Emil Silvestru, Answers in Genesis speaker, New Life, 30 June 2005:

When we get something new the first thing we take out of the box is the instruction manual. God gave us an instruction manual, the Bible, but people today are not interested in reading it.

[Emil, you're a Young Earth Creationist, believing that God created Adam and Eve only 6,000 years ago. Why did God take over 4,000 of those years to send us the full instruction manual? And why when we finally got it was it subject to thousands of different interpretations? I mean, only a small minority of Christians read this manual the way you do. Maybe we should invoke the warranty and ask God to send us the missing pages.]

Emil again:

Wearing clothing comes from the Bible. God made the first clothes for Adam and Eve. From an evolutionary point of view we should stay naked and grow more hair on our bodies to keep us warm in winter.

[Wearing clothing can't have 'come from the Bible', Emil, as the Bible did not appear for several millennia after Adam and Eve. And God definitely didn't make the first clothes for humans. According to Gen: 3:7, Adam and Eve made them all by themselves. Actually, of course, we evolved large brains enabling us to invent clothing and thus successfully adapt to living in a huge range of environments, a much more efficient arrangement than relying on body hair. Sorry, Emil, three strikes and you're out.]

James R. L. Forsyth, book reviewer, New Life, 30 June 2005:

‘Deadly Deception at Port Arthur’ … [by J. Vialls] … As the title somewhat implies, this book argues that Martin Bryant didn’t commit the famous Port Arthur massacre of 28 April 1996 but rather was a patsy for international powers wishing to disarm the Australian population through the resulting gun-control measures that took place … It is not my role as a book reviewer to state whether I was convinced by Mr Vialls’ thesis. [Isn't it?] However I believe that the command God has given us not to bear false witness … has the same moral implications for those with information that can acquit someone who has been wrongly accused and holds back.

[New Life, a leading Australian evangelical publication, used to be a responsible, if very conservative Christian journal. But the last few years have seen it wandering down some very strange paths. Its 'Letters' page often resembles a 'Who's Who?' of the Religious Right, and as for reviews like this one ...]

Australian Prayer Network, New Life, 30 June 2005:

The Australian Prayer Network is calling all member churches, prayer groups and individuals to a season of 40 days of prayer (and optional fasting) for the breaking of the drought, both naturally and spiritually, over our nation. This season will commence on 24 July and conclude on the first day of spring … Our past experience is that God does not always wait for our prayers to begin, but often responds simply to our genuine intentions …

[So please remember that every drop of rain that falls between now and 1 September is the result of a Christian intention, a prayer, or a spot of optional fasting. Meteorological conditions? What atheistic bunk!]

David Barton, Victorian Director, Australian Christian Lobby, Melbourne Age, 24 June 2005, concerning a judge’s ruling that two Christian pastors should apologise for comments they made about Islam:

What is this if not a clear gagging of the pastors’ right to free speech?

[Most Australian pro-censorship groups have joined in this call for unfettered liberty of expression. Isn't it odd that they're simultaneously demanding bans on TV shows like Big Brother and movies like 9 Songs? 'So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.' (Matt: 23:28)]

Margaret Tighe, President, Right to Life Australia, Melbourne Age, 24 June 2005, responding to Sen. Stott-Despoja’s suggestion that anti-abortion agencies be forced to publicly declare their true policies:

Absolutely appalling.

[Yes, aren't you?]

Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), approvingly quoting Pope Benedict’s condemnation of ‘anarchic freedom’- www.acl.org.au – 7 June 2005:

Pope Benedict has condemned same-sex unions, calling them expressions of ‘anarchic freedom’ that threaten the future of the family … The Pope also condemned divorce, artificial birth control and trial marriages, saying all of these practices were dangerous for the family.

[Note that many Protestant-based Religious Right groups, including the ACL, actually harbour deep suspicions about divorce and contraception as well as gay rights, abortion rights etc. This reflects the groups' instinctive hostility to anything that might tend to increase women's independence. Hence, conservative popes paradoxically become strong allies of fundamentalist and Pentecostal Protestants.]

Bill Muehlenberg, Australian Family Association, News Weekly, 18 June 2005, 22:

The naive and baseless belief of modernism that fallen reason, aided and abetted by science (really scientism), could create a new man and an earthly paradise has been the cause of more human misery and death than any other worldview.

[I hope and trust you're not a smoker, Bill. There are so many straw men standing around here that you might burn your house down. And are you really saying that the casualties of 'modernism' outnumber those who fell, and are still falling, to the ancient and ongoing tragedy of the religious 'worldview'? Look no further than the Middle East.]

Robert Row, Speaker, Creation Research, Creation News, June 2005, 3:

Lastly, we discussed the recent earthquakes and how they are the result of the earth’s groaning for the return of Christ.

[We're groaning too, Bob, but for a different reason.]

John Mackay, International Director, Creation Research, Creation News, June 2005, 4:

Geological Society, St Andrew’s University, Scotland, asked John Mackay to speak on ‘Exposing Evolution, Proving Creation’, Thursday 17 March. The most perceptive question from attending students – ‘Why didn’t the evolutionist Geology Profs who were there ask any challenging questions – or any questions at all?’

[John, it's hard to frame questions when you're rolling around the floor in hysterics.]

