Fiona Hobbs, anti-sex shop campaigner, Shepparton, Vic., Salt Shakers’ email, 24 May 2005:

We declare a blood-line around this city (shut the door), we cut off and resist every defiling spirit associated with the activities of Club X and forbid (bind) their activity and entry into our region. We ask you, Lord, to block every point of entry … Lord, we pray you send in your warring angels to fight and push back the enemy …

[And Lord, if you could protect us from any more of these Pentecostalist ravings, we'd really be ever so grateful.]

Australian Prayer Network Newsletter, 29 May 2005:

Study shows American Christian Teens Theologically Shallow … Thus far, telephone surveys reveal that young people have a broad fondness for religion, although their religious knowledge is labelled as ‘meagre, nebulous and often fallacious’ … In other words, teens were unable to coherently express their beliefs and the impact of faith on their lives. In addition, many participants appeared so separated from the traditions of their faith that they viewed God as a feel-good problem solver who merely existed for that purpose. There were no indications of an absolute, truth-based theology among the teens.

[Best news we've had this week. And are American adults really very different?]

Dr Ted Watt, WA anti-abortion activist, RTLA News, May/June 2005, 2: http://www.acl.org.au/home/browse.stw?article_id=3234:

…[T]here is no reason to believe that the [Morning After Pill - MAP] leads overall to fewer surgical abortions. Even if it did, we would not be happy, since the MAP itself sometimes works by causing an abortion …

[So what would make you happy, Ted? Girls being dragged off the operating table, perhaps? And forced against their will to carry their pregnancies to term? And never being told so much as their baby's sex before the child is whisked off for fostering or adoption? If so, the 1950s would make you very happy indeed, Ted.]

More from Ted (p.3):

There is nothing new in the destruction of embryonic human beings in the IVF industry. For every one IVF baby that survives to be born alive, between 20 and 30 are destroyed either intentionally or accidentally. That has always been the gravest ethical objection to IVF practice: that no-one has the right to expose another human being, at any stage in his or her life, to such appalling odds.

[Oh, come on, Ted. Taking this as an abstract problem, I'll bet that anyone with your views on 'life' would accept an offer by 'God' to give you a 25/1 shot at existence. Remember that you'd have a much worse or non-existent chance with an infertile couple who weren't using IVF, even if they'd been married by the Pope!]

ther serious ethical objections are to producing another human being by technical procedures in a lab rather than in the loving embrace of his or her parents, and subjecting that human being to the indignity of freeze-dried storage in a can of liquid nitrogen.

[Whoops, better let Peter Stokes of Salt Shakers know about these objections, Ted. Peter said on 1 May that married couples are OK to use IVF procedures provided they're using their own sperm and eggs. I'm sure he'd appreciate your helpful advice about the absolute necessity of a 'loving embrace' and the dreadful indignity of being freeze-dried, beside which toilet-training seems positively majestic.]

Tony Abbott, Federal Health Minister, ABC Online, 29 May 2005 - www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1379472.htm:

…[L]et’s face it, we don’t really know what God’s standards are.

[Dear me, Tony, any conservative Christian can tell you exactly what God's standards are! Haven't you ever heard of the perspicuity of scripture i.e. the absolute clarity of the Bible? Of course, the Baptists differ in their interpretation from the Pentecostals, and the Pentecostals argue with themselves all the time, and the Catholics won't have a bar of either of them, but please don't go around saying that we don't know what God's standards are. That's supposed to be a secret.]

More Tony:

It’s difficult to support [abortion and euthanasia] not because you’re a Christian, it’s difficult to support them because I think proper humane thinking is rightly critical of those two measures.

[So victims of rape and incest just have to persist with their pregnancies, and desperate old people in great pain just have to keep hanging themselves. I guess 'proper humane thinking' isn't what it used to be.]

C. Heyward, Salt Shakers supporter, letter in New Life, 26 May 2005:

Travelling [by train] to Sydney with my sister-in-law this time last year I passed on our newspaper to a young man looking for something to read and added some ‘Saltshakers’ copies … He promptly pulled out and showed us his Bible …

[C.H.] ‘You’re a Christian!’

‘No. I’m a Satanist.’

‘No! You’re not! Why would you have a Bible?’

‘We study it to bring about the opposite.’

[S-I-L] ‘Why would you want to do that?’

