than once in recent years; they’ve called for the destruction of mosques and places associated with witchcraft, Hinduism and gambling, they’ve warned that sharia law is being instituted by stealth in Australia, and held numerous prayer vigils in Canberra to ‘break the Satanic power’ allegedly being used by witches to influence the government. Nalliah himself was convicted under Victoria’s racial and religious vilification laws – a verdict that he appealed twice before it was finally overturned. (The judgment is available through VCAT – case number A392/2002.)

The group’s name is directly tied to CTFM – it refers to a series of prayer meetings that began in 2002. In fact, Nalliah refers to CTFM as the ‘cover’ for Rise Up Australia, and had this to say in the 9th anniversary blog:

‘There is one thing I know-we cannot compromise the Gospel in order to maintain status quo. We need to boldly stand for what we believe. Come on men & women who know God, don’t compromise in order to maintain your reputation. Stand up for what you believe. If not, we will lose the Christian heritage of our homeland of Australia.’

The RUAP builds on this statement in its listed aims. But let’s break them down a bit, shall we? Some are listed out of order for the purposes of analysis, but I’ve left in the original numbers assigned to each point.

1. Protect freedom of speech.

Sounds like a good idea, right? But wait. At the very least there’s a vested interest here. Remember that Nalliah was initially convicted under vilification laws for his comments about Islam and Moslems.

2. Establish full employment and fair wages; support/re-establish manufacturing industries in Australia.

Another apparently good idea – until you take into account this point:

7. Faith-based schools are to have the right to employ people of their choice.

So RUAP supports the idea of allowing religious (read: Christian) organisations to discriminate when hiring and firing. I’m sure Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu is happy to know that.

3. Reduce the cost of living by limiting the size of government and limiting the levels of taxation, with the least possible intrusion of governments into the lives of individuals and businesses.

Unless those businesses are churches or church organisations, of course. CTFM is already on record as opposing tax-exempt status for other religions.

4. Reaffirm our Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

6. No religion or religious practices are to be forced upon another person.

Technically, there is no such right. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states that ‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.’ As has pointed out in numerous court cases, that is not a guarantee of religious freedom per se. But okay, religious freedom. Sounds good. And this point sounds even better.

But then there’s this:

8. Schools to have faith-based chaplains.

9. School curriculums to include the teaching of the history of Western civilization and our Judeo-Christian heritage.

So, chaplains should not merely be permitted, but mandatory. Given that – as blogger Mike Stuchbery has established beyond doubt – the chaplaincy program and its accompanying Special Religious Instruction program are firmly in the grip of an evangelical Christian group bent on recruiting children into their religious beliefs, this is hardly consistent with religious freedom (or indeed freedom from religion).

Even worse, RUAP advocates shaping the national curriculum to teach distorted history in order to further their deceptive claims of pre-eminence, to – in their own words:

5. Recognise and affirm our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Australia is not and has never been a Judeo-Christian nation (and even using that word is in itself both nonsensical and insulting – it implies that Judaism is merely a form of Christianity). Our indigenous inhabitants were not Christian until converted by missionaries. Our population has always included migrants who did not subscribe to any form of Christianity – the Chinese migrants to the goldfields were some of the earliest. Our Constitution guarantees no state-mandated religion. And holding no religious belief at all well predates any white settlement on this continent.

RUAP would insist, however, that children be taught nothing of Australia’s varied religious heritage. That children be misled into thinking that white settlement brought one form of religion to this country, establishing itself as the sole possessor of Australian spirituality.

And just to drive the point home, the RUAP have this policy:

15. Protect Australia from multiculturalism. People who live in Australia should become Australian – we are multi-ethnic, not multi-cultural. We do not advocate homogenising – immigrants are free to celebrate their own backgrounds, but must respect the Australian culture. We are opposed to a dual legal system, i.e. we oppose introduction of Sharia law in Australia. We will educate people about the implications of radical Islamic teaching. We advocate no Centrelink benefits for polygamists.

Freedom of speech – unless you want to talk about sharia law in a positive way. Freedom of religion – unless that religion is something RUAP finds abhorrent. Celebrate ethnic heritage – within narrowly specified guidelines that conform to an evangelical group’s definition.

And then there’s the odd little after-thought of the anti-polygamy statement. Clearly, that’s aimed at religious groups, but there is growing support for polyamory in Australia that has nothing to do with issues of faith. They, too, would be affected by this policy – although in the eyes of RUAP, that might simply be an unlooked-for bonus in the quest to make Australia in their religious image.

Which brings us to this:

20. While we recognise the Aboriginal people as the first people of Australia, we encourage them to accept our Government’s apology and invite them to issue a statement of thanks for the good that the British heritage has brought to our nation.

In other words – we did something for you, now it’s your turn to do something for us. This is Brendan Nelson’s non-Apology speech as policy: indigenous people should acknowledge that white settlement was a good thing, accept the symbolic apology they were given (apparently the formal acceptance of the Apology speech by indigenous representatives doesn’t count), and stop whining.