Nathan Tabor, Senior Editor, The Conservative Voice, 13 Apr. 2005, approvingly quoted in Fatherhood Foundation email newsletter no. 145, 6 June 2005:

But what about the father who fervently wants his unborn child to live? … Why shouldn’t the mother just deliver the baby, even if she doesn’t want to keep it, and then turn it over to the father, who does love it and wants to raise it?

[Nathan, do you ever wonder why women run away screaming as you walk down the street?]

Kerrie Allen, Research Officer, Australian Family Association, News Weekly, 18 June 2005, 18:

Women are constantly bombarded with the message that it is only outside the family that they can find fulfilment. Women who choose full-time mothering are denigrated as lazy, brainless, unempowered or submissive.

[Kerrie, women are not 'constantly bombarded' with that message, nor are full-time mothers denigrated in those ways. This is simply inaccurate. And lots of your Religious Right mates specifically want women to be much more submissive to men. They wouldn't see the term 'submissive' as an insult, but rather as a compliment.]

Ben-Peter Terpstra, Online Opinion, 11 May 2005, approvingly quoted on the Australian Christian Lobby website – www.acl.org.au – 10 June 2005:

… [A]t the end of the day (or one’s life), Christians can afford to be wrong. If there isn’t a God, then so what? Atheists, on the other hand, can’t afford the luxury of making a mistake with potential eternal consequences. If God exists, then I’d hate to think about what awaits them in the next life.

[This argument is termed 'Pascal's Wager' and has been thoroughly debunked so many times that I'm surprised anyone still has the gall to advance it. Think about it, Ben-Peter. If there isn't a God, then you've wasted a large proportion of your time and other resources - perhaps all of them - worshipping nothing, not to mention all the other people you've led astray. But if there is a vengeful God such as the one you envisage, then you have to pick the right one to worship - and it has to be exactly the right one: who says a Catholic God will accept Protestants, or that a Baptist God will accept Pentecostals? And I'd hate to think about what awaits you in the next life if God turns out to be Allah!]

Tony Abbott, Federal Health Minister, Melbourne Age, 9 June 2005:

Mr Abbott said any decision families made about keeping their [very premature] babies alive should not be ‘forced on’ them by governments.

[Ah, so it's the family's decision, is it, Tony? So you'd obviously respect a family's decision to have the life-support system turned off in this situation, as well as a decision to leave the system turned on? And by extension, would you now accept that families have the right to make similar decisions on behalf of other family members in comparable situations? Keep on shuffling, Tony, and you might just shuffle your way right into the voluntary euthanasia movement.]

Miranda Devine, ‘The come-on has become a turn-off’, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 June 2005:

Those heroic individuals at the Australian Family Association …, [Bill] Muehlenberg in Victoria and spokesman Damien Tudehope in NSW, are subjected to constant ridicule and personal vilification. Tudehope’s efforts over the past year, on behalf of the Association, to lobby the Office of Film and Literature Classification over the classification of three movies … have been derided as ‘quaint’.

['Quaint', eh? Talk about vilification! And they're 'heroes' too, with super-powers for all we know, so just watch it.]

Fred Nile, Christian Democratic Party (CDP), Family World News, June 2005, 2:

As a result of a recent consultation with Mr Peter Harris, Federal Chairman of the Family First Party [FFP] and myself as National President of the CDP, we are seeking to develop areas of cooperation concerning the forthcoming NSW State Election in 2007. We have agreed to work together as Christians in the Spirit of Christ and cease any criticism of each other, our policies and activities for our mutual advantage. One of our main objectives is to ensure my re-election in 2007 to the NSW Upper House so that we do not lose our CDP seat.

[Yes, not a bad deal, Fred. You significantly improve your chances of retaining your seat, retrieve the Pentecostalist campaign workers who deserted you for the FFP during the 2004 Senate race, and remove a source of criticism. In return, Family First gets on side with an egotistical 70 year-old maverick (Fred will be 73 in 2007, and 81 if he completes his term) whose weird ideas are held in contempt by the vast majority of electors. This tie-up also makes it much easier to paint the FFP as a fringe group, unrepresentative of Australian families as a whole. Peter Harris, I reckon they saw you coming.]

Dr Stuart Reece, Brisbane moralist, Family World News, June 2005, 12:

When will we rediscover the God who gave us the freedoms we now so wantonly, indulgently and foolhardily so flagrantly flaunt?

[Nice alliteration, Stu. You deserve an elephant stamp. Now let's see, where can I find an elephant?]

Bill Muehlenberg, Australian Family Association/Australian Christian Lobby, Bioethics and the Biblical Worldview, 1 June 2005:

The biblical doctrine of the ‘imago dei’ (image of man) is the platform from which we assess the new [bio]technologies.

[Pretty shaky platform, Bill, at least from your point of view. Imago dei actually means 'image of God'.]

Peter and Jenny Stokes, Salt Shakers, Editorial, Salt Shakers, June 2005, 2:

Is it time for Christian civil disobedience? … We mean civil disobedience that says ‘I am not prepared to conform to bad laws’. As Christians we are moving into uncertain times. We need to realise that to be Christians we may have to refuse to obey some laws in order to do what we have been commanded by Christ to do, tell the world that Jesus is the ONLY way to God …

[Salt Shakers going to the barricades, eh? What, all six of them? We're trembling in our boots.]

Filed in: Their Own Mouths