The ABC Should Be Put Out Of Its Misery
Certainly one of the most unbalanced and biased programs ever shown on Australian television was aired on – you guessed – “our” ABC last night. It appeared on the ABC ‘religion’ program Compass, and was the most appalling attempt at “journalism” I have seen in quite some time.
But I have written about this program before. It is supposed to be a religious program but it instead does everything to push every religion but Christianity. When Christianity is featured, it is almost always attacked and/or trampled on as I have documented here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/03/30/the-abc%E2%80%99s-war-on-christianity/
But last night’s program really took the cake. It was one of the most blatantly one-sided and bigoted programs to air on national television. Of course we expect this sort of behaviour from the secular left ABC, and it does this sort of thing all the time. But even by its own horrendous standards this had to hit a new low.
The program last night was about same-sex marriage. Simply putting these two together (‘ABC’ plus ‘same-sex marriage’) means you know exactly what the result will be. Unlike the poor bloke who put a million dollars on the Cats to beat Essendon the other week, only incredibly to lose, one could put a billion dollars on this outcome from the ABC and be guaranteed a sure win every single time.
The ABC will always push the homosexual agenda, as sure as day follows night. The place is on a special mission to force the homosexual agenda down the rest of our throats whether we like it or not. Why it does not change its name to the GayBC is beyond me.
It certainly is not the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It refuses to properly represent the majority of Australians who are sick and tired of this tax-payer funded outfit pushing one radical activist agenda after another. It is clearly time for the ABC to come out of the closet.
Last night’s show was called “Marriage Right Vs Rite”. It featured the host, Geraldine Doogue, and six guests sitting around a dinner table discussing the arguments for and against same sex marriage in Australia. Well, that’s nice, you say; a nice range of views on a complex social topic.
But it wasn’t nice at all since there was no diversity of opinion here whatsoever. What we had was a hatchet job, plain and simple: one of the persons was against same-sex marriage while the other six were all effectively in favour of it. But surely the host was impartial, you say.
Sadly, the host is rarely impartial or neutral either on Compass or on any other ABC program, be it radio or TV. I have done dozens of these “debates” over the years on ABC radio and TV. Their idea of balance and fairness is to have me as the sole conservative voice, taking on 2, 3 or 4 people with the opposite point of view. And invariable the so-called moderator is not moderate in the least, but sides with my opponents.
The same here. Doogue is a left trendy, end of story, She in fact was seen at times laughing while the sole voice was trying to make his case. That sole voice was Anglican Bishop The Right Reverend Robert Forsyth. I repeat, he was the only one out of seven people to make the ‘no’ case on same-sex marriage.
So who were the other five? It is really quite incredible who they were. Were they disinterested moderates, or impartial observers? Were they run of the mill Australians or just ordinary folks providing a bit of the cross-section of Australia? Not on your life.
Every single one of them was a homosexual (or lesbian), or was just about 100 per cent in favour of the homosexual cause. So who were they?
-Professor Dennis Altman, academic and renowned homosexual activist.
-Melbourne Baptist minister Reverend Nathan Nettleton, a long time supporter of the homosexual agenda – and an apostate from biblical Christianity.
-ABC broadcaster Julie McCrossin, a lesbian activist.
-“Dad” Geoff Thomas, a homosexual rights activist who has a homosexual son.
-Catholic Jesuit priest Father Frank Brennan, known for his leftist views on most social issues.
There you have it folks: six to one. This is the ABC’s idea of a fair debate! So bold and brazen is the ABC in its despicable bias and imbalance that it can actually feature a show on a highly controversial topic like homosexual marriage, and only allow one voice to speak against it.
This is utterly detestable, and the ABC should be ashamed of itself. This is what passes for debate at the ABC? This is supposed to be an example of balanced journalism? This is supposed to be a fair and even-handed debate? These guys are pitiful. And we have to fund this blatant propaganda machine with our tax dollars.
Lest you think I am being unfair on at least one of the guests, Father Brennan, simply read for yourself what he said in the transcript (see my link below). He did hardly anything to properly represent the Catholic Church on this. For example, he said, “Now I say to Julie and Melissa, look I espouse your relationship. I not only tolerate it, I endorse it. I admit not every church person would endorse it. But I do endorse it.”
He also went all gushy about civil unions: “I remain of the view that the Blair government got it right in the United Kingdom six years ago with civil unions. I mean if it comes to pass, yes. I mean people like Julie and Melissa will feel that this is a better country to live in, and Geoff will be happy for his son. And I for one will say well that’s a good thing.”
Civil unions of course simply give the homosexual activists 95 per cent of their demands, with nothing left over except the word “marriage”. A few Christian groups in Australia have also run with that incredibly nonsensical strategy, and it has been an appalling failure, and simply undermined the work of pro-family forces here.
So my point remains: we basically had another typical ABC “debate”: this time it was six against one. And of course one of those six was a “human interest story” – the father of a homosexual. This of course will offset any argument from the other side: simply present an emotional and teary personal story, and the debate is over.
The ABC knows this full well because it does it all the time. It always drags out someone to put a human face on the radical agenda they are seeking to make. But that is not unfair, some might claim. OK, let me call your bluff. Simply tell me how many times the ABC allows a personal interest story from the other side. Please provide me just one example.
Have they ever allowed a kid harmed by being raised in a homosexual household to come along and share his or her story? Have they ever allowed a former homosexual to come and share his or her experience? Nope – never. They never have and they never will. Why? Because they do not give a rip about fairness, truth or balance. They only care about pushing their radical agendas, and they will resort to any dirty trick in the book to succeed.
