Looking for God on the campaign trail

TheRealDave says:

08:50am | 12/08/10

“Oh well morality, loyalty and dedication may be on vacation for the 3 years if Gillard wins. “

Yes, because the Mad Monk shows all of these qualities? Or the Liberal Party?

You are kidding right?

Its almost like the Howard years never existed in La La Land

Barry says:

10:05am | 12/08/10

Nearly correct Carolyn.

The faction comes first.

Bungy says:

05:14pm | 12/08/10

“Another ... commentary about Christianity’s supposed role in this election and politics in general.  Professions of faith are really a red-herring in political pronouncements and policies”

... Well, yes.  Did you *read* the article?

Tedd says:

06:35pm | 12/08/10

Yes, Bungy, I did, as the comments beyond what you quoted show.

I found it wishy-washy.

TJ says:

01:38pm | 12/08/10

EXCUSE ME? The basis of faith is to believe in the absence of proof, we cannot prove that something exists but you also cannot prove it doesn’t. I believe in a higher power, not going to label it what I don’t believe in is religion telling me how to believe. I also believe in Vampires, Werewolves, Fairies, Valkyrie etc, I have a deep love of all this mythical and mystical this does not make me insane.  the is a free country where people are allowed their beliefs whether not to believe at all, to believe in God or the flying spaghetti monster, it makes no difference. all the ‘scientific’ evidence wont matter nor will name calling because people’s beliefs and faith is in place even without ‘proof’ that is how it works.  Someone dying of cancer may need their faith to go on, a parent loses a child they need their faith to help deal with it. stop trying to take away a persons right to believe in what they choose, yes you may think it’s stupid and crazy, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion and those that do believe think you’re wrong. there seems to be no middle ground between the 2 factions of believers and non-believers

Steely Dan says:

02:01pm | 12/08/10

@ TJ

“The basis of faith is to believe in the absence of proof, we cannot prove that something exists but you also cannot prove it doesn’t.”
Heard of the ‘null hypothesis’?  What else do you believe in that you have no reason to believe exists?  I can’t disprove the existence of werewolves, but that doesn’t make belief in them rational.  You can claim you’re not insane (and by any useful definition I’m sure you’re not), but you do hold beliefs that are not rational. 

“the is a free country where people are allowed their beliefs whether not to believe at all”
I support your right to do so.  I also have a right to publicly disagree with you, and I’d argue that we have a moral obligation as citizens to tell people when they are wrong, provided we have good reasons and motives to do so.

“Someone dying of cancer may need their faith to go on, a parent loses a child they need their faith to help deal with it.”
That doesn’t make their faith rational.  And while in some cases it may be comforting, if somebody sacrifices the opportunity to get medical treatment because they have faith that prayer will get rid of cancer, then the sooner they snap out of it the better.

TJ says:

03:05pm | 12/08/10

@Dan - who decides what’s rational? it may not appear to be rational to you but you cannot say that what someone thinks is wrong, the person dying of cancer may not believe that god can cure them they just may need the extra help to stay strong with the treatment.
Vampires/Werewolves the myths had to come from somewhere, the first rule of writing is to write what you know. just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, why would they show themselves when human beings are panicky creatures, we would have a brand new style of ‘witch trials’ and they would be hunted down and thier race exterminated.
you may not share the same beliefes as others and yes you have the right to voice your own, but to tell someone that their faith is wrong? that what you believe in is the only right way to go? reminds me too much of terrorists and their fundamental belief that thier way is the ONLY way. it’s not, it just may not be the same as yours. if everyone had the same thoughts and opinions life would be pretty boring wouldn’t it. you may not believe in what I do or what others do, but you do need to accept that there are those of us out there that are a little more open minded on this subject.

Richo says:

03:11pm | 12/08/10

@ TJ, No one needs faith. The sick and dying may want it but it won’t help, so they don’t exactly need it.

And you’re right, it is a free country so you’re free to express your beliefs. It is my strong belief that those who believe in sky fairies are of lesser intellect than those who do not.

