Elaine Nile, Christian Democratic Party, ‘Elaine’s Perspective’, Family World News, Sept. 2007, 5:

Here is good advice: ‘Always speak as one who learns and not as one who knows.’ … [Two paragraphs later] God’s Word does not support sodomy in any way, any time. It calls this lifestyle an ABOMINATION!

[Elaine is known far and wide for her consistency. Or perhaps that's some other Elaine.]

‘Prayer Points’, Family World News, Sept. 2007, 8:

Please pray for spiritual protection over [Christian Democratic Party leaders] Fred [Nile] and Gordon [Moyes] over the month. ‘See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, because the days are evil.’ Eph 5:15, 16.

[I've been praying that one for years but it never seems to do the slightest good, they still behave like fools. Maybe it's my delivery.]

Salt Shakers, email to supporters, 11 Sept. 2007, regarding complaints to Californication advertisers:

Lovable Underwear … [T]hey have Jennifer Hawkins in underwear saying ‘Your power over men is in direct proportion to the cuteness of your undies.’

[Yes, terrible plagiarism. I'm sure Isaac Newton thought exactly the same thing in 1687.]

Warwick Marsh, Fatherhood Foundation, speech to Lone Fathers’ Convention, 8-9 August 2007, Parliament House, Canberra, email to supporters, 13 Aug. 2007:

In 1975 the current Family Law Act was introduced into parliament by the late Justice Lionel Murphy. The overriding ambition of Justice Lionel Murphy was to remove any vestige of the Judeo Christian ethic from our national life … There is no doubt that Justice Lionel Murphy was successful in his goal to eradicate all our links with the Judeo Christian ethic in both law and society …

[Warwick, if the 'Judeo Christian ethic' has vanished from our national life, why do groups like yours keep campaigning so hard for its preservation? How can we preserve something that isn't there?]

Mark Rabich, Abortion again, CultureWatch, comment dated 23 Aug. 2007:

I believe a fundamental difference between my [male] viewpoint and [that of my female opponent] is that I can probably find it a little easier to be objective, precisely because I can never be pregnant.

[Mark is now living on a heavily-fortified island, 2,500 km from the nearest woman. He'd be well-advised to stay there.]

Bill Muehlenberg, More public God loathing, CultureWatch, 11 Aug. 2007:

… [A]ccording to the secularists, both [John Howard and Kevin Rudd], especially Howard, have a ten-point plan to turn Australia into something like Geneva under Calvin, Scotland under Knox, or New England under the Puritans.

[Two funny things here. Firstly, Muehlenberg's standard technique of drowning both his readers and himself in hyperbole. And secondly, a failure to openly avow his own dominionist objective, namely, an Australia governed by biblical law - in other words, something that would look very like Calvin's Geneva or New England under the Puritans.]

Maryse Usher, Abortion again, CultureWatch, comment dated 18 Aug. 2007:

Abortion is always objectively evil and never necessary … Women who abort are no judge of whether abortion has harmed them or not. People commit all sorts of crimes. Some repent, some don’t. Crime is still crime.

[Enjoy it while it lasts, God. One of these days Maryse will be knocking on your door and then I'd bale right out if I were you.]

Tim Cannon, (National Civic Council’s) Thomas More Centre, Melbourne, ‘Abortion: an unanswered question’, News Weekly, 15 Sept. 2007, 18:

For opponents of abortion …, it is vital that we proceed with charity and patience, mindful that our goal is to protect the health and safety of unborn children and the women who bear them. We cannot underestimate the potential for carelessly flung words of zealous condemnation to savage the hearts of women who have experienced the tragedy and trauma of abortion.

[Er, Tim, you might need to have a quick word to Maryse.]

Ewan McDonald, Christian Democratic Party, Abortion again, CultureWatch, comment dated 21 Aug. 2007:

Elka, you said, ‘It is inherently wrong to rail against women who have abortions or who are considering abortion without offering viable alternatives and supporting policies that would benefit women and children’. I challenge that type of thinking. If we really believe abortion to be murder, then why is it ‘inherently wrong’ to condemn the practice without offering ‘viable alternatives’?

[Can't fault the logic, Ewan. Completely inhuman position, but perfectly logical.]