It really is time to put the ABC out of its misery. It represents no one but the usual radical activist groups. Given that we have to pay for it to keep it alive, it is well past time for it to give up the ghost. It is a joke and a sham.
PS: Can I suggest that every single one of you contact the ABC and complain forcefully – yet respectfully – about this blatant bigotry, bias and propaganda? Use this link to start with: http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Board.aspx?b=81&WT.svl=explore
57 Replies to “The ABC Should Be Put Out Of Its Misery”
There is no shortage of hostility to the truth. I see the same thing in the U.S. My country is quickly going to hell in a hand basket. When the culture as a whole condones homosexuality I do not think it is long before the nation crumbles from within.
Stephen Geiger, US
They’re so bold these days, they don’t even bother to disguise it. I imagine displaying such open contempt for the ABC charter gives them feelings of being terribly progressive – how brave do they really think they’re being parroting the beliefs of the political establishment.
Clearly they don’t know how much ill-will they are generating among the general public.
I linked to http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/3 in my online complaint just to help them understand they are not the voice of any minority, they are not doing journalism, they are unconscionable and dangerous.
Hopefully if Abbott gets in he will privatise the ABC. Maybe people should be petitioning him to do so. It will only be a platform to bash the Libs anyway.
Yes, Bill, the program was almost unbearable! The bias was very obvious – very one-sided! I really did feel for Bishop Forsyth when he had to take on all the others.
There was one interesting insight from Dennis Altman – who wanted ‘equality’ but not necessarily ‘marriage’. When he spoke about his relationship, he said it didn’t follow the idea of “sexual fidelity” – in fact he said, “which I think is crap for most people and doesn’t exist by and large.”
Now the marriage definition says “union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” Marriage includes the notion of fidelity and ‘excluding others’.
My husband and I are also appalled by the anti-Christian, left-wing bias on the ABC. How can we stop taxpayer’s money from going to them? Why can’t we have a conservative television station in Australia?!
But it was fair Bill, they invited three “Christians”.
Yes quite right Kylie
They have Christians on all the time. They just happen to be political and theological liberals who line up with the ABC’s PC agenda. Nothing unusual there. But I await the day when they have a conservative moderator with five conservative guests debating a liberal/lefty. Somehow I don’t expect to ever see that happen on the ABC.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Yes, given all that transpired: I thought Rob Forsyth held his own quite well, and with all the gamesmanship, and political loading of the dice, this one man who knew what the New Testament says, could quote Jesus and highlight his intent and meaning, and put his case well, stood up to the hammering – I thought.
No one could really confound him; (their perspectives did not allow them to even hear him), nor, however, would they do him the courtesy of actually answering his argument.
As he said, even if society changes the definition, people will still say the biological parents and children are one thing, and the ‘Adam and Steve’ scenario is another.
Still two different things. The ontological categories, remain. One involves complementarity by design, the other involves “two of the same” by human self-will.
Excellent article Bill, as usual. That the GayBC is now owned and run by ideologues committed to a radical social leftist agenda is no longer disputed, either by the mainstream media, or those that who know the ABC best. Even ABC managing director Mark Scott was quoted in the British newspaper, The Guardian, as describing the ABC as a “market failure broadcaster”, a comment he later watered down. Gerard Jackson of Brookes News concluded, “The ABC is so ideologically depraved that it is beyond salvation.” A view shared by 2GB broadcaster Alan Jones and many others. Jones asserts the ABC is well beyond reform; is a waste of taxpayers money, and should be dismantled. In an article in the Inquirer titled “Whose ABC”, Chris Kenny of The Australian, after haven “spoken with ABC insiders including present and former board members, about accountability and responsiveness within the corporation.” discovered that ABC was in fact no longer “mainstream”, and wrote his article on the basis of that reality. A reality that is in gross violation of its the charter. The ABC charter makes it clear the ABC has to “provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialised broadcasting programs”.
Little wonder that the ABC Compass needle has lost all sense of direction. Like the Pantheon in ancient Greece, Geraldine Doogue’s ABC Pantheon also has its alter to the “unknown God”, which she and her guests know little about, have absolutely no regard for. Even though over 63% of Australians identify with Christianity. As we saw in her GayBC marriage activism, her many gods, and many guests, regard the “abnormal” as the “normal”, and the “normal” as the “abnormal”. With marriage standing for anything and everything, and therefore standing for nothing. Which causes one to wonder why the gays, or the likes, would even bother with marriage at all.
The “unknown God”, the one true God, that the Apostle Paul revealed to the world would be excluded from the GayBC, and have no place at Doogue’s dinner table. As His view on the gay lifestyle and gay marriage would be anathema.
Well said, and you raise many excellent points. Thanks again for your great contribution.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
If gay people want to marry why should society stop them?
You complain about gays being promiscuous, yet when they want to make a commitment you still object. I don’t get it.
Australian society is 75%-80% in favour of gay marriage according to recent Newspolls, so perhaps Compass is accurately reflecting society’s views.
Time to move on, folks.
Joseph Harrison, Newcastle
But let me call your bluff. There is no ban on anyone getting married as long as they meet the criteria: one must be of the right age; not already married; the partner must be of the opposite sex; and so on. So society is stopping no one. You guys are stopping yourselves.
And SSM will do nothing to decrease the notorious promiscuity amongst homosexuals. Indeed, most don’t want to be faithful, and plenty have admitted as much. As homosexual activist Dennis Altman admitted just this past Sunday night, “I am enormously proud of the fact that I am in a relationship that has been all the things you all want from relationships, with the exception of sexual fidelity which I think is crap for most people and doesn’t exist by and large.”