TJ says:

03:35pm | 12/08/10

@Richo - apparently some people do need to believe that there is a reason to this world and this life, the parents whose infants die of SIDS or who get cancer and die they need to believe. if people didn’t need to believe in something, anything then there wouldn’t be a need for ANY religion would there? Name calling is not necessary but saying they are less intelligent as I am sure there are people who make a shit load of money and are in high paying jobs that believe, not idiots if they can get into CEO position surely, I know a few lawyers who have a strong faith in whatever religion is be, catholic, anglican, jewish etc they are at the top of their fields, hardly sitting in the corner eating paste.

Steely Dan says:

05:17pm | 12/08/10

@ TJ

“@Dan - who decides what’s rational?”
It’s not up to me.  Rational thinking is a logical process.

“the person dying of cancer may not believe that god can cure them they just may need the extra help to stay strong with the treatment.”
That doesn’t make the belief rational.  It may be helpful, but so are placebo treatments.  That doesn’t make a sugar pill medicine.

“Vampires/Werewolves the myths had to come from somewhere”
So did all contradictory religious accounts.  They come from fallible people.

“just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean they don’t exist”
Correct.  Still know reason to assume that they do exist.  Let’s say I tell you I’m JFK.  Do you believe me?  You can’t prove that I’m not, can you?

“but to tell someone that their faith is wrong? that what you believe in is the only right way to go?”
Most of the time, yes.

“reminds me too much of terrorists and their fundamental belief that thier way is the ONLY way.”
Can they back their claim with reason?  No.  And I don’t force my beliefs on others, do I?

“you may not believe in what I do or what others do, but you do need to accept that there are those of us out there that are a little more open minded on this subject.”
I told you, I DO accept it.  And I disagree with you.  And because I respect you as a human being I won’t force my beliefs on you, but I will try and tell you when you’re doing something wrong.  And I would hope you’d do the same for me.

Steely Dan says:

05:35pm | 12/08/10

@ TJ

“if people didn’t need to believe in something, anything then there wouldn’t be a need for ANY religion would there?”
Couldn’t agree more.  There is no evidence of ‘intrinsic’ (ie. god-given) meaning to life.  We’re the ones who give meaning to life, not a fictional god.

“I know a few lawyers who have a strong faith in whatever religion is be, catholic, anglican, jewish etc they are at the top of their fields, hardly sitting in the corner eating paste.”
I’m sure they’re excellent compartmentalisers - they separate the real world (which requires logic and reason for success) and the religious (which usually requires a lack of logic and reason ie faith).  Unfortunately the tenets and dogma of the religion often spill over and effect reality.

TJ says:

05:39pm | 12/08/10

@Dan - I respect your stance on these issues and appreciate the same in return, couple minor points thought, JFK was shot in the head and buried, now your initials may be JFK, I don’t know so i will allow the possibility that you are a JFK.
Terrorists do believe their beliefs are reasonable, we may not see it that way but they do, how else can you account for the amount of members.
A sugar pill can indeed be medicinal if it takes away the pain, it’s done it’s job, yes it may just be a mind over matter thing, you believe you have taken the pill so therefore your pain will go away. The brain is a powerful tool in this regard.
I know full well my belief is not rational, I keep getting told that, I hope they exist how is that?
I don’t have a problem with you disagreeing with me, I love debating issues.
I was talking to a friend the other day and I put forth that what if ‘The Bible’ (remember I believe in a higher power not religion) what if human life didn’t start on this planet? what if humans were brought here to colonise (men, women and children) and make this great and advanced planet, what if something went wrong? what if the craft crashed and most of the adults died leaving only the children who were so lonely and scared they started doing wall carvings and one of them was this children’s story called ‘The Bible’. it would be interesting to hear a die hard debate that.

Steely Dan says:

11:20am | 13/08/10

“JFK was shot in the head and buried, now your initials may be JFK, I don’t know so i will allow the possibility that you are a JFK.”
No, I’m the JFK, former President of the USA.  I was indeed shot in the head – by US forces, as the conspiracy theory suggests – but highly skilled doctors loyal to my administration declared me dead early to shake off the backstabbing spooks, and whisked me away to a secret operating room where they saved my life.  My badly disfigured skull was repaired and with the aid of radical cosmetic surgery, I’ve been living my life under an assumed name ever since. 
Now, TJ, can you disprove my highly improbable claim?  And more importantly, will you believe me until you have?

“Terrorists do believe their beliefs are reasonable”
I know that’s what they believe.  But are they?  What evidence have they put forward that jihadism (or whatever their motivator is) provides a justification for their course of action?

