Apr 25
 |
JimWallaceACL Just hope that as we remember Servicemen and women today we remember the Australia they fought for – wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic! 25/04/11 10:24 AM |
Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby showing that he really is the biggest arse hole in Australian politics.
And yet our politicians constantly yield to this man’s demands.
Jim Wallace, The List is too good for you.
Feb 2
As the residents of Queensland are bracing for yet another natural disaster, the good folks at Catch The Fire Ministries are already making sure we know who to blame: God Julia Gillard.
Former Family First senate candiate and resident evil cunt, Daniel Nalliah, wanted to make sure that we knew that the string of natural disasters in Queensland could only be blamed on one person.
It is very sad that this dark chapter in Australia’s history is led by an atheist Prime Minister in Julia Gillard and an openly homosexual Greens leader who seems to be the Deputy Prime Minister by default, both who have no regard for God nor Prayer.
Sorry, two people. Forgot to mention it’s also that poof, Bob Brown’s fault too.
“Are we Aussies all paying for that decision? It is very well known that throughout history, in a time of national crisis, Kings, Prime Ministers and Presidents of countries around the world have turned to God, irrespective of whether they were Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim and asked for help or at least called the nation to pray for protection and for the victims of the disaster,” Dr Nalliah said.
“However, for the past several weeks, right through the flood crisis across Australia, I have not heard our Prime Minister call the people of Australia to pray and ask God for protection and for help for the tens of thousands of people who have become victims of this major disaster,” he said.
Elsewhere: the Australian Christian Lobby are demanding that teh Gays to be more tolerant of their bigotry.
UPDATE: Apparently you can call Danny Nalliah to ask him some questions:
 |
juzzytribune You can ring Danny Nalliah of Catch The Fire and ask him why he’s such a cockmule: on 03 9794 8211. Media contact: Jason Golden 2/02/11 12:09 PM |
Sep 2
Jim Walace is such a cunt.
Yeah, I know, I promised I wouldn’t, but it’s another ACL blog post.
As some of us are probably aware, NSW is currently considering a bill to allow gay couple to adopt. Just like they already do in parts of the country.
This obviously makes Jim mad. Jim doesn’t really like teh gays, and in this video of him on Sunrise he not-so-subtly implies that allowing gay couples to adopt amounts to child abuse. Implying that gay parents would cause trauma for the child on account of not having both a mother and a father. Trauma.
“These children have already been traumatised and are wards of the state,” he laments, neglecting the fact that they are usually traumatised and wards of the state because of a heterosexual couple who weren’t very good parents. Or a heterosexual couple that didn’t want the child. So the logic that a heterosexual couple will always provide a better home for children than a gay couple is flawed to begin with.
I’m not going to dispute that it’s probably better for children to grow up in an environment with both their parents, that being, with a mother and a father. In an ideal world all children would grow up with the loving care of their mum and their dad who live together behind a white picket fence next to another loving couple and their 2 and a half children. All playing merrily together in the street. Just like the good old days that never ever existed, anywhere.
Jim Wallace uses an example of a woman whose partner had died and said she couldn’t provide the love of a father. He uses this as argument against gay adoption, but I think to follow Jim’s logic to its only logical conclusion, when a child’s mother or father dies, that child should be removed from their remaining parent and placed in the care of a loving “mother and father” because that child needs the care that only a “mother and father” can provide. Honestly, that is how ridiculous Jim Wallace’s logic seems to me.
Jim complains about “the aggressive and selfish demands of a gay rights lobby”, but Jim, these are people who want to parent. They want to provide care, love and support to a child who needs care, love and support. I suspect there is no shortage of children out there who are in need of this kind of support, so why would you deny child the right to parents just because you don’t like the way they have sex? They undergo the same parenting and relationship tests that heterosexual couples undergo before being allowed to adopt, I don’t see a problem. Not when children are being provided a loving home they might otherwise have been without.
Three ACL related blog posts in 2 weeks. I really need to stop reading articles that mention them because they are very bad for my health. I promise that I will stop mentioning them here after today.*
The Australian asked the ACL for a comment on Julia Gillard’s statements about her lack of religion or religious belief. The ACL obliged.