And the polls are all over the place on this one. It all depends on how the questions are framed, and so on. And with 64% of the population claiming to be Christian, along with others of a religious or more traditional persuasion – most opposed to SSM – the numbers are not looking good for your cause, and Compass was hardly reflecting the mainstream opinion.
Your attempt to destroy marriage by redefining it out of existence is hardly a sign of progress. So why should we “move on” when the move is taking us to social destabilisation and the end of marriage and family?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Typical. Journalists pretending to engage in discussion or exploration of an issue, but all they’re really doing is pushing an agenda. Its insulting. I knew there was a reason I watch less and less TV these days, particularly the ABC.
The quote from Dennis Altman was particularly eye opening. It seems there’s more to it than SSM, there’s a push to destroy the traditional meaning of marriage. What value does the institution of marriage have if fidelity is not an expectation? And to speak up in defense of marriage is to be labelled as a bigot.
Peter Sanderson, Adelaide
Needless to say the queer plague is sweeping the globe. But it has not come out of thin air; it has a history with human agency. Neither does it exist in a vacuum but impacts on society at every level. Since Britain seems to be in the lead in this gallop down the Gadarene slope, it might be instructive to look at our history over the last couple of decades.
As Home Secretary from 1965–1967, Roy Jenkins sought to build what he described as “a civilised society”, with measures such as the effective abolition in Britain of capital punishment and media censorship, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, relaxing of divorce law, suspension of corporal punishment and the legalisation of abortion. Let us therefore dare to open our eyes to this “civilised society” that has been fifty years in the making, and particularly to a defining moment in its development.
In 1997 the Labour Party were swept into power with plans for building a New Britain. At the time, there seemed to be practically nothing of a revolutionary nature that Mr Blair might do by way of combating the values of the then exhausted and sleaze-ridden Conservative Party, and for which the British people wouldn’t have given him their full support.
Yet the form this revolution took was not a demand for redressing the widening gap between the rich and poor, or with addressing the problems of a growing illiteracy amongst school children, or a breakdown in discipline in our schools, or a growing anarchy on our streets – or even transforming Britain into a thriving and productive economy. Instead it was the demand for drugs, alcohol, condoms, treatment for AIDs, HIV and a host of other STIs, as well as abortions for teenage girls – all free and confidential at the point of delivery – and all without the knowledge or authority of parents. It was also a demand to transform our towns and cities into a rainbow of competing minority groups and dysfunctional families that come in all shapes and sizes. All this was paid for by the productive and stable part of society, namely families with a husband and wife, mother and father at their centre, and the voluntary aid of numerous Christian based organisations.
When we view Britain, fourteen years later, what do we see?
We see Britain not just exhausted and sleaze ridden, but demoralised and paralysed by political correctness, being impelled with no slackening of pace down the same Gadarene slope.
We see the corruption of government, the breakdown of trust and loyalty at both corporate and family level, the dramatic rise in divorce rates, the extermination of millions of our unborn babies, the widespread sexual abuse of children, especially when put into the care of social services, the spectre of enforced euthanasia hanging over the elderly and disabled;
We see the rise in motiveless, violent crimes committed by children that would have been rare even among adults a generation ago;
We see a society blighted by addictions to alcohol, drugs, gambling and pornography;
We see the huge increase in mental and emotional disorders amongst our children and the sheer hopelessness and nihilism of feral children being raised on rundown, gang-ridden estates throughout Britain;
We see our prisons, bursting with an increasingly younger population;
We see rising unemployment, rising debt, homelessness, insecurity, and the imminent collapse of business, trade and industry;
And finally we see society debauched, infantilized, feminised, stupefied, bedazzled and seduced by cutting edge technologies, the mass media; yet stripped of a moral compass and afraid to think, speak, choose or act according to their consciences, but forced instead to bow the knee to the diktats of individuals like the anarchist lesbian, Angela Mason, and Sir Trevor Phillips (both of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and who traitorously persecute Christians in Britain whilst heaping praise on Islam) or face the prospect of joining Christian dissenters, such as Mr and Mrs Bull, Mr and Mr Owens, and a growing list of others who have been publicly ridiculed, fined, sacked, had their businesses shut down, threatened with violence and even imprisoned, for no other reason that they wish to uphold decency and family values.
In “Beyond Equality” Tatchell writes:
“In many ways, our transcending of heterosexual mores is a positive and immensely liberating experience. Compared with most straights, queers tend to be more sexually adventurous with a wider repertoire of sexual behaviour, less bound by the strictures of traditional morality, and more experimental in terms of relationships. We don’t need a marriage certificate to validate our partnerships”
“Although getting rid of homophobic discrimination is a laudable aim, it doesn’t go far enough. Ending anti-gay bias will not resolve all the problems faced by lesbian and gay people. Some of our difficulties arise not from homophobia, but from the more general eroto-phobic and sex-negative nature of contemporary culture.”
“We get equality, but at a price. The cost to our community is the surrender of our unique, distinctive queer identity. The unwritten social contract at the heart of law reform is that lesbians and gays will behave respectably and comply with the heterosexual moral agenda. No more cruising, orgies or sadomasochism!”
In “Teenage Sex- What Should Schools Teach Children?” he writes:
“Until very recent times, all sex education was overwhelmingly biased towards promoting heterosexuality, marriage, parenthood and traditional family life. Anything outside this exclusive framework was either ignored or condemned……”
“This old-style monocultural sex moralism is now totally out of sync with our modern multicultural society where there is a great diversity of cultures and communities, lifestyles and love-lives.”
