|
|
Resistance Thinking Society
'Society' is a term used to describe a grouping of individuals and outlines the structures employed to ensure that the individuals within a society relate to each other in an appropriate fashion. Different societies may have distinctive cultural behaviours and different institutions. In this society section you will find news, articles and reviews that relate to Australian society, or more specifically, individuals who live in Australia.
Topics in this section will cover: science and technology - stem cell research, IVF, cloning, intelligent design, evolution etc.; politics - ideologies (communism, anarchism, totalitarianism, capitalism etc.), state and federal politics, the free market, the United Nations etc.; sociology - globalisation, prisons, welfare, government; environment - global warming, alternative energy etc.; and moral issues - poverty, homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion etc.
The role of the Christian within society is to stand for truth, for justice and most importantly, to represent God's agenda on the earth. As the Resistance Thinking journey continues, our aim is to stimulate engaging dialogue exploring the complexities of how followers of Jesus should engage with society in our day and age.
Please browse through the articles below
|
|
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 21:35 |
The Coalition proposes a new reverse incentive to avoid drugs: the suspension of welfare payments where convicted. If reelected the Coalition would also work towards developing nationally consistent drug laws with a zero tolerance policy basis.
No dole for drug addicts
Herald Sun, Ben Packham, November 19, 2007
ABOUT 6000 drug addicts and dealers would have their welfare payments "quarantined" under a re-elected Coalition Government.Anyone convicted of a criminal drugs offence would lose control of their welfare payments for at least a year.
They would still be able to buy food and pay the bills, through the use of vouchers, but would not be able to get cash. John Howard said yesterday taxpayers' money should not be used to buy drugs. |
|
Read more... [No dole for drug addicts]
|
|
Thursday, 15 November 2007 23:33 |
A strange argument from the College of Obstetricians in response to a recommendation of complete abstinence from alcohol during pregnancy, where they predict that expectant mothers who have had alcohol will kill their babies because they will be afraid they have harmed them.
Abortion fear over no-alcohol-in-pregnancy advice
The Age, Jill Stark, November 15, 2007
NEW alcohol guidelines urging pregnant women not to drink at all could cause unnecessary panic and lead to healthy babies being terminated, the College of Obstetricians has warned. Expectant mothers who are told there is no safe level of alcohol consumption may fear they have caused serious birth defects, even if they have only drunk in moderation or on a single occasion.
The "zero tolerance" position proposed in draft Federal Government guidelines created alarm when adopted in other countries, the president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Christine Tippett, said. |
|
Read more... [Abortion fear over no-alcohol-in-pregnancy advice]
|
|
Monday, 12 November 2007 22:57 |
Premier Brumby recognises the disastrous effects of alcohol abuse particularly in relation to young adults and promises to address the problem.
Brumby declares war on alcohol abuse
Herald Sun, Ellen Whinnett, November 12, 2007
A TOP-LEVEL taskforce has been set up to attack spiralling alcohol abuse in Victoria. Premier John Brumby has declared alcoholism the most serious social problem in the state. "Alcohol is now the biggest social issue facing Victoria, and I think it's one of the biggest threats to young Victorians," he told the Herald Sun.
The number of 14 to 29-year-olds taken to hospital for alcohol abuse jumped to 5300 last year. "There are thousands of cases now where young people are showing up in emergency departments so that puts them at risk," Mr Brumby said. |
|
Read more... [Brumby declares war on alcohol abuse]
|
|
Monday, 12 November 2007 22:45 |
News from Saudi Arabia where thief has hand chopped off in a classic punishment under Shariah law.
Thief who stole from tourists has hand lopped off
Daily Telegraph, November 06, 2007
AN Egyptian pickpocket has had his right hand cut off in Saudi Arabia for robbing visitors to Islam's holiest site. Amro Mohammed Zarif Nasr was found guilty of theft inside the mosque in the holy city in the west of the kingdom and was sentenced to amputation, the agency quoted an interior ministry statement as announcing.
The amputation, performed with a sword, is the first such punishment to be carried out in three years in Saudi Arabia. In 2004, Saudi authorities severed the right hand of a Nigerian, also convicted of theft. |
|
Read more... [Thief who stole from tourists has hand lopped off]
|
|
Wednesday, 07 November 2007 21:49 |
A new campaign has been launched to turn teens off the drug 'ice' by labelling it 'dirty'. Exposing the base ingredients of the drug as battery acid and drain cleaner the government hopes to reduce the number of youth experimenting.
Push to turn young off using ice
The Age, Clay Lucas, November 5, 2007
"ICE" has been branded "the dirty drug" in a campaign aimed at warning young Victorians of its dangers. "The ingredient base of this drug is battery acid and drain cleaner," state Mental Health Minister Lisa Neville said yesterday at the beer garden of central Melbourne's grungy St Gerome bar.
"Ice is a very dirty, and extremely addictive, drug." Ice — or methamphetamine — was the most dangerous form of amphetamine, Ms Neville said. It caused long-term mental and physical damage. |
|
Read more... [Push to turn young off using ice]
|
|
Friday, 02 November 2007 22:05 |
We Will Be Remembered for This
Reviewed by Emma Hughes
Monash Law student, Jessie Taylor has produced this documentary about a group of young people’s responses upon visiting the Baxter Detention Centre. With a film promising to be a “clear, rational and non-politicised look at the human issues of Australia’s mandatory immigration detention policy” I thought I’d definitely have to take a look.
Basically the format of the film is a road trip, taking a “group of young people of different nationalities, backgrounds, attitudes and political views” on a journey into the detention centre, allowing for comment by activist lawyer Julian Burnside, QC and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser along the way.
The production values are noteworthy, with scenes being artistically shot and edited in post-production. The soundtrack is also commanding with songs from Justin Grounds often providing the backdrop. The concept is also commendable and Taylor tries to steer clear of blatant Howard-hatred (although Burnside and Fraser seem to need no encouragement in that area). There were disappointing aspects about the pace of the film; however, as it didn’t seem to hit a climax and felt like it was winding down for the last half hour, basically repeating the same sentiments over and over against the poignant soundtrack. Another criticism was that I often got the sensation of watching Big Brother, with a group of young people sitting around in front of a camera, making conversation and broad statements about policy issues and motivations of political leaders without much perspective or understanding.
The problem with the documentary is that it isn’t the neutral offering it promises. A common hallmark of a more ‘left’ (for want of a better word) approach to issues is a micro, emotional one. Explained this basically means that those adhering to such a philosophical commitment tend to view issues idealistically and connect with people and faces who are affected (think David Hicks, Cornelia Rau etc). This is then extrapolated out into policy recommendations with the thought in the back of one’s mind that there are thousands others like these people, all deserving of government help and assistance. The political right is often criticised for it’s ‘clinical’ approach to issues such as these (including refugees, war, approach to terrorism, and poverty) and accused of not caring about the people, only the broad policy, or economics/security at the expense of civil liberties. The approach of the right also tends to emphasise personal responsibility over corporate/government action in contrast with the left.
Why did I just spend a paragraph on the distinctions? Basically because I found the documentary to be an example of the former approach. The young adults on the journey were confronted with the reality of human suffering and predictably changed their opinion about the broader issue of refugees because to fail to do so would be seen as heartless. It made me wish someone was there to ask some critical questions such as ‘is the answer an open door policy?’, ‘if 8% of asylum seekers are not found to be genuine how would you propose we isolate these people?’, ‘if our policy is not to treat asylum seekers seriously will this result in that percentage increasing?’, ‘if Australia has to make a choice between poverty stricken refugees waiting in UN camps to be sent here or between those who are able to arrange boat passage on their own all the way down to our island, which should we prefer?’ and ‘who will take care of the refugees if they are not placed in detention centres?’ The sentiment expressed in the documentary was that those who do ask the questions are motivated by fear, selfishness, greed and ignorance rather than a genuine concern for all facets of the issue.
So can one still view the human suffering and remain committed to refugee quotas and opposed to the encouragement of the black market of refugee transportation? The documentary appears to say ‘no’, but is this too simplistic? On the website FAQ section the question is raised: ‘Why doesn’t the film include any interviews or viewpoints from Liberals, or people who actively support the current policy?’ The answer to this is that they searched high and low for someone to defend the Government’s position but that no one would rise to the challenge, even after they promised not to demonise their viewpoints, and even offered them final right of veto on the interview footage!
The sad thing here is that people are too afraid to speak up in defense of an unpopular perspective. There is no illusion for those who support the Government’s policy; they know that they will be demonised, no matter how politely they put their case. Why? Because the debate ultimately turns on emotion. This is painfully clear in Burnside and Fraser’s part of the documentary. Burnside in particular asks people to imagine how they would feel if they had to flee a war-torn country and fight to protect their children’s lives. With all due respect this simply isn’t a helpful question. Anyone would be devastated to be in the situation of an asylum seeker or refugee but to limit the debate to that sentiment is to miss out on all the other perspectives and policy considerations that are also important.
On reflecting back and addressing this issue for Christians, perhaps the questions we should be asking ourselves first are: ‘what am I personally doing to help out with refugees that are already in our midst?’, and ‘am I living in a way that is consistent with my concerns?’ To merely see our response as attempting to change government policy rather than take personal responsibility for the matter misses the mark somewhat. To give credit where it is due the website does reveal a broader approach and emphasises the need for individuals to get involved and do something themselves providing links to like organisations. The film however leaves the viewer with the impression that a caring person cannot hold a view that favours border control and that those who do are either ignorant or selfish. Limiting the debate in this way is not helpful for such an issue and may in fact hinder the cause rather than further it. |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 28 of 33 |
|
|