10. Improve discipline in our schools.

This is one of those motherhood statements that is ultimately meaningless unless read in the light of the overall agenda. What, exactly, constitutes ‘discipline’ for RUAP? Obeying the teacher? Complying with a ban on expressions of religious freedom like wearing a burqa or questioning the indoctrination it wants to replace historical inquiry?

And then we get to the social policies:

11. Protect the traditional family unit – father, mother, and children.

12. Parents have the right to discipline their children, within sensible historical, non-abusive guidelines.

13. Protect children from homosexuality as it creates health problems. Promote children’s rights – children have the right to have both male and female role models as parents (father and mother).

14. We wish to make abortion history by providing those social conditions that support women in their lives to become fulfilled and not being forced into situations where they feel there is no option but to have an abortion.

No surprises here, really. Every one of these is consistent with Pentecostal doctrine. And every one contains some extremely ugly ideas. Let’s just grab a few.

‘Protecting children’ is code for any number of repressive policies. This can already be seen in the US, where states and counties justify the removal of women’s reproductive rights, single parents’ rights and queer people’s rights ‘for the sake of the children’. It’s all supported by lofty sentiments about ‘health’, or ‘fulfilling women’, of course – RUAP is not going to come right out and say, ‘Homosexuals and women who have abortions are evil and going to hell’.

‘Homosexuals cause health problems’. HIV/AIDS, obviously. This is the tried-and-true tactic of blaming the victim. The comment about the ‘traditional family unit’ ties in with the generally homophobic sentiment – queer parents would hurt their kids (with the disgusting whiff of ‘gays are pedophiles’ that tends to accompany such sentiments).

‘No option but to have an abortion’. And how about women becoming ‘fulfilled’? Clearly, RUAP’s stance is that every woman’s destiny is to have children, and those who find fulfilment elsewhere are either sick or evil. No woman chooses to be childless, right?

To round out these social policies, the inevitable dogwhistle:

16. All boats trying to enter Australian waters by illegal means should be stopped to preserve the lives put at risk by people smugglers.

RUAP appears to have assimilated Abbott’s ‘Stop the Boats’ slogan – and its ridiculous justification – remarkably well.

Finally we have a couple of motherhood statements:

17. Protect the environment, as God gave it to mankind to look after.

18. We support the right for Israel to exist with Jerusalem as its undivided capital.

19. All elected Members of Parliament for RUA Party are encouraged to donate a percentage of their salary to the poor and the needy.

Number 17 is meaningless – there’s no detail other than the restatement of what is by now unmistakable – it’s all about enforcing a particular religion’s view of the world.

I actually agree with the notion of charitable donations from MPs – only the RUAP doesn’t go far enough. Anyone elected to public office should be encouraged to do this.

The foreign policy statement is pretty much self-explanatory.

So that’s the Rise Up Australia Party – a narrowly representative, single-agenda driven body directly linked to a religious organisation known for its bigotry, hate speech and determination to dominate Australia. It probably won’t get much attention from the media – after all, it’s just a small party, right? What are the chances it could ever influence any government?

I imagine people said much the same thing about Fred Nile’s Christian Democrats, Steven Fielding’s Family First and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party.

In an era where two-party dominance is increasingly coming under fire, and where Independent MPs can hold the balance of power, nothing should be taken for granted.

And our best course of action is to stay informed.

40 Responses to A close look at the Rise Up Australia Party

  1. C says:

    The ONLY thing I agree with in their policies is that we shouldn’t accept the practice of Sharia law in Australia. Our laws should not be influenced by religious beliefs but hello, that is exactly what the Rise Up party is trying to do themselves! They want to implement policies that align with their religious beliefs. How can they not see the contradiction?? I wish someone more credible and without their own agenda, would stand up against the islamification of our country but everybody is too scared these days of being called “racist” (even though Muslims aren’t a race but a religious group mind you).

    • Jack says:

      Most of Sharia law is exactly the same as our common law, but the only laws I’ve ever heard of moderate Muslims wanting in Australia are their inheritance laws. Muslims have strict and complex inheritance requirements – perhaps if we loosen our rules a little to allow a more varied set of laws to accommodate everybody. That’s the part of Sharia I find should be integrated – not because I believe that Sharia law is good, but because that’s just sensible.

  2. Joths says:

    muslims have failed to intergrate into 40 countries in history.They have failed in europe .Now they will fail in Australia .Refugees are muslim just dole blugers.By passing many safe countries to get to centrelink.

  3. roulette says:

    roulette…

    [...]A close look at the Rise Up Australia Party « The Conscience Vote[...]…

  4. yaqoobyounas in pakistan and sunday school ministrie

  5. Malsta says:

    I am amazed at the dialogue espoused to scare a people who have lost sight of where our country was and where it is headed. I find it absolutely astonishing that other cultures can come to our country and impose their will onto us and should we challenge any aspect, we are labelled. What this party is doing, in my view, is no different to what other cultures are doing. It is not about religion….Religion is rules and is dead..This is about faith…When will Australia wake up…We cannot continue living a life of “if it feels good to me, I;ll do it and I don;t care if it is not good for you” Where does this attitude logically lead a society to…I’ll give you a hint…Look to Europe (as the outcome of this lifestyle).