“A sugar pill can indeed be medicinal if it takes away the pain”
That still doesn’t make it medicinal, especially since the pill isn’t contributing to the pain relief – the tricked brain is.  The pill could be classed as a catalyst for a reaction, but its not an active ingredient.

“I know full well my belief is not rational, I keep getting told that, I hope they exist how is that?”
At least you realise that you’re not being rational – but I’m still confused as to why you continue to believe it despite the acknowledgement.  And there’s nothing wrong with hope, so long as you understand that hope is what you wish for, not necessarily what you’re going to get.

“what if human life didn’t start on this planet? ... what if the craft crashed and most of the adults died leaving only the children who were so lonely and scared they started doing wall carvings and one of them was this children’s story called ‘The Bible’. it would be interesting to hear a die hard debate that.”
It would be a short one.  It’s theoretically plausible, but contradicts the accepted history of human development.  Unless the person arguing for the claim brings some compelling new evidence to the table, it’s just a hypothetical – like ‘what if we’re all just brains in jars?’

Greg Croke says:

04:40am | 14/08/10

The founders of this nation thought of themselves as Christian - White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and Protestantism was one of the British values they sort to impose on everyone else, from Aboriginals to Irish Catholics. Australia has since become more a secular nation that has Christians in it, rather than a Christian nation.

True christians DO give people second (and later) chances, and forgive, because that is what God does. I can, however point you to where Jesus railed against people - interestingly, religious people - because of their attitudes, including their hypocrisy. Read Matthew 23.

The Bible has NOT been rewritten. It has been translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English more times than what is really necessary - some of the people translating it into English would be possibly helping the cause more if they translated it into some of the languages of the world that either have nothing, or only parts of the Bible translated into them. In any case, while some of the books of the New Testament were accepted as Scripture in the first century AD, others took until most of the way through the fourth century. From that time onwards the Bible has NOT been changed. I have studied Church History.

The Bible does not mention homosexuality except to express disapproval of it.

Jesus did make it clear that God’s concept of marriage - and thus of sex - was heterosexual, monogamous and life-long. Homosexuality is thus excluded.

God is omnipotent. More importantly, he is there and he is NOT silent. He simply does not waste his words on those who refuse to listen, but waits for them to change their minds.

John says:

03:00pm | 16/08/10

Greg mentions “The Bible does not mention homosexuality except to express disapproval of it.”  The bible approves of slavery, and women as being subservient to men.  Today we know that slavery is wrong, and that women are equal to men.  Jesus was very inclusive of all people.  Some biblical authors were homophobic, which simply reflected the culture of the time.  Culture changes. Its time to move forward and welcome homosexuals into the church.

You also mentioned “Jesus did make it clear that God’s concept of marriage - and thus of sex - was heterosexual, monogamous and life-long. Homosexuality is thus excluded.”  Where did Jesus talk about homosexuality ?  Are you also saying that those that divorce are also excluded from the Kingdom of God ?

You also mention “He simply does not waste his words on those who refuse to listen, but waits for them to change their minds “.  Are you saying that God only talks to people that believe the same as you ?

AliceC says:

10:04am | 12/08/10

@Rosie

‘f Labor wins I will be terribly disappointed for one reason and that is to see our PM living in a de facto relationship in the Lodge with her boyfriend’

That’s what bothers you? Nothing else? WOW! Australia is stuffed if there are more people who think like you out there….

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

10:18am | 12/08/10

Have all the benefits, accoutrements, responsibilities and entitlements. Just don’t call it ‘‘marriage’‘. That word is reserved for the union between a man and a woman. Why not put it to the gay community to come up with their own word? Perhaps have a different word for male-male unions, female-female unions and other types of unions.

You’d get a lot more support from mainstream Australia, seriously.

The Badger says:

10:36am | 12/08/10

Rosie
You should seek guidance from your imaginary friend for your intolerance to others.
Do you have any idea how many people in Australia live in a defacto relationship?
Do you have any idea how many gay couples live together.
I understand now why you are such a rigid inflexible conservative. Your belief in an imaginary being overrides your common sense and human nature,

I truly fell sorry for you and the narrow path you have chosen.