‘Our aim is to create chaos.’

‘Why would you want to create chaos?’

‘To keep the power coming. We are the people of power.’

[C.H.] ‘No. Jesus is Lord. And He is the winning side. God wins in the end.’

‘We are the power. We have won. We are everywhere. We have powerful people in high places, in the government. We have changed … the law. No rules. Everyone will be homosexuals. I’m a homosexual …’

‘You will go to hell. Be saved even now. Hell is terrifying.’

‘I’ll love it! …’

At this point I pulled the ‘Saltshakers’ from his fingers …

[Funny the things young guys will do to keep themselves amused on long train journeys.]

Wally Grant, Child Evangelism Fellowship of Australia, ‘Tough Questions from Kids’, New Life, 26 May 2005:

[Q.] If God loves everyone why does the Bible say God hated Esau?

[A.] …[St.] Paul says that God …has the right to do what He wants since He made us.

[This argument is often advanced by fundamentalists to rationalise scriptural contradictions, and as an explanation of why good people become ill, die, and so forth. But it is absolutely immoral in its essence. If I create a child, or make some artifact which I then give or sell to another person, do I retain the right to destroy him, her or it? Christians of this sort rarely or never examine their own foundational assumptions.]

Jim Wallace, Executive Chairman, Australian Christian Lobby, ACL Newsletter, May 2005, 1:

Our Tasmanian Executive recently tried to brief the State Attorney General on the failure of the Office of Film and Literature Classification to apply its own guidelines … Mrs Jackson refused to even read the descriptions of the material [which we found offensive] …It is unacceptable for a State Attorney General to retreat from her responsibilities into the mantra of ‘every adult should be able to see what they want to’. This is not the way the system is administered, or we would not have ‘R’ and ‘X’ classifications and be required to ban paedophile themes, sexual violence and films depicting real killing.

[Jim and his Religious Right friends are desperate to get rid of the 'adult freedom' principle and replace it with some modern version of the ancient 'Index of Prohibited Books' - in other words, to turn the current exceptions, and many more of their own devising, into a new rule. After muttering darkly about the present 'pro-abortion culture', Australian Family Association President David Perrin declares that:

Unless the federal [censorship] law is amended to remove this [adult freedom to read and view] principle, then arguments about classification, board decisions or board composition are futile. Our federal politicians must see the absurdity of this principle and remove it from the law. (Letter in News Weekly, 7 May 2005)]

Sen. Guy Barnett (Lib.-Tas.), letter in Melbourne Age, 19 May 2005:

A ruling by the Federal Court in 2001 has allowed IVF treatment to be made available to single women and lesbians. However, I believe a child is entitled to come into the world with the love and affection of both a mother and father.

[The practical implication being that otherwise a child is not 'entitled' to come into the world at all? You need to face that issue, Guy, as do all opponents of any form or application of IVF procedures. If you prohibit the procedure for single women, for lesbians, or for everybody, many children who would have been born will simply not be born. How on earth does this square with a so-called 'pro-life' stance?]

Robert Bom, letter in News Weekly, 21 May 2005:

We should ask insurance companies to recognise pro-lifers as a target market by developing policies and options attractive to them. For instance, a pro-lifer does not need suicide cover in a life policy. A pro-life girl/woman taking out a disability, trauma or private health insurance policy does not need cover for abortions and the increased risks that stem from them.

[Robert, such a display of pure naivety is most reassuring in this day and age. Readers, see how many basic flaws you can pick up - see Brian's Blog, 28 Mar. 2005.]

Bill Muehlenberg, Australian Families Association, quoted in Liz Gooch ‘Vader’s dark side lures children despite film rating’, Melbourne Age, 19 May 2005, regarding the rating of M15+ for the latest Star Wars movie:

… Bill Muehlenberg also believed many children would see the film regardless of the rating. Mr Muehlenberg said it was up to parents to decide whether the film was suitable.

[How realistic of Bill! But he omitted the final stage of this process. If parents decide that the film is unsuitable, it's up to kids to find some method of seeing it anyway, just as they've always done.]

Peter Stokes, Salt Shakers, email, 17 May 2005:

[My wife] Jenny and I have not purchased ANY Arnott’s biscuits since we saw they used ‘Queer Eye’ star Carson Kressley to promote their biscuits.