  6. Kim says:

    Its interesting who gets scared and all het up about a Christian Party just kicking off. I am sure they will make a mistake or two, but no-one will be killed. Conviction is a gift from God and I just wonder why all these complainants are surfacing. Could there really be some truth to Biblical Principles about Sin, Conviction and Forgiveness. I have read accounts of Satanists,Homosexuals, Prostitutes and all Sorts of ordinary people with life issues and Burdens being SAVED from their dreary hopeless lives by getting a hold of the Forgiveness and Unconditional Love that Jesus Promised in the Bible. The Bible actuallyl talks about the Word of GOD confounding the Wise.
    Another one is……….. Judge not lest ye be Judged
    I rest my Case
    Its Home to Glory…………or
    The really Hot Place
    Free Will…. You Choose…… No Pressure

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      Pascals wager wow maybe you could email that back to the 1600′s and we all could be impressed.

      Hey but what if the Hindu’s are right and your narrow minded bigotry is getting you some bad karma resulting in your next reincarnation being as a lower life form?

  7. Rose says:

    Praise JEHOVAH; Well, Seems ALL The Worms have Come Out From The Rotten Wood Works??? Do Not Believe ALL You Read In The Papers & What’s Printed On The Websites. You ALL Seem To Running Scared and Full Of Fear. Why Is That So??? ALL The CHRISTians I Know Would Not Damage A Hair On Your Heads. We Are A Great & Mighty CHRISTian Nation & Always Will Be–Now Doesn’t That Just make you ALL SMILE. ALL The Christians In Australia Have The Same RIGHTS As Any Of you Dopy knockers. CHRISTians Have FREEDOM Of Choice To Be A Political Party Iff They Choose To Be. You ALL Can Be To Iff You Want To and WE–The Christians Will Not Protest. Do Not JUDGE The CHRISTians Untill You Have Met ALL 15–MILLION + Of Us In Australia. Hallelujah Folks. Please; When You ALL Point A Finger At The CHRISTians—MAKE SURE YOU ALL HAVE 3-YES-3–FINGERS POINTING BACK AT YOURSELVES.

    • Loki Carbis says:

      A few points:
      1) Not all of Australia’s 12.7 million Christians (as per the 2001 census) are members of Catch the Fire. In fact, more than 12 million of them are not.
      2) Actually, historically, Christian groups have protested a number of political parties, from the ALP to the Greens to the Sex Party.
      3) Christians have the same rights under law as most other Australians. In fact, those Australians with fewer rights are almost exclusively non-Christians. The exceptions are the extremely rare Gay Christians.
      4) No one is disputing the right of Call to Australia to form a political party.
      5) One right that members of Call to Australia – and indeed, all other Australians – do not possess is the right to deny others their rights. Although from their policies, it seems clear that Call to Australia wants that right.
      6) There is no chance whatsoever that you will not judge, despite the fact that such behaviour is repeatedly stated to the province of God, not anyone else, in the Bible.
      7) I confess, I have no idea what you’re on about with the three fingers bit. Care to explain?

    • Kim says:

      Preach it Siss

  8. I’m taking a gross liberty here and you are fully entitled to wipe anything of mine, including this. I send it, F.Y.I. Feel free to wipe my stuff. But it is people such as yourselves who finish up changing the world. If you search under my full name (insert Bruce, to avoid getting tangled with a namesake or two) and peruse my poor efforts elsewhere it won’t take long to get the picture.

    I take the liberty — wipe it by all means — of providing the full text of a message sent to RUAP 14th this month. Regards, and kindly overlook my manners. .

    RUAP: I sent this earlier but after sending it elsewhere some minor amendments became necessary, which are in the text. If you are filing, keep this in preference to the earlier version.

    On a completely unrelated topic: I can see you becoming recipients of substantial mail, mostly electronic. I can envisage you needing to get technical advice (if you haven’t already) on safety in relation to the surface mail you receive.

    I am here and you are there but if it could be arranged I could easily spend hours per day reading and responding to certain categories of mail, on a somewhat flexible basis. Of course, I am referring to political matters as distinct from genuine, personal mail. I suggest that the people in charge and especially the person in charge will not be able to spend time on lesser paperwork, of all sorts. Er, and I don’t swear – much– but I know some of the words. I feel for female secretaries, in certain lines of employment. I have taken a hated topic into arenas where it was initially hated, in the cyberspace.

    Here is the result of my Internet search an hour ago:

    Under RUAP: Rural Urban Area Package.
    Under RUAP PARTY: Did you mean, rap party? Yeah, man, yeah yeah yeah.
    Getting better. Under RUAP Political Party: Top result: The launch was noted by a commentary or whatever it is called, namely The Conscience Vote. Atheist, leaning towards gay rights, at first glance. I am a week late but they aren’t closed Brethren so I dropped in what I hope is a good word for the Party. Looks as though they go upwards, chronologically. It’s at the head of roughly ten.
    Other (second) result: 2CC interview, with my comment as part of the result because I named RUAP in the text.