Steely Dan says:

11:25am | 12/08/10

@ The Scarlet Pimpernel

“Just don’t call it ‘‘marriage’‘. That word is reserved for the union between a man and a woman.”
Wrong.  Who reserved it?  Under what authority?

Voting used to be a thing rich white males did.  Were we wrong to ignore millennia of tradition to change the definition under the law?  Of course not.

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

11:41am | 12/08/10

SteelyDan

By your specious argument (’‘under what authority’‘, indeed), we can all choose our own words for everything. Great - we’d never understand each other and have no hope of communicating.

That’s what language is and while the majority of us feel that ‘‘marriage’’ has one meaning, then bad luck - that is the meaning. Why not pick something else?

What I am trying to point out is that there are a lot of people who would have no issue with legalising gay unions if it did not feature the word marriage.

Steely Dan says:

12:23pm | 12/08/10

@ The Scarlet Pimpernel

“By your specious argument… we can all choose our own words for everything. Great - we’d never understand each other and have no hope of communicating.”
How?  The legal definition would be enshrined in legislation.  You can define marriage however you like down the pub or at your church.  The state can’t (and shouldn’t) change common usage of a word, only the legal definition.

“Why not pick something else?”
Why should they?  Why not one piece of legislation for everyone? When indigenous Australians got the right to vote, we called it ‘voting’.  We didn’t invent some new term for what aborigines do at the ballot box.

“What I am trying to point out is that there are a lot of people who would have no issue with legalising gay unions if it did not feature the word marriage.”
And I’m trying to point out that they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against anybody unless they can give a real secular reason for it.

Rosie says:

02:16pm | 12/08/10

I apologise if I am old fashion in my way of thinking. My point was that our PM who is an athesist and has no qualms about moving into the people’s home, the Lodge with her boyfriend & Penny Wong a lesbian herself should have the guts to fight for what they really believe in.

If people like me are prepared to accept “gay marriage” I believe Julia Gillard with primeministerial status and Penny Wong could at least say because we believe in it we are going to fight for it.

In a democracy one is allowed to mention their disagreement and disappointment after accepting even though not agreeing, the people’s verdict.

Why have a go at me? If I was in Julia Gillard and Penny Wong’s shoes I would be fighting for “gay marriage”

I have people that I love dearly that are gay and live in de facto relationships!

Steely Dan says:

02:54pm | 12/08/10

@ Rosie

While you’re right in saying that Gillard and Wong are more than likely for gay marriage, they are politicians who will hold to the party line - all parties will do the same (generally).  Costello has said that he’s happy for his people to have a conscience vote on the issue, but we all know it’d be career suicide to do that in an Abbott coalition.

SalC says:

03:00pm | 12/08/10

See, the problem is that western society has based most of their morals and therefore laws on the Christian way of life, because that’s what has dictated our world for centuries.  Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s archaic to classify morals, ethics and law based on this.  I’d love it if human beings could make up their own minds without any influence from any preacher, be them Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc.  Furthermore, bigotry is not isolated to those of religious persuasion either…Keep religion out of politics.

Rosie says:

04:18pm | 12/08/10

Right, at the moment it would be a political suicide but there has to be a starting point. Women had to fight to vote! Perhaps it was a wrong choice on Labor’s part to replace Kevin Rudd, a believer, married with children with someone who is an athesist in a de facto relationship. Perhaps Labor should have selected someone else who was married and a believer in God? Perhaps it is not yet the time? Who knows? All we know that the gay community want “gay marriage” and are very disappointed that the two people they thought would fight for their cause haven’t even the guts to say “yes we hear you and will do our best to fight for you” Sometimes we just can’t everything we want and I am sure Labor knows this but is in denial!

Leaving religion out of it, makes it even more sense to me that Julia Gillard and Penny Wong should be fighting for the rights of the gay community and not only do so much and leave it at that.

I was one of those people that disagreed with Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party saying “Sorry” on my behalf to our indigenous people for the stolen generation. Once the nation said “Sorry” we were obligated to follow through with it by facing up to their problems, finding a solution and fixing it. This did happen and today nothing has changed. I would have liked the apology to be given with a big policy in helping our indigenous people.

What is it with the Labor Govt, why can’t they just get on with the job instead of making such a big issue about everything they do?