“Nothing must be off limits.”
“Sex education, to be effective, needs to start at a very early age, beginning gently in the first year of primary school and gradually becoming more detailed and explicit at secondary level………”
“The best way to persuade teenagers to adopt oral sex and mutual masturbation is by making them look and sound sexy.”
But Tatchell, in “Insignificant Other” wants to go even beyond to something called the Civil Commitment Pact, where any kind of relationship is given social and legal recognition.
“For these reasons, I have suggested a new legal framework – Civil Commitment Pact. It would allow people to nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any ‘significant other’ in their life. This could be a partner or lover, but it could also be a sister, carer, house-mate, favourite nephew or life-long best friend.”
“Any new partnership legislation should allow people to select from a menu of rights and responsibilities. This flexibility would enable them to devise a tailor-made partnership agreement suited to their own particular needs.”
As night follows day Section 202 of the Equality Act 2010 will smash down the barriers to full on LGBTQIAXYZ…relationships. For these reasons we need to oppose with the utmost vigour the Government’s Civil Partnership and gay marriage proposals. Instead we need reinstate the purity of Christian marriage.
David Skinner, UK
Joseph, let me ask you if I could qualify to join the Newcastle Knights.
Would I need to:
a) be interested in Rugby League (I’m not)
b) be fit enough to make the team (I’m definitely not!)
c) be skilled in the game
d) know the rules
e) abide by the rules
Or as a Melburnian, could I come along and say,
“I demand my right to play RL but I can’t abide this tossing the ball backwards. I want to change the rules and allow for kicking the ball to teammates anywhere on the field.
I want to change the shape of the playing field, too. It’s obviously fairer to have an oval – it matches the shape of the ball.
And we need more goal posts – it’s much too restrictive with just two. Oh, and that cross bar is an obvious OHS hazard: it has to go.”
/sarc (only partly).
It seems I will have no shortage in material when it comes time to teach my children how to discern fact from fiction in the media and bias in reporting.
Quite right Kylie. There is plenty of this out there in the MSM.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I hope you don’t mind Bill if I join you in rebutting Joseph Harrison’s claim that the majority of the population, when and if asked the question. “Ladies and gentlemen would you like your little girls and boys to grow up gay?” that they would unanimously cry, “Yes, we want!”
As for the gays leading a moral crusade wards creating more committed, secure, stable, faithful, pure, sacrificial responsible and caring marriages and families, one must stand in awe and wonder at such a claim. The last thing that the gays want is for their relationships to be protected; they want the freedom to treat them however they wish. The homosexual, with cries of “Follow me,” is beckoning us all to follow in smashing down the doors in order to Get What We Want When We Want.
Dr Scott lively, in his book, “Redeeming the Rainbow,” says the culpability of “gays” relative to the spreading effects of sexual license in society is akin to that which we assign to drug pushers, even though it is the addicts themselves who destroy their own communities through criminal behaviour.” Indeed David Mixner, the most powerful homosexual man in America, someone who was wined and dined at No 10 Downing Street, last year, spoke a few years back about the “heterosexual” copying the behaviour of the homosexuals. On that occasion, David Mixner was asked if he thought whether gay sexuality was all about sexual passion or whether there was room for lasting relationships. Mixner answered, “Well first of all I don’t see anything wrong with passionate relationships, or short term relationships if it is enriching, and nourishing and exciting for the individuals involved, and healthy for both parties. I try not to put parameters around anyone else’s relationship if they are happy. But I think of the things that we have explored and maybe one of the gifts we bring society is that because we have not allowed to be officially sanctioned our relationships – in a number of ways – then we have had to explore alternatives. And I think that in many ways that we are seeing that many in the heterosexual community are copying some of those alternative ways that people can be together, love each other in a healthy wonderful positive sense and the same time meet the needs of a very complex society in which we live in.”
David Skinner, UK
If ever there was a table I wouldn’t have minded turning on its end, It was Geraldine Doogues dinner table on Sunday night.
Did anyone notice that nobody said grace? With all the clergy at that dinner table, I would have thought it more than an appropriate course of action to demonstrate an UNbiased dinner conversation. Seems the ABC aren’t really interested in how they are perceived, so long as they can continue to push their agenda.
I myself had mixed feelings while watching this episode of Compass. A mixture of grief and anger. Anger sort of won out though. I guess the Lord still has a fair bit of refining to do in me.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with a bit of righteous indignation. Indeed, if you did not get angry at this deplorable program, there might be something wrong with you!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Good one Bill, I had to turn it off about half way through as the table was so stacked for SSM, that it made me sick especially the dishonesty of it all.
What about the previous Sunday’s introductory program in the twin series? the ABC compass program did something which I have no remembrance of it doing before, not in recent history anyway. In fact the statements made by the ABC were quite out of character not only for the ABC but the media generally. This is what I saw and heard on ABC Compass.:
• A child being put to bed with a parent saying prayers.
• A prayer of thanksgiving, a grace, being said at the meal table.
• Several people commenting positively on the significance of the church in their development and lives currently.
• References to the importance of stable parental relationships and families for the raising of children.
And all of the above being warmly affirmed by the ABC presenter, none of the usual cynicism about Christianity and the Church!
How could this happen? Well here is how:
It was all about promoting homosexual marriage. All the adults were homosexuals. Would you get this kind of endorsement by the ABC for normal famiy life? Not on your life.