    Don’t worry. I never named RUAP in my text. I had spent an hour on my text, even laboriously typed out a quote from a book; the whole thing suddenly disappeared from before my eyes. I have had that happen before, including in reverse; information appearing on the ‘Net before my eyes. So, I know some of the words, but didn’t mutter them. Funny thing: the other day, I decided it was necessary to say something more about those billboard advertisements. I decided, whereupon a lightbulb exploded loudly and spread glass. Never happened like that before. I persisted, and you had to remove several messy entries. Slow learner, Draw your own conclusions.

    Sent to all federal M.P.’s, selected newspapers, June, 2011.
    from Philip Heywood – (again!) As leaders, people are looking to you and it has struck me that I may be able to assist in this global warming scare by collating a few facts. What is strange about this business is that people one most expects to be sceptical and calm – scientists – are losing their heads. I yet recall the little old lady who assured me that Apollo 13 was going to blow up the moon, and she meant it! – but not scientists? No wonder there are death threats and that sort of thing.
    Everything that follows is at my site or in science media releases – SCIENCEDAILY is recommended.

    Science is built on rationality. Every thing is mathematical, and we must approach every question from the view that a rational person with identical thought patterns to ours, created every thing. That isn’t a direct quote from Galileo, but it’s close enough.

    People are in a funk in extreme cases, whipped up by climate scientists, cheered on by anarchist Greens, even on this June day, — carbon gases are going to overheat the earth, drown the earth, upset ocean chemistry and kill the reef etc..

    Let us now evaluate the supposed scientific proof that this is bound to happen.

    1) Following Galileo: A thinking person set up the biosphere, based on mathematics, utterly amenable to logic, which is verbalized mathematics. This biosphere is extremely complex and is not a sealed system. Therefore no aspect of it can be fully measured or predicted in a test tube.

    2) Assume the Creator (in this case, you) took into account the fact that atmospheric carbon would fluctuate.
    3) The biosphere will therefore be able to accommodate some fluctuation in atmospheric carbon.
    4) The paramount question is therefore, “What are the upper and lower limits of atmospheric carbon we can tolerate without global disaster?
    5) To answer( 4) we require a technical readout on what would happen to temperature, ocean acidity, and ocean level, if the carbon level rises significantly or on the other hand, falls significantly.
    6) We can be almost certain that increasing atmospheric carbon increases ocean acidity. That is a near-certainty, because carbon dioxide readily dissolves in water and very slightly acidifies it. That’s not the whole story, but we will let it stand.
    7) We have no certainty if or by how much atmospheric carbon increases temperature. The unassailable, and perhaps startling fact is that at this stage there is no foolproof method in existence of determining palaeotemperature. Palaeotemperature – even from relatively reliable ice-core data – currently has some sort of question mark hanging over it. It is something like a best guess, and in many cases may be a good guess.
    8) Even if temperature is accurate, it is/was/will not be directly proportional to sea-level. Here is the wild card. The atmosphere is not straightforward. World climate is not necessarily governed by world temperature. The quantity of water tied up as ice is governed by climate, not by average world temperature. Repeating: world climate is not necessarily closely governed by world temperature. Therefore, sea-level, which is tied to ice deposits, is not necessarily governed by temperature. The fact that climate and therefore ice deposits do not slavishly follow global temperature is so well known that it barely warrants examination. Spitzbergen, in the Arctic, is ice-free much of the year. New York regularly experiences sub-arctic conditions in winter, yet is on the same latitude as northern Portugal. Much of frozen Siberia is outside the Arctic Circle, and is not alpine. But, it is when we look at the scientific papers purporting to prove the link between carbon and heating that real conundrums appear. For example, according to the dating and the analyses, a fossil site only a few million years old on Ellesmere Is., Canadian Arctic, containing temperate animals and plants, has carbon dioxide not grossly different to ours. I have personally contacted the authors –top people—and, they can’t guarantee their published carbon dioxide estimate of .0004 —which isn’t much above ours at .00038. What can be guaranteed is that beavers played not long past, close to the North Pole. That implies a massive temperature change.
    9)Therefore, any prediction of future sea-level based on temperature is nothing better than a best guess.
    10) There is no way of determining past Carbon dioxide levels with any degree of certainty back past approximately three-quarters million years (ice-cores) and the ice-cores are not foolproof. The most used existing method back past ice-cores is boron isotopy, boron acting as a proxy by theoretically being an indicator of ocean acidity – and, conformable with (6) above, ocean acidity theoretically gives atmospheric carbon levels —–we hope. The variables here are many, varied, and not conducive to strong confidence in the result. (That is why I queried the Ellesmere Is. team.)
    11) To my knowledge, no serious attempt is being made to find out what would have happened to the biosphere had Man not begun industrializing. The older geology texts tell us the world was in dire need of carbon dioxide. The newer ones might be telling us the opposite? The seemingly alarmist researchers are frenetically telling us how acidification is about to kill things. How many papers can we find telling us what would happen if the oceans became more alkaline – i.e., if industrialization had not happened? Is it possible that the Barrier Reef is only now recovering from a shortage of carbon dioxide?
    12) A rational person thinking the thoughts of a rational creator after him would only sound an alarm after he had determined the carbon limits which the biosphere can accommodate. We are coming off a low base now and the obvious question arises “Were we in fact, saved by industrialization?” I have just now spent a few minutes on the ‘Net and it doesn’t take long to deduce that the alarmism is about acidification and heating but there is nothing obvious on the equally significant question: ‘What if industrialization had not happened?”