THE Australian Christian Lobby has warned that Julia Gillard might have alienated Christian voters by declaring she does not believe in God.
Julia is alienating Christian voters with such provocative statements like:
“I am, of course, a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they’re not my beliefs”
“For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay them is to respect their genuinely-held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine.”
And what reasonably minded Christian wouldn’t be alienated by that kind of statement? Such thoughtfulness, tolerance and respect. It sickens me. How dare she respect their beliefs by not pretending to hold them for political gain.
And it’s not like the ACL would ever encourage politicians to alienate any group of people. Especially not gays, non-Christians, women, refugees and even some Christians. That’s just not their style.
My favourite part of the article was this quote from ACL spokesman Lyle Shelton:
“I think she’s being honest and true to herself. Obviously, that position will alienate some in the Christian community and some in the wider Australian community.”
Yes, as a member of the “wider Australian community” I am always aliened when people are “honest and true” to themselves.
Dicks.
*Unless they do something that really, really, really raises my blood pressure.
UPDATE: Lyle Shelton’s appearance this morning on Sunrise. Peddling the same disingenuous bull-shit that we have come to expect from the ACL.
Lyle, you just made the list.
I don’t know what came over me when I subscribed to the Australian Christian Lobby’s RSS feed. I guess part of me just thought that my blood pressure was too low. But thanks to whatever pearl of wisdom lead me to subscribing to their blog, I now get regular updates like this delivered straight to my RSS reader.
A staggering 50,000 people have called on the NSW Government to protect the place of special religious education (SRE) in schools and reschedule the proposed ethics classes to another time slot.
Christians from all major Christian denominations across NSW have signed a petition organised by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) which was tabled in NSW Parliament yesterday.
ACL’s NSW Director David Hutt said today that the overwhelming support for the Save Our Scripture petition should send a clear message to NSW parliamentarians about the need to safeguard the special place of SRE in NSW schools.
You see, the ACL and other religious organisations are feeling threatened by the NSW governments decision to trial ethics classes in state schools in the same time slot as special religious education (SRE) classes. Under the current arrangement in NSW for one hour every week schools hold these SRE classes with leaders of their religions, with various religions being represented. These classes are optional, but there is no option for parents of no faith so kids who do not attend one of these classes are left to do private study for an hour. What this leads to (and presumably what the religions like about this) is kids attending religious classes because there are no other options, even if they are not especially (or even at all) religious.
This is where ethics classes come in.
Ethics classes provide a secular alternative to SRE classes for those kids who are currently attending a SRE class out of convenience or simply not attending any classes for that hour a week. The problem is, apparently, that ethics classes are ‘competing’ with SRE and children are forced to ‘choose’ between the two.
“The Government should not be discriminating against children of faith who will not be able to attend both SRE and ethics. The classes should be run at separate times.”
I have an even better solution. Let’s not run SRE classes in public schools. Then there will be no problem about conflicting schedules.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with children being taught religion in public schools, but only when it’s done with the same scepticism that is afforded politics and history (after all, it really is history and politics). I do not support kids learning particular religious narratives in public schools. If parents want their children to learn a particular religious narrative then those parents should be taking their kids to church and enrolling them in private religious schools, not expecting public schools to offer it to all schools.
Religious education not being offered in public schools is not an attack on religion. I am not anti-religion. Religions are not being discriminated against by not being allowed into public schools and to claim that they are is cynical and disingenuous. The opposite is true. Allowing religious education in schools the way NSW does discriminates against students who do not belong to a religion. Offering secular ethics classes to children is a step in the right direction, but I still don’t believe SRE or ‘scripture classes’ has any place in public schools anywhere in the country.
Jun 22
In response to last night’s exclusive leaders debate, and due to the suggestions of a few members of the Groupthink community, I am proud to announce that on Tuesday of next week Groupthink will be hosting the first ever “25-35, unmarried and childless leaders debate”.
