By David Crowe

Australians have always been interested in their prime ministers’ personal faith for the simple reason that it can be essential to the way someone leads the nation.

So there should be no surprise that Scott Morrison is guided by his Pentecostal brand of Christianity. It is essential to who he is as Prime Minister and the approach he takes to every big decision.

Read more:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/time-for-tolerance-on-morrison-s-faith-but-time-to-be-upfront-as-well-20210427-p57mu3.html 

----------------------

Guided by his Pentecostal brand of Happy-Clappy delusion? Sure and it shows. Many of the "big decisions" Scomo has taken like brushing aside Sports Rorts and other rorts, the way he treated refugees, treating Christine Holgate appallingly, "I'm not holding a hose mate" in the middle of a bushfire crisis, being wishy-washy about the MPs in his party who could be deemed corrupt by most, forcing people to shake hand with him, his inability to deal with sexual offences without referring to "Jen", his scientific ignorance about most scientific subjects — and to say the least not having the courage to get Julian Assange out of prison, just to name a few of his "big decisions" all bring the stench of hypocrisy to the fore in his Pentecostalism.

Religion is a bane on humanity says we. Although we, atheists, are treated like lepers/devils/evil because we object and present solid arguments for the eradication of ANY religion in GOVERNMENTAL functions, we prefer being honest about it. Religious people, especially those in power should be able to analyse what crap (did I say crap?) they believe in: Jesus this, Jesus that, Jesus loves ya, ya love Jesus... or Allah this and that, and if you stop believing in Allah, we put you in prison, or kill you (Yes this still happens to atheists in Muslim countries)... Look, there is no such thing as redemption from an "original sin". We are not the "children of god", that's bullshit. The biblical floods? Bullshit... Abraham was an idiot for willing to sacrifice his son (see reference on this website). What there is, is an evolving human species on a little planet that has seen many upheavals, in evolution and devolution for the past 4 billion years, in climate change and the extinction of the dinosaurs 65.5 million years ago. Stop effin' believing in miracles. Learn something real.

So there has been some mighty natural climate change before, thus what's the problem? Simple. The present climate change (global warming) isn't natural and goes against the normal "natural" trends by piggybacking EXTRA heat on the natural settings. AND IT'S HAPPENING AT A RATE OF KNOTS... This "more EXTRA heat" comes from our burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. How does this happen? Go and visit: https://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33287

If you're still in the dark because learning about god/Jesus/Rossi/Zeus made your brain a bit slow on such things, talk to Tim Flannery. He'd be happy to explain and explain and explain and explain, until lesson learnt.

Oh and by the way, did you say that taxpayers funded Scomo's preaching junket to the Gold Coast? Oh Yes... That takes the cake of exclusive selective hypocrisy:

There was no alert from Morrison’s office when he flew to the Gold Coast last week, at taxpayer expense, to speak to the Australian Christian Churches national conference. His office did not release the speech, which only went public when a secular advocacy group, Rationalists Australia, released the video online.

That is a shame, because Australians want to know more about what makes their Prime Minister the man he is. His other speeches, like ones to business chambers or community groups, are routinely released."

No, we don't want to know more about what "makes the man" so annoying... The shame is that it seems Scomo has forgotten that the duty of office is secular and honest, but the media let him get away with most crap like sports rorts, because the man believes in god... 

It's time Scomo pulled his finger out and GOT JULIAN ASSANGE FREED. The treatment of Assange should not, and could not, be ever accepted by Christians, like Scott Morrison and Joe Biden...  

by Michael Keating

True to form, Scotty from marketing has given us a slogan trumpeting “technology not taxes” and not a real policy for dealing with climate change.

It is generally agreed that action to limit climate change requires a switch from carbon-based sources of energy to energy derived from renewable sources, such as sun and wind, that do not have any carbon emissions.

But this transition does not require any further innovation in the development of new technologies. In fact, low-cost technologies based on renewables already exist. Equally, the development of lower-cost batteries and stored hydrogen means that the potential unreliability of energy supply based on renewables is no longer a major problem.

Consequently, the market knows that it is not economic to invest in new coal-fired power stations and left to itself there will be no more investment in new coal-fired power stations.

But what matters right now is the rate of take-up of renewable energy and its use. This take-up rate needs to be accelerated and the government has done almost nothing to encourage that.

If the government was fair dinkum, there are three ways to accelerate the shift to lower carbon emissions:

·       Subsidies

·       Taxes

·        Targets, possibly backed by regulations.

Last week in a desperate attempt to prove its climate credentials before the Biden summit, the government announced that it would spend more than a million dollars subsidising the development of technology. While some of this spending may be useful, spread over as much as ten years, it looks like the proverbial drop in the ocean. It is unlikely to make much difference to future carbon emissions, and neither will it impress our international partners.

But now that the government has been prepared to embrace subsidies to reduce carbon emissions, the hollowness of its opposition to taxes is also exposed.

Fundamentally, there is no way of paying for subsidies, other than by taxes. Thus, the government is asking us to pay taxes to help reduce carbon emissions, but in a very cost-ineffective way. A much more cost-effective way of encouraging people to adapt and change to low-carbon sources of energy would be to put a tax on carbon, rather than raise other taxes to pay subsidies to achieve the same outcome.

Finally, irrespective of whether carbon-reduction is subsidised, or carbon-use is taxed, there is a strong argument that targets can accelerate the take-up of the new technologies to achieve this objective. As argued above, we have the necessary technology, but governments have found that setting an ambitious target helps provide the certainty required to elicit the investment involved in adopting the new technology.

Indeed, as others have pointed out, we would not have got to the moon as soon as we did, if no target had been set, and policy only focused on how to get there. And anyway, in this case we basically know how and already have the technology to get there.

The hollowness of Morrison’s posturing is exposed by the fact that Australia actually does have an intermediate target for emissions reduction. Some years ago, we committed to reducing our carbon emissions by 26-28% by 2030, compared to their level in 2005. And Morrison keeps telling the world that we will maintain that target.

This emissions target is however totally inadequate by today’s standards. It is only about half as ambitious as the American target announced by President Biden at his climate summit last Friday, and all other advanced economies have adopted intermediate targets that are broadly similar to America’s.

Morrison’s (inadequate) defence is that Australia has so far been ahead of the pack in its take-up of renewable energy. But this is mainly because of the efforts by State governments – not the Commonwealth – and investments by households and business who recognise that Australia has a long-term advantage as a producer of the cheapest renewable energy.

Unfortunately, so far Morrison’s Government has been distinguished as “missing in action” when it comes to action to combat climate change. He is just claiming credit for the actions by other people.

In sum, it is difficult to see that the Morrison Government is fair dinkum in trying to reduce carbon emissions and the consequent climate change. If the Government was serious, it would drop the marketing slogans and adopt policies to both tax carbon emissions and set ambitious targets for their reduction.

In a speech to a Jewish community fundraising appeal, Morrison argued that the belief in human dignity leads to the conclusion people matter “individually” rather than for attributes such as sex, race or religion.

On Monday, Guardian Australia revealed Morrison told the conference last week he had sought a sign from God in the difficult last fortnight of the election, and believed a painting of an eagle at an art gallery was a message that “you’ve got to run to not grow weary, you’ve got to walk to not grow faint, you’ve got to spread your wings like an eagle to soar like an eagle”.

Morrison also revealed on election night in 2019 his pastor had urged him to “use what God has put in your hands … to do what God has put in your heart”.

Although Morrison has been open about his faith, inviting journalists into the Horizon church in the Sutherland shire during the 2019 election campaign, the prime minister rarely shares details about how religion shapes his approach to the top job.

The Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, objected to the idea Morrison had been called to do God’s work, telling Radio National “the idea that God is on any political side is no more respectful than the idea that when someone’s sporting team wins it is because of some divine intervention”.

On Friday, Morrison responded by saying he was “disappointed about how some of that [speech] has been mischaracterised” by “others who should know better”.

“Christians talks to Christians about Christian things,” he told 2GB. “I don’t think that’s really a newsflash.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/30/scott-morrison-rejects-idea-he-believes-god-chose-him-to-be-pm-after-warning-against-identity-politics

News flash: If Scomo was a committed Christian, he would ask for the release of Julian Assange from prison. As he has not done this officially and I believe not even quietly, he is therefore a fake Christian with elastic beliefs that suit his politics. Ugly.

Read from top

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE TODAY !!!!

By Jane Gilmore

The man who earned the moniker “Scotty from Marketing” by his near obsession with spin over substance has apparently had a moment of deep sincerity.

One conveniently recorded and uploaded to YouTube for all to see.

Scott Morrison’s speech to the biennial conference of the Australian Christian Churches ignited a debate about the role of religion in government (hint: it has no role in government) but the one thing missing from all the back and forth was scepticism.

Even people least likely to take the Prime Minister at his word seemed strangely willing to believe this speech was a moment of deep sincerity.

If you take a firm grip on your intestinal fortitude and listen to the full 23-minute speech, there’s very little to distinguish it from any other Prime Ministerial waffling.

It’s full of passionate intensity about nothing specific, a few reminders that it’s not his job to do anything, and some catch phrases likely to appeal to his audience.

In this case, God is good, social media is evil, and communities will save us from the menacing trend of young people identifying with communities.

Why do we believe this speech was a moment of deep sincerity, distinct from so many other of his speeches that seem designed only to fluff the deeply held chauvinisms of his audience?

Listening to it, it seems obvious that this speech, like all his others, was motivated by his deeply held conviction that his audiences should always fetch up thinking, “How good is Scott Morrison?”

A fuzzy idea that he’s likeable is preferable to concrete actions or policies.

Do we really believe this speech was not war-gamed with his political advisors? Knowing it would ignite the people who were never going to vote for him anyway and the backlash would engender sympathy from anyone who feels their dogmas are vilified by non-believers.

Do we really think the man who prides himself on the unearned title of Master of Marketing saw no political benefit in a declaration of faith?

Dee Madigan, Creative Director of Campaign Edge, is an old hand at political campaigning, albeit from the Labor side.

She says: “I think [Morrison] knows the reaction from the left will help his base. I don’t think his base are particularly comfortable with the laying of the hands, devil in social media stuff, but they like anything that inflames the left. His politics are tactics based on division.”

No doubt the decision to treat Australian citizens trying to return from India like criminals was designed to appeal to the people he thinks are his base, rather than the ones commanded by their messiah to love their neighbours as they love themselves.

Maybe it’s just not his job to remember that Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jewish anarchist, not a rich white man created in Morrison’s image.

This is not to suggest that Morrison is insincere in his adherence to his stated religion. He has, as we all do, the right to whatever faith sustains him and it is not my job to question something so deeply personal.

It is, however, my job to apply a critical lens to the public pronouncements of Australia’s Prime Minister – to question whether Morrison has a God-given right to use a taxpayer funded plane to fly to a Church conference.

It is my job to consider on whether that nebulous speech had a political agenda – to parse his words for meaning and intent, in the same way journalists question his intent behind telling the Business Council of Australia that the “animal spirit of capitalism” will help us achieve net zero emissions without actually setting a goal of net zero emissions or making any specific plans to achieve it.

Or ask the purpose for throwing a bone to blue collar and regional voters by sneering at those in inner-city wine bars, while standing in the grand ballroom of the Fullerton Hotel to promise executives from Australia’s largest corporations that tax would play no part in government spending on climate change.

When you are the Prime Minister of Australia, the intent and perceived sincerity of every speech matters.

Which makes it difficult to understand why the political purpose of this speech was not interrogated with the same rigour we critique every other speech made by leader with a one-seat majority facing a tight election and an untrusting electorate.

Doing unto others as he would have them do unto him might work, at least that way he’d be doing something instead of just talking about something and doing nothing

Jane Gilmore is a freelance journalist with a strong interest in campaigning against violence against women. She also founded The King’s Tribune

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/opinion/2021/05/05/scott-morrison-sermon-speech/

Read from top.

All the pfaff by "god-from-marketing" is hypocritical bullshit until Julian Assange is free from prison.