    As a local aside – there are sound reasons for suspecting that acidification at the level produced through burning all readily available fossil fuels, will hamper coral growth. The increased acidity theoretically does restrict the coral building process. That does not prove that the reality will match the theory. There is hoo-ha about a damaged reef off PNG, implicating localised submarine carbon dioxide leakage – but, Aristotle, hang in there a moment. How do they know it is now and was always, the current concentration of carbon dioxide affecting that reef? Ground seepages of volcanic gas are capable of fluctuating. What is missing in all this? Traditional investigative method.

    Deduction: The approach by the climate people is not correct and is historically outside the fold of science. They should be required to answer the question, “What can you bring me in terms of the tolerance of the planet, to carbon levels, and how does our existing scenario fit those parameters?” They should be discouraged from making alarmist, scare-mongering statements not based on proper research methods, especially since there isn’t a person in his right mind who isn’t in favour of alternative energy, if it is realistic. Insult the Public and make the Public a fool and what is going to happen?

    • Atheist? (laughs merrily)

      • I’ll give you this, you practice freedom of speech and are to be commended for it. I knocked my Ph.D. off the shelf when I did a low salaam to What’s- is-Name-in-a-Bathtub down below here a bit. Sounds like his harem got his bath temperature wrong?

        Seriously, if you’d like, I would very much like to run my submission re. Indigenous Peoples past you. I do have a whisker of aboriginal blood –you’d have to look twice to see it — and I have some very limited experience of those mixed and varied peoples. The genetic technical reality surprisingly enough by the appearance of Pastor Nalliah could well put him closer to Australian Aboriginal than some ‘Australian Aboriginals’
        No, don’t feel obliged, but if you would like to see it, give the word. I value advice.

    • Daniel Heywood says:

      To the author of this blog,

      The quote from the Age newspaper near the top of this article is vilifying and untrue. I have written to the newspaper and requested the article be removed from their website forthwith.

    • Rose says:

      Praise JEHOVAH; RUAH: Seems To Me None Of You really
      Understand What RUAH Means??
      The CHRISTians At Catch The Fire Ministries Have Been Praying For About 12 Years. As You Can See It Was Not A Knee Jerk Decision By The Folk At From C.T.F.M.

      NOW: RUAH: Meaning In Hebrew Is
      ” The Breath Of GOD.” RUA: Meaning In Hebrew Is;
      ” GOD Has Given Us VICTORY Over Our enemy
      { the devil }.” Hallelujah Folks. Now We Are ALL The More Wiser For The Above Information and So Much Happier.

  9. Max says:

    Brilliant blog and great post. Thanks for sharing, couldn’t agree more!

    • Actually, Loki is half correct; I am attempting to have input into their policies and it is possible they have taken some of my submissions on board — from 1,000 miles distance.
      Max, this is a ‘brilliant blog’. Two years ago I might have concurred. I am a science nut, I don’t go for religious arguments I am naturally a sceptic. It was a day or two before I would fully accept that 9/11 wasn’t an elaborate hoax. People on this earth just don’t act like that, do they?
      I have never personally spoken with Pastor Nalliah but I do what research is necessary. A pity the provider of this page didn’t find the charity and the professionalism to do the same. Pr. Nalliah has risked his life living in Saudi (not as a missionary!) and he knows exactly what tactics islam uses. The same tactics that one or two dismayed heads of State in Europe are publicly allowing that they have used there. Pr. Nalliah was found guilty of daring to read their own manifesto of fanaticism and societal subversion to them at a seminar. They turned up to listen, knowing that the Q’ran and the H’aadith (or whatever they are) would be read. They then pursued Pr. Nalliah under a joke of a law , for daring to tell them what their own ‘bible’ says. Pr Nalliah refused to apologize for telling Australia the truth. They threatened to kidnap his children, death threats, the lot. In a muslim country he presumably would have run grave risk of being killed, his wife raped, etc, as per usual. What I am telling you is the unadorned, naked facts, which anyone with a shred of scholarly integrity could have discerned, before hanging out a dirty dishrag such as this. Care to check my facts?

      • Max says:

        Oh dear, I’m not even sure where to start with you. Your arrogance and sheer naivety shine through your responses. It’s one of those cases where you meet someone who has such conviction in their false beliefs that they seem unable to comprehend any sense of the truth.
        For someone who says they’re “not on any RUAP exec. or committee” and is a “natural sceptic”, this is very difficult to believe because a true independent thinker could not seriously buy the rubbish put forward by the RUAP.
        No one cares if you have a PhD so stop trying to boost your ego and make yourself sound more intelligent than you really are. You seem like the type of person who would walk around with their qualifications tattooed on their forehead if they could.
        One point i’d like to comment on particularly is Australia’s foundation on Judeo-Christian heritage. The Constitution (s116 in particular) very clearly states we are founded as a secular society. Yes we are predominately Christian (about 60% currently) but an increasing number of our population are turning to other faiths or no faith at all and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It reflects change worldwide and no religious organisation has the right to try and impose their religion above another in Australia. This is and always has been the case. Think what you want of muslims, buddhists, scientologists, etc – everyone has the right to freedom of religion in Australia. To try and change this would be unconstitutional and certainly in violation of over a dozen international treaties and conventions to which we are a party.
        You can try and superficially cover this us with whatever periferal means you want but there are clearly racist, religious undertones to the RUAP and I believe they have no place in this country.