The intelligentsia section of our society shouldn’t expect my generation to agree with everything forced upon us without us having our say.

PaulB says:

09:19am | 13/08/10

Looks like you’re voting early and often here Apostate.

Tedd says:

10:25am | 12/08/10

There is a question about whether Christians do “maintain such” when there is a question about the truth of the information in their core texts, and a lack of openness and lack of truth about the development of Christianity as a political-supported variation on a number of the belief systems of the time: a system the suppressed those other variations.

Some of the USAs founding fathers were not theists at all, such as Thomas Paine, and they recognised the migrants who were fleeing religious persecution in Europe.  Many also were influenced by the conciliatory methods of a lot of the native American Indians.

The current publicity around religion in Australian politics probably reflects a number of things: the influence of Howard and Rudd, the retraction to fundamentalism by those left to defend the faith, and the wider ability to use electronic media for opinion pieces.

Steely Dan says:

11:39am | 12/08/10

Tedd’s right about the US founding fathers - a huge proportion were deists or people we’d now term ‘cultural Christians’ - like Thomas Jefferson, who re-wrote the Bible by simply removing the supernatural claims.  Could you imagine a US President being game enought to do that today?  My guess is the deists of that period would be atheists now (with the benefit of knowledge of the Big Bang, evolution etc), or Spinozans like Einstein (and occassionally Hawking) who use the term ‘God’ as little more than a synonym for ‘nature’.

And we are indeed a secular nation (in theory), as is the US.  The US was the first secular republic, and our Section 116 was plagiarised from the US Establishment Clause almost word for word.

Tedd says:

11:05am | 12/08/10

“... abuses” - sexual, physical, emotional, spiritual, etc.

religious-based aid organisations use the desperation of recipients to evangelise and proselytise.

Baz says:

02:16pm | 12/08/10

@ Ted
Blah blah blah.  Plain ignorance I see over and over again.  A large number of religious aid organizations actually do little proselytizing, but rather focus mainly on giving aid.  My best mates’ mother has just returned from Uganda(risking terrorist bombings) where she taught hundreds of women about child birth and even wrote a book to be passed through the community undoubtedly saving many lives.  Even through a secular worldview, she’s doing a lot more to help people, compared to selfish people obssessed with their comfy little Aussie life, who sit behind their computer and whinge while people are actually risking their lives to help other people.

Steely Dan says:

03:16pm | 12/08/10

@ Baz

I’m not sure Baz was saying that all or even a majority of religious aid organisations use their tax-free status to proselytise in the third world.  But too many do.

I used to give to give to religious charities that had a reputation for keeping preaching out of charity, but now I tend to give only to non-religious orgs because I was sick of seeing the good work of Christian-based charities that I was supporting being used by fundies as an argument for non-Christians being less charitable.

Andrew says:

03:26pm | 12/08/10

@Baz: So, are you saying that she does that great work BECAUSE she worships the sky fairy?  And if it wasn’t for her “faith”, she would sit at home with the other slobs?  If so, I feel very sorry for her, since she’s clearly only doing her ‘good’ work with the expectation of some reward.  Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who have no stupid beliefs yet still help those around them, and an awful lot of people with faith that don’t.  Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, religion is completely independent of this.  Although of course there are many good intentioned people who do very very bad things in the name of ‘religion’ (abortion clinic bombers, terrorists, the pope and his crusade to kill africa with HIV, the crusades, the entire middle east situation, etc, etc, etc..)

An organisation can do great work without having a religious affiliation, and I would strongly argue that the quality of the work is considerably higher as it comes with no strings (oh, you want some food and water?  have this bible as well..), and doesn’t have the added expense of supporting a large organisation whose entire existence is devoted to being irrational and worshiping non-existent entities.

Tedd says:

04:42pm | 12/08/10

Baz, by saying “large numbers ... do little proselytising” do you mean each or collectively?  Saying “focus *mainly* on giving aid” lends support to my claim!

What does “even through a secular worldview” mean?

Barry says:

07:58pm | 12/08/10

@ Andrew Not once did I ever suggest that she did this work solely due to her believe in God.  Not once did I suggest that religious organizations do better work.  Not once did I suggest the non-religious organizations couldn’t do productive aid work.  Tedd generalized that religious-based aid organizations use the desperation of recipients to evangelise and proselytise when in fact a large number focus on aid work due to empathy towards poor people.  It is pure ignorant trashtalk which can be likened to religious people claiming atheists are devoid of “morals”. I personally know people who have risked their lives to improve the living standards of other people, and do no evangelising at all.