[Oh oh! Jenny Stokes is now also boycotting Triumph underwear because of its 'Sloggi' advertising campaign. Holeproof would also be out because of the 'No Knickers' range. We can forget about Kayser and Rio, too ... Please, Bonds, don't run any sexy ads or the Stokes will have to stop wearing ... Eeugghh, I can't go on!]

Marisa Tan, Cheltenham, Vic., letter in Melbourne Age, 14 May 2005:

Flicking through the channels during prime-time television on Thursday, I came across ‘Big Brother’ on Channel Ten, showing buttocks of female participants for male participants to match against the right person …Has society degenerated so far that such programs are allowed to publicly demean [their] female participants, [their] female viewers, as well as to be broadcast indiscriminately during prime-time hours when impressionable children are watching TV?

[And up go the Big Brother ratings again. Good on you, Marisa, and Channel Ten, don't be stingy, send her a cheque.]

Jenny Stokes, Salt Shakers, email, 4 May 2005, concerning Victoria’s anti-vilification law  - www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1353468.htm:

Our main concern with the Act is it really does limit freedom of speech.

[So Salt Shakers, one of the most active pro-censorship groups in the country, officially favours freedom of speech? Thanks, Jenny, that should come in very handy one day. Incidentally, how's your anti-Desperate Housewives campaign coming along?]

Wally Grant, Child Evangelism Fellowship, ‘Tough Questions from Kids’, New Life, 5 May 2005:

What is the unforgivable sin? The Bible talks about only one sin that cannot be forgiven and that is ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit’ …Sometimes people know they have sinned and know the truth about Jesus yet live their whole lives refusing to receive Him as their Saviour. To live as if you do not need Jesus is the same as calling the Holy Spirit a liar - that is the ultimate disrespect to God. Anyone who dies dishonouring God in this way never having asked for Christ’s forgiveness cannot be forgiven.

[And we're supposed to tell this to children? I guess the term 'child abuse' must mean different things to different people.]

Danny Nalliah, President, Catch the Fire Ministries, ‘Tsunami - A Real Eye Opener’, CTF Newsletter, Apr. 2005, 2-3:

A Christian church congregation located in a place called Kalmunai, (east part of Sri Lanka) had gathered for their Sunday morning service as usual. As they were worshipping the Lord, suddenly they heard a big noise and saw the sea rising up as a huge wave was approaching the church. Many in the congregation panicked and wanted to run away, but obeying the instructions of the Pastor, they stayed in the church and shouted to almighty Jesus for protection from the approaching tsunami. Remarkably, the Christian believers experienced one of the most powerful miracles in mankind’s history, as the wave split in two before the church, washing everything away to the left and right of the church, but did not touch the church at all! … 175 people were miraculously saved while they worshipped in the church when the tsunami hit. About 50 who were at home, died … Despite the tragedy, I thank God for the tsunami which has brought a special unity and spiritual blessing to many nations across South East Asia.

[There are currently a number of these stories circulating among conservative evangelicals. Congratulations to Concerned Christian Growth Ministries (CCGM) of WA for being one of the few religious groups prepared to cast doubt on such tales:

Some Muslim fundamentalists, as well as some very conservative Christians, referred to the tsunami as God's judgment. In a number of places ...the only, or one of the few, buildings not destroyed was the local mosque. Some saw this as the divine intervention of God (though it was more a matter of the kind and strength of the building and its construction, as well as its location - rather than anything divine or supernatural). (CCGM Take A Closer Look, Mar.-Apr. 2005, 5)]

Peter and Jenny Stokes, Salt Shakers, Salt Shakers Journal, May 2005, 6:

Tim Tams promote pornography - The latest advertising campaign for Tim Tams, conducted by Arnotts (the manufacturer), features a naked reclining woman. She is covered in the ‘vital areas’ by ‘chocolate’ ribbons. Titled ‘Dangerous Liaisons’ the advertisements focus on titillation and lust.

[Titillating Tim Tams? Now there's a concept for you.]

Judith Bond, letter in Sydney Morning Herald, 13 Apr. 2005, as quoted in Salt Shakers Journal, May 2005, 10:

Who in their right mind would learn anything from watching ‘Desperate Housewives’? What dysfunctional, fake viewing. This program is doing its best to destroy the foundation of society and biblical teaching.

[Judy, whatever you do, don't start watching a show called The Simpsons!]

Augusto Zimmermann, ‘The Blind Faith of Feminism’, Family World News, May 2005, 4:

Faith in feminism does not allow its believers to understand that if it were not for male inventiveness, and spirit of tolerance in the West, they would not have the chance to engage themselves in ‘consciousness-raising’ against men … To make people believe that Western societies are ‘oppressive’, feminists have to ignore that it was due in great part to action of men that they have the freedom they fully enjoy today …

[Don't worry, Augusto, I never listen when people tell me you're a patronising berk.]

Fred Nile, ‘Rev. Hon. Fred Nile gives Warm Eulogy for Pope John Paul II in NSW Parliament’, Focus on Parliament, (supplement to Family World News), May 2005, 1:

When I returned to Australia [from a 1985 trip to Rome and a meeting with the Pope] some of the extreme Protestant groups found out about my visit. Stories were published in some of the Protestant papers and the headline in one of the papers described me as a parrot for the Pope. The story in the newspaper stated, ‘Do not trust Fred Nile. We heard that he went to Rome, he kneeled before the Pope, kissed his ring, and sold his soul to the Catholic Church’. On one side I am attacked by liberals in the Uniting Church, and on the other side I am attacked by conservative Protestants. I cannot win. I must be doing something right as I am in the centre.

[Well, that's great to hear, Fred. It's a pleasure to welcome you here to the 'centre', and ... Hang on a tick, what's this on page 3? What's this you're saying about Paul Lynch MP and his Bill to remove reference to the Queen from the Parliamentary oath of allegiance?]

call on Mr Lynch (with his Irish loyalties) to withdraw his Bill. If he wishes to serve in a republican Parliament, he should resign his seat and transfer to Ireland.

[Fred, I think you need just a few more years on probation before you join the 'centre'.]

Andrew Lansdown, Life Ministries WA, New Life, 5 May 2005:

Pro-abortionists claim that women will die from backyard abortions if legal abortions are not freely available. This is untrue … [N]o woman need die from a backyard abortion because no woman need have one. Backyard abortions do not become compulsory when legal abortions become unobtainable. They are performed only after women have deliberately and unlawfully sought them out …[W]hile everyone laments the prospect of a woman suffering harm from a backyard abortion, such harm, should it occur, is not unjust. Abortion should not be legalised for fear that a few women may fall victim to their own schemes to kill their own babies.

[Andrew's a real sweetie, isn't he?]

Charles Colson, convicted Watergate conspirator turned evangelical pundit, New Life, 5 May 2005:

I was asked by an interviewer if the new pope would accommodate modern fashions. My answer was, ‘I hope not’. Fashions come and go; the church speaks eternal truth.

[Tell it to Galileo, Chuck. And by the way, the Catholic Church now officially accepts evolution as fact. That seems to make it 'eternal truth', so could you tell your fellow creationists all about it?]

Brian Harris, veteran moralist, Melbourne Age, 19 Apr. 2005, opposing voluntary euthanasia:

Good palliative care can alleviate most pain and give the person concerned time to make peace with God and men.

[Well, ring out those bells of heaven! Brian Harris finally admits that palliative care has limitations and cannot ease all the pain which many people experience while dying. Now if he could just get hold of the fact that voluntary euthanasia means dying at a time of your own choosing, after you've made peace with God, men and possibly even women.]

Peter Stokes, Executive Officer, Salt Shakers, email dated 1 May 2005:

We believe IVF is wrong (other than for a married couple who use their own sperm and egg.)

[Peter, to maintain consistency with all your other beliefs, you should also specify that no 'spare' embryos be created during the IVF process, as if these embryos are ultimately flushed, 'human lives' have gone down the drain, the moral equivalent of abortion - well, according to you, anyway. Also, you hold that all non-marital sexual activity - 'heterosexual, homosexual and any other' - is immoral, rendering the preferred method of masturbation to produce sperm for the procedure unavailable to your couple (depending ...). Strictly speaking, IVF also involves the intervention of a third party in the conduct of what we may delicately term 'marital relations', and some have labelled this a form of adultery. Perhaps you should drop your approval of marital IVF too, Peter, as you wouldn't want anyone accusing you of sexual radicalism, now would you?]

Filed in: Their Own Mouths