  10. Intelligent forum you run here. I am actually not being sarcastic there. Ben, I respectfully suggest you read what I have written and stop wasting print boxing at ghosts. I haven’t a clue about THE RISE UP AUSTRALIA PARTY’S policies on art except that it’ goes without saying they won’t be advocating incitement to feral behaviour and they will be desiring to criminalize activities such as the pictorial public display of essentially naked women chained like dogs. Which is exactly the founding fathers’ stance and is the stance of every decent person. Except the Aus.Democrats/Greens, and most of the ALP. in effect by legislation have permitted Australia to sink that low. Simple as that. I don’t thereby imply that you denigrate and financially exploit your fellow man and I don’t imply that you are so lost to common sense and common decency as to put chained naked women at child’s eye level in every street in the country. Every man will answer for his actions and I’m not here to add to my difficulties in answering for mine, by adding judging someone else, to the list! Now while you are sun bathing on Palm Island (lucky fellow) in conference with the locals putting together that Constitution of the Black Australia Policy I need intelligent feedback/peer review. I suspect Loki may be proving that he is a wise man by holding his peace (or perhaps he is looking for the bathroom?) and since it’s apparent that some contributors here do know something and are able to verbalize it, make my day and serve your nation if you would by helping out here. I would like you to throw everything you can at the following policy proposal item. I am not on any RUAP exec. or committee, I have had no input into policy, for all I know I am not even a member — should my application be rejected. Pastor Danny Nalliah takes satanists, homosexuals, and persons of low repute generally under his wing (but not to go on wrecking) so I hope he will accept me into his Party.

    You know, he might even accept persons with permanemt head damage (Ph.D’s)!
    Keep telling us about political science and political history.
    Oh, and there’s one other thing. We need an anagram or an alliteration or whatever it is of the name of that chap over in Iran. HadaBinge in the Bathtub or OneArmBanditMe and Dad or someting along those lines. It’ll be handy so that when the people who are barracking for the ‘Palestinians’ and by implication the destruction of the Middle East’s one Western Democracy, go over to Iran. They can say, ‘”Salaam, Oh great humanitarian What’s’ His Name in a Bathtub, can we help you with that enriched uranium?”
    Kindly overlook my spelling/grammatical omissions.

    For peer review,
    4)Reaffirm our Constitutional right to freedom of religion; and recognise and re-affirm our Judeo-Christian heritage. EXPLANATION:
    These go-hand-in-hand: the Australian Constitution is a christian motivated plan and guideline for an open and honest society. It can only fulfil its administrative role if relevant standards are applied by those who interpret it. It is a child of the Westminster ideal of government –i.e, protestant Christian.
    GOD (which some may wish to interpret as that great TRUTH which underlies all)
    THE CROWN ( = the Governor General, who can exercise supreme administrative authority if need be.)
    MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (=servants, appointed by the Crown to serve God, the Crown, and thus, the people)

    This is by no means everything that has to do with Westminster Democracy but it is given here, to demonstrate what is meant by ‘Westminster’ and ‘protestant Christian’. Observe that it embodies two sovereign, seemingly irreconcilable principles. These principles are in tension, balanced one against the other. Keep in mind, of course, that the Ministers are placed there by the vote of the people.
    1) God has supreme authority and every arm of government and every person involved in government answers to him.
    2) Man (as the voter) has supreme authority and every arm of government and every person involved in government answers to him.
    So, God and Man are equally involved! The One has complete sovereignty and the Other has in earth-bound terms, complete authority!
    Who is equally God and Man? The Christ of the christian religion. In its pure form Christianity is a religion of Man and God working together in unison – of which the Constitution in its original form, enacted for its intended purpose, is a manifestation.

    It is immediately obvious why Western Democracy is the world’s only successful democracy and it is equally obvious that counterfeiting the christian biblical ideal in society will prove fatal to our freedoms. The australian Constitution by definition demands that poitico-religious movements such as extreme Anarchism, Communism, Nazism, or Islam, be suppressed by all lovers of freedom.

    .

    • Loki Carbis says:

      I am not on any RUAP exec. or committee, I have had no input into policy, for all I know I am not even a member

      Thanks for that, Phillip. Best laugh I’ve had all week – you’ve been serving them up in huge quantities, but this one takes the cake.