[By the way, Ewan posted a clarification of his earlier gaffe, which appeared to call for the re-stigmatisation of children born to unmarried parents. 'No, no', wailed Ewan. 'I only meant society should attach a stigma to the fornicating parents, not the children'. Could give rise to some interesting conversations: 'Hey, Mum, how come the neighbours only talk to me and never to you?' Good thinking, Ewan.]

Stephen White, Greenwith SA, letter in New Life, 13 Sept. 2007:

… [N]ote how quickly [Kevin Rudd] attacked the Exclusive Brethren for talking to Coalition parties. Most ['New Life'] readers might take some exception to the legalism of the Exclusive Brethren, but I would think we are far closer to them than [to] those ALP feminists in the Victorian ALP pushing for abortion for convenience.

[This is one of very few references to the Exclusive Brethren's (EB) political antics that have appeared in Christian Right journals or on their websites. This is because, as Stephen suggests, there is little or no distinction between the political views of the Brethren and those of most New Life readers: 'Those EBs sometimes go a bit far, but let's not publicly criticise our blood brothers.']

Clifford Wilson, creationist extraordinaire, New Life, 13 Sept. 2007, 4:

The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ again brings us the usual evolutionary nonsense about a fossil find that revises our evolutionary timetable.

[See, as far as Cliff is concerned, revision of a theory is a sign of fundamental weakness. Sticking to your guns about Genesis creation and Noah's flood, come hell or high water (small pun there), is a sign of great intellectual strength. No wonder creationism has failed to contribute anything at all to the sum of human knowledge.]

Rev. Fred Nile, Christian Democratic Party, editorial, Family World News, Sept. 2007, 2, regarding the proposed Australian Citizenship Test:

My concern relates to Question 9 - ‘Does Australia have an official or state religion?’ The answer given is ‘Australia has no official or state religion.’ The answer should be redrafted to read - ‘The majority of Australians, according to the census, claim to be Christians of various churches, and even though there is no established or state church, Australia is a Christian nation with its heritage, laws and culture.’

[Well, if you can pull that one off, Fred, I will personally kiss your ... hand.]

Ewan McDonald, Christian Democratic Party, A Review of Conjugal America, CultureWatch, comment dated 5 Sept. 2007:

We also need a restoration of the stigma of illegitimacy and cohabitation of unmarried couples.

[Yes, that'd teach those base-born bastards to choose their parents more carefully. Isn't Ewan a little treasure?]

Andrew Kulikovsky, creationist, Faith, Leadership and Politics, CultureWatch, comment dated 12 Aug. 2007:

[Christian Democratic Party] and [Family First Party] have done a good job I believe but I am not inclined to vote for them because, although they carry the flag on moral issues, their economics generally suck. They are far too socialist.

[Andrew seems to know as much about politics as he knows about science.]

John Angelico, Christian homeschooler, Family Matters, CultureWatch, comment dated 6 Aug. 2007:

[The law] should require MPs to demonstrate their capabilities by showing us a successful family first. Hence, I recommend … a minimum age qualification (say 40-50 years range) plus a functional family.

[Well, that's one way of getting rid of Julia Gillard.]

Steve Cornell, Senior Pastor, Millersville Bible Church, Millersville, Pennsylvania, ‘Dangers of internet pornography and a radical solution’, Salt Shakers Journal, Sept. 2007, 17:

[Jesus] required a radical solution to sexual temptation when he said, ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away …’ Although most agree that Jesus was not literally advocating the removal of one’s eye, he is at least requiring decisive action against the source of temptation.

[Steve, I'm a bit worried about the 'most'. I've sometimes read stories about people turning up at hospitals with damaged eyes and hacked-off hands in response to this biblical injunction, but I had them down as psychopaths. Are you suggesting here that some (sane) fundamentalists take these supposed words of Jesus literally?]

Steve continues:

Jesus did not recommend sexual purity for the protection of one’s reputation, career or marriage. He spoke of horrible eternal consequences awaiting the person who places the members of his body at the disposal of sinful desire. Being ‘thrown in hell’ is a picture of coming under God’s judgment. This is the ultimate motivation for sexual purity.

[Many representatives of the Christian Right dance around this point, so it's kind of comforting to see it put so straightforwardly. Practise sexual purity not for your health or for a feeling of triumph over temptation. Keep it zipped or you'll go to hell. Full stop.]

Filed in: Their Own Mouths