Liz says:

11:03am | 12/08/10

Too right Reg! We have many important problems to solve which need long-term solutions, we can’t have religion getting in the way and when we succeed in finding a party who puts the long-term solutions first above party politicking they’ll get my vote as long as they’re not extremists, anti-women, anti-justice,right-wing or monarchists.

Kallan says:

04:35pm | 12/08/10

I’d be interested to know if you could back up those facts.

Fact 1: Well, it may have existed prior to christianity as you’d know it today.  BUT IF the bible were to be correct in what it says, then marriage would be the institution created by the very same ‘god’ who presided over the pre-jesus jewish fath, aswell as the christianity championed after the prophet of dubious’ origins death.

Fact 2: Very true, but i think you’ll find the common trait in (practicing) christians is a massive fear of punishment for bad morality - from this you can presume christians have more motivation to be morally righteous!

Steely Dan says:

05:43pm | 12/08/10

@ Kallan

1. “BUT IF the bible were to be correct in what it says, then marriage would be the institution created by the very same ‘god’”
And if Norse legend is true? And if ancient Greek polytheism is true? Our understanding of ancient societies suggests that marriage is well and truly pre-Judaism, not just pre-Christian. 
2. “from this you can presume christians have more motivation to be morally righteous!”
If you hold a gun to someone’s head or put enough money on the table you can get anybody to do anything.

Sam says:

08:35pm | 12/08/10

Kallan, re your second point,  (Fact 2: Very true, but i think you’ll find the common trait in (practicing) christians is a massive fear of punishment for bad morality - from this you can presume christians have more motivation to be morally righteous! )  could you please explain the thousands of catholic priests who rape kids?

Tedd says:

03:21pm | 12/08/10

it is disputable whether being at the pointy end of rolling Rudd is a question of her loyalty - she was probably told its you or it will be someone else.

dead to me says:

04:27pm | 12/08/10

She should have fought the faceless men and stood tall, they couldn’t have gotten rid of her and Rudd. I’m sure she sold him out for her own grasp at power. It really represents the real Julia, someone who only cares for herself. There really is no room in her world for God, family or loyalty and it is this fact that her supporters don’t want to hear.

Sam says:

08:43pm | 12/08/10

@Dead to me, ” they couldn’t have gotten rid of her and Rudd”.
They could easily have gotten rid of Rudd and sidestepped her, like Abbott got rid of Turnbull and sidestepped HIS deputy, Bishop.
Initially they (the faceless men) were promoting wideboy Hockey to replace Malcolm but he was reluctant; that was when Abbott saw his chance and slithered in like a snake.
I would have voted for Turnbull, but not this typically uncharitable christian.

Richo says:

03:09pm | 12/08/10

@ Reg

Mark Twain was on a winner with:
“If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be - a Christian”

Or Nietzsche’s:

“The Christian faith, from the beginning, is sacrifice. The sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit. It is at the same time subjection, self-derision, and self-mutilation”

And: “Two great European narcotics; alcohol and Christianity”

Tedd says:

04:00pm | 12/08/10

or a single Turks advice, or the notion Australia can solve the planets climate-related problems (or even get past the Taliban to help in NW-Pakistan)

xyz says:

06:45pm | 13/08/10

Tedd… hear hear!

Reg says:

09:10pm | 12/08/10

MOST have different reasons, but does reason really come into it?

A “reason” for accepting a specific religion usually pre-supposes that few of the alternatives have been considered and this includes non-religion. Religion does not operate on reason, and objectivity is not the friend of the charlatan. Therefore advocates of religion are charlatans.

Trying not to bore you, but people who vote on the basis of religion are charlatans choosing religiously affiliated candidates for their ability to deceive the electors. That’s why you should not find religion on the campaign trail.

xyz says:

06:42pm | 13/08/10

Jezza, as ibast said… you’ve missed the point of Tim’s article!  I’m not thrilled that World Vison is a Catholic charity, but I donate to it nonetheless.  If running World Vision isn’t “doing something good in the community”, then I don’t know what is!