  11. I see you didn’t front up to answer the question put to yourself and to every man on this earth who measures his morality by himself : Am I God, or should I look for God, somewhere else? I am not being personal there — religious people can have the same problem — and I am a religious person. It doesn’t say, “The fool hath said in his HEAD there is no God” It says, “The fool hath said in his HEART there is no God”. It’s very easy to acknowledge God with the head, whilst disacknowledging his power and right to rule the heart — our actions. Of course there is no answer to the argument I put to you previously: you choose to be God, take the consequences. If you measure morality in art or anything else by yourself, be ready to defend yourself when the accounts are made up and the full consequences of every man’s actions and intentions are brought to light. That doesn’t mean that I am any better than you, simply because I have a religious bent. There is more to it than that.
    I think we all know or we all can discover the names of the representatives whom the settlers appointed to work through the Constitutional details. All that generation was “the Founding Fathers”.
    No, you won’t con me into a bleeding heart discourse on the people already here when Cap. C. sailed the ocean blue. Go and live — yes, live, in Woorabinda or Doomadgee or Palm Island for a year — and not as an administrator, as a ‘local’. Call back if you get a constitution underway.

    • Ben McGinnes says:

      There’s nothing quite like the hubris of those who assume that a lack of belief in their deity (or any other deity for that matter) automatically equates to a lack of ethical or moral attributes. No doubt you will call me a fool for believing differently or not at all; while I am more than happy to take responsibility for my own actions and life, rather than live a life propped up by the crutch of any given church or temple.

      As for measuring morality in art or speech, that was what the Rise Up Australia Party proposes in accordance with their own beliefs. Presumably beliefs which are in accordance with the preaching of Catch The Fire Ministries.

      Now that we’ve established what you meant when using that Americanism, “Founding Fathers,” let’s get back to your original statement there, “that … RUAP is the only party with policies that are fully tolerant, in the sense intended by the founding fathers.” While it was certainly an important step in the history of the country, it was not without flaws. An excellent example of such flaws being the creation of the White Australia Policy and the lack of social and industrial reform.

      The state of play in the 1890s was a start, but we shouldn’t be fixated on it and we should seek to improve it. Women’s suffrage was one of the earliest such reforms, with others coming gradually throughout the 20th century. All these reforms stemmed from changes in the opinions of the community as a whole and thus differences in accepted opinions, including of tolerance, from that of the Federationists. It’s the evolution of the state.

  12. Hi. If you do a search for RUAP Political Party on the ‘Net, currently the second result on GOOGLE, below yours, gives the recent 2CC interview with Danny Nalliah. It also gives as part of that search result, somehing that I wrote, to the effect that , as I see it, RUAP is the only party with policies that are fully tolerant, in the sense intended by the founding fathers.

    I have seen the man from a distance and I have never seen a humbler person, as respectful of human rights, as understanding of human beings, on this planet.

    Don’t believe me — contact him and find for yourself.

    • Ben McGinnes says:

      I wondered how long it would take before a CTFM troll would find this post.

      *Sigh* … Alright, I’ll bite …

      How are sections c, n (i.e. why isn’t “religious” included in that list?), o, p, r, v and y (i.e. why is art supposed to be free, but only if it fits RUAP’s idea of morally appropriate?) of the party’s policies fully tolerant?

      • I won’t deny having viewed the CTFM website and recently having made comments thereat. One of them was to the effect of being very cautious about starting a political party!
        I must confess I don’t immediately catch on to the c,n,r,v,y in Ben’s comment — off the cuff I’ll take the liberty of assuming it has to do with definitions of what should or should not be allowable according to legislated law. You will have heard this before but I’ll waste time repeating it. And when I repeat it, kindly put yourself in the shoes of a founding father, trying to decide what”s best for the generations following. Pick art.

        Certain uncivilized peoples in the past, made cannibalism and skull adornment an art. The act of killing one’s captives was public entertainment — art. Remnants of it seem to persist in some places — in Saudi Arabia., where Pr. Danny lived (‘underground’) they have beheadings, hand choppings — ask someone else about this, I stay right here in Central Qld, and venture not forth.

        We push for freedom of art,, do we? And wouldn”t it be just and equal, if the pushers for freedom in art, were to become an art form themselves, on the wrong end of the beheading knife? What moral or intellectual principle will you or I invoke, Sir, to claim we shouldn’t be unwilling participants in that art? And would it be justice or no, if Australians went on braying in a tin barn about their rights, whilst that art forrm re-asserted itself? You can think? Eh have alook at my website, F.Y.I. Thanks.

      • Ben McGinnes says:

        The alphabetical references (c, n, o, p, r, v and y) refer to sections of the RUAP’s Policy Principles.

        When you say “founding fathers” are you referring to the colonists who arrived with the First Fleet or any grouping of the people involved in any of the conferences and conventions of the late 19th Century (e.g. Sir Henry Parkes, Lord Carrington, Sir Samuel Griffith, Sir Thomas McIlwraith, Duncan Gillies, Alfred Deakin, Dr. John Cockburn, Andrew Inglis Clark and so on)? I assume you don’t mean tha aborigines who wandered over about 40,000 years earlier.