Leaders of both political parties along with representatives of the minor parties have been secured for the debate* that will be held at an inner-city venue TBA.
The debate will be broadcast via an internet webcast which will be available for screening in pubs and coffee shops across the latte belt (registration details can be found here).
This exciting new format for political debate will allow viewers in the latte belt to submit questions to the leaders in real time via their iPads.
Unfortunately the web feed will not be available to the general public as the leaders will be specifically addressing the 25-35 unmarried hipster voting demographic and the webcast will only be available to approved and registered venues upon payment of a small fee.
The debate is already drawing much interest from childless 30-somethings, who hope many of the big issues facing the modern hipster will be discussed:
The thirty-something hipster vote is a powerful force. We care about the real issues – bad coffee, the limited numbers of hip brunch venues, the death of the inner suburban hipster pub, over-regulation of fixed gear bikes, and the shrinking supply of vintage clothes.
Undecided voters are already signalling that their vote may be decided by next week’s debate, said Harper of Northcote:
I’m so hungover, I’d vote for anyone.
Leaders of the hipster community could not be reached for comment this morning; incoming reports suggest this was due iOS4 being released last night. Reuters reported:
It is unclear whether their iPhone batteries have been drained flat, or if the hipsters are simply too tired to wake up after a sleepless night of furious masturbation.
Neither leader would comment before the debate, but members of both parties are claiming underdog status.
*This part of the post (along with most of it) is entirely fictitious.
Jun 21
Tonight, the leaders of Australia’s two main political parties will square off in a nationally broadcast debate that will discuss issues likely to dominate political debate in the lead up to this year’s federal election.
Sounds like something you’d like to watch?
Unfortunately, Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott will be specifically addressing the Christian voter and only churches and Christian organisations will be able to register for the webcast.
Because you see, the debate has been organised by the ever vigilant guardians of decency and morality at the Australian Christian Lobby, and they don’t want any of you fucking baby-killing, drug addicted poofs to see it. Get your own private leaders debate.
The event is being held in Canberra and being broadcast via a Webcast to church groups and Christian organisations only. And fair enough, I think Christians should get their own private leaders debate. I’m sure the same courtesy will be extended to Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist Australians when the time comes…
It’s not like they will be talking about things that are going to affect all Australians or anything. I’m sure they will only be talking about personal religious issues, right?
Parliament’s highest profile Christians will be quizzed on everything from asylum seekers to abortion, pornography and the sexualisation of children.
Their commitment to the national schools chaplaincy program will also be questioned, with funding for the initiative due to wind up at the end of next year.
Oh, God Damn It!
I’m sure they will talk about the other Christian issues mentioned on the ACL website too too, like gay marriage, video game classification, paid parental leave and internet filtering. All exclusively Christian issues; the rest of Australia has no place involving themselves in these issues which clearly only concern Christians.
However, if you godless heathens do feel like listening in on the debate, the ACL has been kind enough to list the churches that will be streaming the webcast here. Maybe you can even repent your sins while you are there.
Feb 11
The World of Wallace …
A Christian lobby group says surrogacy should be a last resort for infertile married couples, not a solution for gay and lesbian couples who want children.
The Australian Christian Lobby has called on Queensland MPs to amend or reject a new bill to decriminalise altruistic surrogacy, where a woman carries another couple’s child for no payment …
… The ACL says children are not pets and should not simply be given to anyone who wants one …
… ACL managing director Jim Wallace says the surrogacy bill should have been directed at permitting surrogacy as a last resort for infertile married couples …
… “This is experimenting with children’s lives and at this stage they have no way of really knowing just how devastating the effects on the children will be, or the extent of identity confusion that will result …
… “The state should not be accommodating the desires of single men, single women, two men or two women to do what is not possible in nature – that is to have babies,” he said …
The World of Wallace and others of its ilk revolve around an axis of purest fantasy, inhabited by that peculiar breed of bug-eyed imbecile for whom adherence to an “ideology” or “belief system” trumps observation, experience and the (to them at least) novel concept of living in an actual reality at every turn.