Many thanks indeed Ian for drawing this to our attention. It is yet another example of just how bad Compass is in particular and the ABC is in general.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Only last week I had a discussion with a close family friend about how for some years now I no longer watch the ABC or indeed any mainstream media (apart from the occasional footy game!) I explained that the ABC is actually by far the worst offender as far as distorting controversial issues and I have experienced this personally and also know several others who can testify to similar.
She listens to the ABC all the time and was appalled that I never listen! At one point she said that she felt the ABC’s existence was necessary to have a voice protected from the free market. I remember just looking at her for a moment, in astonishment.
I still can’t believe that she as an intelligent woman said that, but it’s clear that people who regularly partake of the poison do not understand that the way that money flows creates certain outcomes. And the idea that this protection from the free market creates an unbiased voice is very, very wrong.
It is very simple to explain why the ABC is the way it is. If the ABC lies about stuff they are not going to be accountable. The flow of money from taxpayers pockets will continue unabated. People with interest in truth and improving their skills who believe they can compete in the open market place are not going to bother to work in such an organisation because they know their success (income) will be limited in such an workplace. I will plainly state, some of the people who work in ABC positions would struggle to find work in the commercial world. Some would wear this as a badge, but it is nothing to be admired. Either you can do your job well – better than the next person – and you can convince someone to pay you for those skills based on merit, or you can’t. But having a guaranteed income good enough for survival regardless of what you do, can only ever breed mediocrity.
The ABC Charter lists a bunch of reasons why the organisation was setup, but with the rise of the internet, people have countless alternatives and much of the justifications for the organisation simply don’t exist anymore. Why would anyone in his right mind pay to watch a so-called forum with a stacked panel?
Back to the conversation with the family friend – I informed her that the ABC is not really accountable and that I knew of this through a complaint I lodged when they falsely reported about the incoming abortion bill in 2008. I told her that the bill actually legalised abortion for the full 9 months of pregnancy and they falsely reported this and then went on to dismiss my complaint! She replied that she thought the bill was for 24 weeks. (I can recall another family member who also watches the ABC claiming the same thing.) Which ironically proved my point. The activists who populate the ABC knew/know that legalising abortion for the full nine months would not meet with majority community support. So they lied about the bill and contributed to misinforming the public. Since the bill was passed there has been a 600% increase in late-term abortions in Victoria. And taxpayers pay for this level of misinformation? Remember, my complaint was dismissed, but clearly I was absolutely correct! Now, open your wallet and pay for us some more, Mark!
Yes, the ABC urgently needs to be severely trimmed. The majority of it has outlived its usefulness. Its TV section needs to be killed or privatised 100%, and radio restricted only to some regional areas where some argument can be justified for their presence. Web could likely be severely curtailed too. Australians simply don’t need to be paying for a government run milk bar when there is a shopping centre worth of alternatives readily available, particularly when the it steals your money to offer such poison, convincing true believers that it has a better product. It does not.
Thank you for your essay. I saw that programme too. It was essentially pro-homosexual propaganda.
Geoff and I share your abhorrence of this program and its participants’ behaviour. They cause great scandal. Church leadership will have to take action against this behaviour and the statements made. St Augustine exhorts us to love the sinner and hate the sin, but this crowd don’t make it easy!
Some here have suggested the ABC be privatised. Surely the wasteland that is commercial television (and radio) is enough evidence to show why that would be a terrible idea.
ABC and SBS are the only networks worth watching in my view. Compass has presented many programs that are supportive of religious belief in general and Christianity in particular. It’s meant to be a discussion point about worldviews, not a televangelism hour.
If they present a view in a particular program that offends anyone’s sensibilities, politically or otherwise, the power button is always available.
Alan Kingston, Sydney
But you are missing the point completely. This is about a tax-payer funded network which has an obligation to not push minority group agendas, but represent the community at large. The ABC is simply not doing this. I and others have documented this time and time again.
It is neither here nor there that we find some good programs on the ABC from time to time. That is true of the commercial networks as well. But that is not the issue.
And who said anything about televangelism? The point is simply that we should expect to find some respect for Christianity – the same that it seems to have for every other group and belief system. When it deliberately presents anti-Christian programs on Easter and Christmas for example (but never dares to show equally offensive shows about other religions on their most sacred days), we have proof enough of their ugly anti-Christian bigotry.
And your advice about simply turning it off is as helpful as telling those who don’t like drink drivers on the roads to just stay off the roads. Thanks for the useless advice here.
Sorry, but I am just not buying your unconvincing apology for this bigoted network. As one who funds this network, I have every right to expect to see a bit of fairness here, and some accountability from it, just as the majority of Australians who call themselves Christians do as well.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I am a Christian. I am also a Homosexual man. Neither are mutually exclusive unless you happen to take the scriptures completely out of context, or simply ignore the concept of context altogether. I believe Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. I follow the tenets of the word of God and am very aware of what the bible does and actually doesn’t say about homosexuality. I could elaborate further but you might like to get in contact with Rob Buckingham at Bayside Church in Melbourne and ask him about the “Clobber Passages” that ‘christians’ (purposely all in lower case.) use to constantly condemn Gays and Lesbians.
God Loved EVERY Sinner, Loves EVERY Sinner and Will Love EVERY Sinner; for all eternity. The Blood of Jesus is sufficient for everyone. It is sufficient for me and you believe it is sufficient for you. If so, then why is it not sufficient for ALL homosexuals?
But your comment is far too long, as my rules warn against, and you also have your own website and simply took your entire article and posted it here, which I also speak to in my rules. Also, it is loaded with so much outright nonsense and anti-biblical baloney that normally such posts go straight into the bin.