        My question regarding the art example refers specifically to this (link above):

        “(y) To see that Australia’s media, the arts and entertainment enterprises preserve freedom of speech and build national character by acting responsibly and morally, presenting truth as truth and opinion as opinion and, within widely-accepted community norms, avoiding gratuitous violence and socially-degenerating themes;”

        Here the RUAP’s idea of “appropriate” art and freedom of speech is that it is okay, but only when it bolsters their own view of what is morally correct; a view which renders the whole idea of freedom of speech as null.

    • Loki Carbis says:

      I love that you haven’t troubled yourself to adapt your playbook to Australian circumstances – for future reference, Australians do not hold the ‘founding fathers’ of our nation, or its Constitution, in the quasi-religious reverence that Americans do.

      So please do explain what exactly you mean by “fully tolerant, in the sense intended by the founding fathers” – especially since the words tolerate, tolerance and toleration appear nowhere in the original draft of the Constitution.

      In the meantime, I’ll take your advice and not believe you.

      • My older sister and brother at one stage engaged in killing time by arguing over whether a day was 12 or 24 hrs. Makes a form of entertainment on these long cold nights. Which end of the egg do we chop, eh, Gulliver?

        I’ll explain what the founding fathers meant. They had a brain, they were capable of hitching up a horse or whatever was necessary in those days, to get to Parliament(?) (there, pick on that, correct historians) they had a nation to found, and they assumed the people coming after them would at least be able to find the way to the bathroom (outhouse, in those days, historians).

        In short, Oh Great Historical Adjudicators, they weren’t so godalmighty educated so as not to be able to see that a nation which by definition clings to the Bible and Christian values is by definition likely to be tolerant without having to say so, whilst a nation invaded by convert or rape burn islam or pikthank ‘atheism’ is unlikely to tolerant, without having to say so You can think, yourself. You don’t need me! Try getting a job as a lawyer. Sorry, all straightlaced lawyers.

  13. Ben McGinnes says:

    You’ve really got to look at their policies. I’m pretty sure (d) will guarantee they never get anywhere because last time I checked Murdoch had buggered off to become an American citizen. Then there’s (e), which ought to be able to used against them by the LGBTI community (except they’ll probably claim that members of said community aren’t human). Appropriately (g) is where they want a gold standard for the currency, which means their economic policies are on about the same level as the CEC’s. Then there’s the truely special arts one (y), which is free speech for art … as long as it is “moral” art.

  14. Loki Carbis says:

    The statement about homosexuality causing health problems is both disingenuous and also ties back into their freedom of speech position.

    The major health problems facing homosexuals in Australia are psychological – bullying, stress, depression, etc. – all caused by homophobes just like RUAP. In other words, RUAP wants to right to cause these problems and then blame the victims for them.

  15. zqudlyba says:

    CTFM is not Evangelical. Evangelicals are center right.

    CTFM is far right pentecostal charismatic, bordering on fundamentalism.

  16. Gillian (Reynardo) says:

    I am amused that on the CTFM blog there is already dissention about item 13.

    Chas Jun 3rd, 2011 at 7:06 pm
    Hi Danny,
    You need a correction in item 13. Christians do not oppose homosexuality because of health problems, but because the Bible teaches that it is wrong. That is an important correction.

    I can only guess that the RUAP doesn’t want to use that particular reason because it would lead to accusations of bigotry. Or something.

    • It’s an attempt to make an appeal to those who discount the Bible as an authoritative source – but who might have niggling doubts about whether being queer is ‘normal’. Ditto those who worry about issues of public health, who support sanctions and restrictions on anyone who might possibly maybe by a slight chance be infected with HIV.

      Of course, it’s completely transparent – the major objection is religious, and the RUAP are making a mistake in not at least including that belief in their mission statement.

  17. Thanks!

    It’s likely that RUAP would ultimately deliver preferences to the LNP in Queensland, and to Coalition candidates elsewhere (assuming they plan on running candidates in every state). I suspect, though, that they might well do a preference swap with Fred Nile’s CDP in New South Wales if they run there.

  18. Rob says:

    Hi Marian,

    Great blog. One small point – the foreign policy statement re: Israel and an undivided Jerusalem bears closer scrutiny, as it confirms that this party’s foreign policy positions will be guided by religious nuttery — extreme fundamentalist interpretations of the Book of Revelation assert that the Rapture will occur only when the entirety of Israel is returned to the Jews. This is in line with the position held by far-right Dominionist Christian politicians in the US, who don’t have an abiding love of the Jewish people so much as a hardon for accelerating the onset of Biblical Armageddon.

    • Hi Rob,

      True, I didn’t go into that statement in more detail. It may well be linked to apocalyptic ideas of hurrying up the end of the world … I couldn’t find anything to confirm that in CTFM’s own writing, though.

      Even without the religious connotations, it confirms that RUAP is opposed to any form of two-state solution … and, by implication, supports Israeli settlement in the West Bank and the draconian policies now in place against Palestinians.

  19. wixxy says:

    Brilliant blog Marian, I actually hadn’t heard of these nut jobs.
    What is also important, is these nutters will give preferences to the Libs in return for favors which we may well not agree with.
    Top Job

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,881 other followers

%d bloggers like this: