I must say I am most offended by the religious question though - once again, Australia rejects atheism/secularism as some kind of communist plot…

I’ve gone and put you in a bind.

I’d also dare say that I find it far more credible that the more ethically sound pieces of theology that have inspired common law, were themselves inspired by things either more material or simply rationally intuitive (as opposed to divine).

Ever come across a biblical passage and gone “I know what they are on about” because you had already come to that conclusion from analysis of an event in your own life?

I have; lots of times and in my own initial experiences God hasn’t been involved. I see Christians adhere to say a principal that I value, but one that I value with no divine inspiration, and I think “okay, well that works for me.”

In fact, I suspect on many ethical issues, the values of many Christians are derived from reason and not by appeal to divine authority. It’s not a uniquely Judaeo-Christian approach; atheists, Muslims etc all do it.

I think the notion of Australian values being established as originating from the Judaeo-Christian, rather than from reason, is dangerous to a liberal democracy. It infers a deterministic role to a narrow divine authority and relegates reason to redundancy at best.

From that point on, it’s a hop, skip and jump ’till stoning divorcees and “thou shalt not suffer X to live” become core Australian values (even if not implimented thanks to the reasoning of the un-Australians that make up the majority of Australia).

Howard knows how to marginalise and dog whistle doesn’t he? I’d imagine up at Hillsong, that their ears would be (joyously) bleeding by now.

It’s not quite “never the twain shall meet”, however. There is this really weird sect called “Jews for Christ” - they argue the Christians shouldn’t have dropped all the Jewish traditions, but that Jesus was the Messiah. Both the mainstream Jews and Christians disown them.

The Ten Commandments can be regarded as forming one of the precedents for modern law, canon law, and all kinds of other law. So to the extent, our legal tradition is based in part upon notions expressed in the Old Testament (which is broadly equivalent to the Tanakh), we can be said to have a legal system which depends on “Judaeo-Christian” values and notions.

If God wrote the first statute…maybe God was a lawyer? There’s hope for me in heaven after all, maybe.

My values have never stemmed from God. I’ve always been an atheist. I rejected RI at school quite strongly and I was raised in a godless household, the grandson of non-church goers.

The “Judeo-Christian” tradition has never had a hand in raising me!

And on the “Judeo-Christian” note, I recall a comment from one Brian Forte in discussion in April of last year;

FWIW, in my experience, it’s Christians who use the term ‘Judeo-Christian’. Jews — including me — mostly consider there is little religious or theological relationship between Judaism and its off-spring. Certainly not enough of a relationship to deserve a hyphenated joining of the two words.

Brian is a rather articulate individual who writes here.

I feel the same way about sporting heroes. I enjoy watching sport. But it isn’t the be all and end all. I don’t see why sports heroes should be venerated to the extent that they are.

Why aren’t there questions about Australian Nobel Prize winners, Australian authors, Australian artists, Australian scientists? Why is sport the only thing we seem to be able to celebrate?

LE

What are they trying to turn us all into? The Booney brothers? I know very very little about “sporting heroes”, in fact I tend to think that in my life the term is an oxymoron. What’s heroic about sport?

Here’s what dictionary.com says about “hero”:

1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.
4. Classical Mythology.
a. a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.
b. (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.
c. (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod.
5. hero sandwich.
6. the bread or roll used in making a hero sandwich.

(I’ve never heard of a hero sandwich, but it’s a fascinating concept - I’m imagining hercules between two slabs of rock or something)

and “heroic”:
2. suitable to the character of a hero in size or concept; daring; noble: a heroic ambition.
3. having or displaying the character or attributes of a hero; extraordinarily bold, altruistic, determined, etc.: a heroic explorer.
4. having or involving recourse to boldness, daring, or extreme measures: Heroic measures were taken to save his life.

Now I’m sorry, but how do sportspeople who willingly put themselves at minimal risk for no real purpose (ie there’s no lives at stake; just the wishes of a bunch of people who are effectively watching an improvised play unfold) constitute “heroes”?

There are real heroes in our lives - those who take real risks for real people. The fellas who got those two miners out of the ground in Tassie - seriously heroic stuff.

Don’t get me wrong, sport is great when it’s played between friends and communities, having fun, running around, living in your body and enjoying it. But I’m just so sick of the sport obsession here, especially the elite sport obsession which I find quite perverse. It’s such an easy way of avoiding the real world, and the government knows it.

So what do the Booney brothers say? “Best country inna weeerrrrld, mate.”