Moreover, this post is about a show on the ABC, not your vain attempt to push the homosexual agenda on my site. But let me reply to the few things which I have allowed to go through.
We have either you or the Bible to believe on this, and I know which one I will choose any day of the week. The Bible from cover to cover makes it clear that heterosexual marriage is the only morally licit type of human sexuality approved by God.
Let me post just one verse, and forget all your foolishness about context and so on. It is crystal clear in what it states, and it even includes the key word here: ‘deceived’. The passage is 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11:
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
This is perfectly clear. It is 100% clear. Only those who, as Paul says, are deceived, cannot understand the absolutely clear and direct teaching of this passage. There simply is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, just as there is no such thing as an adulterous Christian, or a murderous Christian. Paul has stated this in absolutely unambiguous terms. It is only unclear to those who don’t want to accept it.
All known and unconfessed sin separates us from God and will keep us out of his Kingdom. Struggling with a sinful desire is of course quite another thing, as long as we agree with God that it is sinful and we seek to cooperate with God to break free from it. Those who agree with God about their sinful condition, who have repented of it, and give any remaining struggles to God are those who are accepted and are being sanctified – not those who say: “This is not sinful, I reject what God says about this, and I will defiantly and deliberately cling to this sin”.
And that is exactly what you are seeking to do here: justify a sinful lifestyle and in the process deny what the Bible says about it.
And the message of repentance and turning from sin is found everywhere in the Gospels and Acts. One has to be deceived or deliberately trying to push an anti-biblical agenda to not see this. No one is saying a person has to perfect before being saved. Salvation means agreeing with God about our sinful condition, turning from all our known sin, and allowing the Holy Spirit to reside in us and clean us up from the inside. Those who try to justify their clearly sinful lifestyle have of course not repented nor agreed with God. They are still in rebellion against God and his Word, and have in effect called God a liar. That is a fearful place to be in.
As to your other woeful comment, you of course either do not read the Bible or you read it through the tinted glasses of your sinful lifestyle. That God loves everyone is not disputed. But that God does not save everyone is of course readily apparent. Only those who humble themselves, repent, and turn from their sin, making Christ the Lord of their life are saved, forgiven, cleansed and will enjoy his company forever.
No one calling himself a biblical Christian can for one moment not recognise these basic truths. They are stated repeatedly throughout the New Testament. A few obvious passages – of many – can be presented here.
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.
1 John 1:8-10 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
God does not love sin – he hates it. It is what sent his son to the cross. No one should dare use the love of God as a cover for their known sin and rebellion against him and his Word. That is the most dangerous place one can be in.
But since it is clear that you reject outright the clear teachings of Scripture, there is little use for me to go on. In which case, all I can do is continue to pray for you.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Quite a number of excellent letters to follow your excellent article Bill. Rt Rev Robert Forsyth is to be congratulated for the courage he obviously displayed in Compass. I very rarely watch anything on the ABC – why upset myself? As a practicing Catholic, I would have been ready to kick the screen in, seeing “Fr” Frank Brennan carrying on with his usual nonsense. Why this man continues to masquerade as a Catholic priest astounds me. I remember a few years ago I cracked a joke, to a very large gathering of people, when I had the task of giving a vote of thanks to a previous speaker. It could have been close to the truth. I said “Some years ago, I applied for a job with the ABC (pause) they knocked me back (pause) someone told them my mother and father were married(laughter). Then someone told them I was married (frivolous laughter) “to a female” (much laughter).
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
The ABC should have made the debate balanced lively and worthwhile it should have had a panel of extreme supporters of the marriage… here are a few suggested names/authors here in Australia/New Zealand…
Ian Clarkson, marvelous. This is called gayification. Just as the queer legions have taken control of our language, history, legal system, schools and media so they have now appropriated Christianity. Those who continue to uphold the notion that Christian marriage has only, is only and will for ever only be between one man and one woman for life are portrayed by the fundamentalist queers as a tiny, medieval and dangerous cult who should be forced to integrate into the pink 21st century.
Alan Kingston tell us are you a homosexual?
The notion, that we have the choice of turning off the TV button, you know and I know, and I know that you know that I know, that soon even this option will be denied us, for even as I speak children in schools are being forced to watch gay propaganda. For them there is no turning off the button – no opt out; only opting in.
David Skinner, UK
Even when the ABC purports to represent groups on opposite sides of a debate equally, they are still guilty of bias. Homosexuals, it has been shown in the western world, only represent 2 percent of the population. Equal representation should mean 50 non-homosexuals versus 1 homosexual. Clearly the ABC is deliberately skewing the debate in the opposite direction.
Yes very good point indeed.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Great to see other Baptists distancing themselves from the “Baptist” homosexual apologist on the Compass show:
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I pity you in your blind obsession.
you do not have the right to condemn any other person.
To suggest that the KJV is infallible is naive in the extreme.
So, you’ve set yourself up as an authority of one version of the bible and condemn all other scholalrly work; that makes you a fool.
Please go on and rant and rave please do it louder and louder because the more you try to justify your condemnation the more shrill you sound.
The word of God also says that you should “Study to show yourself approved..” not bury your head in the language of a single text.
BTW there is no such thing as “The Homosexual Agenda” or are you as dim witted as so many other Australians who do not understand Satire?
“The world is round”
Thanks again Graham
A very odd reply to say the least: a lot of name calling and mud-slinging, but no dealing with the arguments or the evidence.
I of course condemned no one. We condemn ourselves when we reject the Bible’s clear teachings in order to justify our sin and rebellion against a holy and pure God. So it is our own choices that seal our fate.
And given that I nowhere even used the KJV, your remarks are even more bizarre. But forget all about English translations if you wish; I am more than happy to open my Greek New Testament and argue this case fully from there.
As to just who is ranting and raving here, I will leave it to my readers to decide.
In the meantime I will continue to keep you in my prayers. Jesus is in the business of setting people free from their sinful lifestyles. He certainly did that for me, and I know he can do it for anyone who is willing to take God at his word, renounce sin and self, and seek newness of life. If you ever come to that place, please let me know. I would love to introduce you to all sorts of former homosexuals whom Christ has healed and delivered from their bondage, who are now enjoying fullness of life in Christ Jesus. They are now radiant Christians, compared to their former miserable bondage-ridden and sin-soaked selves.
Indeed, you were quite right about one thing Graham. God loves us so much. And because he does, he could never be happy with us remaining in our enslaved and sin-damaged state. He loves us too much to allow us to wallow in our sin, filth and degradation. He desires to set us free and give us a brand new life of righteousness, holiness and wholeness, including sexual wholeness.
But he will force that on no one. It is entirely our choice. We either accept or reject his offer of forgiveness, redemption and a transformed life. But real change is possible as countless people have experienced. So that is my prayer for you, just as some people so kindly once prayed that for me so many years ago.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Melbournian John Angelico presented one of the very best (perhaps the best) analogy I have read comparing the demand for changes to the recognized concept of marriage to suit the desires of those lobbyists with other ideas of what the rules should be, with someone from Victoria, such as John, who doesn’t follow the rules of rugby league, but wants those rules changed to suit his interests, which would upset someone like I, who has grown up with rugby league. Excellent.
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Thanks Frank, and John
Yes it is a good one. I have used it a number of times myself over the years, such as here:
There may well be a better analogy one can use, but I have not yet thought of it. But I welcome any new ideas in this regard!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
With regards to analogies to marriage, how about driving, where all those who enjoy different forms of locomotion are divided between those who recognise the standard highway code and acknowledge such things as road layouts, traffic signs and regulations and those who either wish to make up their own rules or even get rid of them altogether?
Or how about handwriting, where those enjoy different forms of writing are divided between those who acknowledge western writing conventions, such as of writing from left to right and from top to bottom those who want to write any which way: from right to left; from top to bottom; from bottom to top, from the centre outwards or no direction in particular?
Or how about Sexual pleasure where those who enjoy different behaviour and relationships such masturbation, auto-asphyxiation, sadomasochism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, paedophilia, pederasty, sodomy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, cannibalism, sex with objects like the Eiffel Tower or with pavements and bicycles – the list goes on and on – can be divided between those who acknowledge the structural parts of marriage, like husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, cousin, grandfather, grandmother and those who want an anarchic system of partners A,B,C,D,E ……..etc and relatives 1,2,3,4,5………or in fact a world of no partners and no relatives.
What we are headed towards is some kind of sexual Khmer Rouge, fueled by the same ideology – Marxism.
Can we not find such a utopia for these people?
David Skinner, UK
Alan Kingston wrote:
“Surely the wasteland that is commercial television (and radio) is enough evidence to show why that would be a terrible idea.”
To some extent, I would actually agree with Alan that the commercial networks dumb down their content somewhat, but the false assumption made by him is that if SBS and the ABC were killed off, commercial television content would remain unchanged. That would be extremely unlikely, especially with their extra digital channels trying to find a niche market to appeal to. I submit that it is the perception of intelligent content on the ABC that has skewed what the commercial networks offer.
Given that there would be a very significant potential market created by the removal of the ABC from the airwaves, there would almost certainly be an increase of mentally stimulating content on at least one of the commercial networks, it’s just that it would be far less likely to be as consistently poisoned with politically correct lies that the ABC marinate most of their content in. Furthermore, does anybody seriously believe that any of the popular overseas content the ABC now buys with our money would not find a home somewhere else? What’s that you say? You don’t like advertising? OK, then how else are you going to pay for your entertainment? Why should I pay for it? Tell me if you would you be happy if you had to buy me some Christian dvds every year?
I’m not saying the commercial networks would offer up a perfect smorgasbord (in fact, far from it), but I have absolutely no doubt that the overall situation of what is on offer would mean an improvement of quality in content for the average Australian television viewer. Shows that Australians actually effectively vote for through this mechanism called ‘ratings’, not what some cloistered leftist elitists in the ABC programming department think Aussies should watch. And furthermore, less drain on the Australian taxpayer as well. Imagine what that money could be spent on instead!
So sorry, Alan, I think your argument fails. Despite some truth to what you have said, I would still very strongly maintain my view to privatise the ABC, or kill it. And frankly, I really prefer the latter option. It’s a much cleaner cut and would give the commercial networks an opportunity to compete for brand new viewers, which is a very good thing. Total cost on the Australian taxpayer: Zero. The sooner the better.
The ABC has outlived its usefulness – and gone well beyond the scope of its Charter – for some time now. And the way it consistently (mis)handles issues like homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and global-man-made-climate-warming-change-disaster are just a few examples of how it does not remotely represent value for the Australian taxpayer.
For a good read on where society is heading, particularly from a UK slant, Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass or Our Culture, What’s Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses by Theodore Dalrymple. He deals with so many of the issues we have been discussing.
Get your kids to read this type of stuff.
Yes he is always excellent. I did a review of the second volume you mention here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2006/08/18/a-review-of-our-culture-what%E2%80%99s-left-of-it-by-theodore-dalrymple-ivan-r-dee-2005/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I think that the programme shows that the ABC is really scared of the truth, otherwise they would have had Bill on it.
My concern is for children who by whatever means find themselves under their care of gay couples. Their chance of having a normal life with marriage and children of their own is very limited in my opinion. And we can only look at the selfish behaviour of the gay “parents” whose life style is not family oriented and seriously dysfunctional as models for young children, even though the gays are “married”.
Thank you David for your history lesson. The sequence of events is very significant of course, as it was good strategy to first separate sex per say from marriage by liberalising the divorce laws Western society, having been built so solidly on the Christian and indeed the natural definition of marriage would have never taken the leap to sum, had not that bond been loosened first. In fact, homosexuals often use the fact that Christians divorce rate is almost as high as the worlds as an excuse for pushing for their agenda. First we asked God, the lawgiver to leave the public place and relegated Him to a private corner and then we started to dismantle his laws and the interpretation of His laws until we got to what David quoted before, a homosexual activist saying “the he needed no one to validate his relationship”. They key word here being “validate”.
With the personal lawgiver of creation perceived to have died or left control of creation man has now become the law giver and we can see the down ward slide from rational man to emotional man to merely physical-sexual man. Very scary, I am just glad that the Lord is alive and reedy and willing to intervene.
Yes Ursula the homosexual is child of our own making and not that of evolution or genetics. They are our own flesh and blood who like the rest of society needs saving from the terrible bondage of lust and promiscuity.
David Skinner, UK
The next thing is they will want a church wedding with all the bells and whistles perhaps a Bible reading for good measure. The very book which states that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of god. The ABC has always struck me as being arrogant and a cut above us all they are simply wallowing in their ignorance.
I have stopped listening the kind of bilge they put out for a while now after listening to Mr know alls who makes it a point let you know he knows it all – another of ABC’s arch atheist who claims his view should not come into his sessions but does not fail to seize an opportunity to express some of his own trash – Jon Faine.
Relevant to Ursula Bennett’s comment (obviously):
Romans Ch 1: vs 16 to 32.
I’m glad Compass balanced up their bias tonight with their show on the Mandaneans. Beautiful.
Shame oh shame! How can Frank Brennan have the effrontery to speak as he did and still claim Catholic priesthood? Why is he not called to account by his bishop? I could have wept with misery and frustration watching that show. Top marks to Bishop Forsyth. None of the others heard him explaining that marriage between a man and a woman is the innately human and natural means of fostering the family unit which underpins stable societies. He was not advancing a religious argument though he acknowledged his own conviction of scriptural confirmation of this reality. They over-rode and misconstrued everything he tried to say for they lack the capacity to hear the truth. These people need our prayers and I think we need to remember here “This kind only come out by prayer and fasting”.
I did not see that one. However I wonder if ‘balance’ is the right word to use here. If one simply weighs up the positive programs about Christianity against all the others, one does not exactly find a level-playing field here, or any sort of real equality or balance. Without meaning to be too cynical, I suspect they will throw these good programs out every once and a while to offer the impression of balance, only to go back to their old ways of anti-Christian bigotry.
But one thing we can do is send in a supporting letter when they do offer these rare shows, and let them know that this is what we prefer to see, and not all the anti-Christian baloney they usually feature.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
There is a slightly more fair debate, by ABC standards, on tonight: 2 Christians against 3 atheists (if we include Tony Jones in that camp) and 1 Muslim. It comes on at 9:30 pm:
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Is the following a wild thought or not?
What about civil resistance by Christians against the ABC as a form of protest? If only we could mobilize the Christian community and have a Christian moratorium against the ABC. Perhaps we could sell little badges or ribbons to generate money and support the protest. What sort of resistance? A passionate call to Christians to refuse and resist the support of the ABC until all relevant changes are made. Perhaps this could be: a refusal to be interviewed or support the production of any ABC program, whether it be: news, current affairs, radio, or T.V. If only a moratorium could be in force until appropriate changes were made at a high level in the ABC. These would have to include structural changes. The objective would be to generate interest within Christian communities for the idea. A silly idea! Not if someone could develop the idea, and make it work. Of course we would need to define our demands. I’d put money towards it. Silly idea? NOT IF WE COULD GET POLITICAL MILAGE OUT OF IT!
Alas however, it would seem that the energies required to attempt such an outcome may be counter-productive. We must be led of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8 v 5.) Operating from a defensive position, it seems from my experience, that we become prone to function out of an overly defensive spirit, in seeking to defend our political rights, or the churches previous privileged position within the community. In doing so, it seems that we may be setting our face in diametrically the wrong direction. The church’s focus must always be on the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. By the grace of God, our message can be centred in Him. Otherwise, there is always a ‘Catch 22’. We cannot afford to give up the victory that is always in Him. John 16 v 33. This world is passing away. But the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ will never pass away. In preaching the gospel to whoever – including homosexuals – we seek to impart grace to everyone. Has God’s law been done away with? The NT scriptures make two mind blowing statements about God’s law for Christians:
1. Re. 2 Corinthians 3 v 6; Phil 3 v 9; Romans 7 v 4; Colossians 2 v 14 and many other verses, we see that God’s law is an enemy for all of us, not just homosexuals, and God in Christ has dealt with the law so that all can be saved.
2. Re. Romans 2 v 4; 8 v 7; and 3 v 31; and 1 John 3 v 3 and many other verses, we discover the leading of God is never opposed to His moral law which reflects God’s character.
But as 2 Corinthians 3 v 5 says so well, our ability to change comes by the power of the Holy Spirit. Our desire to change has to do with His working in us. Otherwise, all our efforts are doomed.
What of our desire to resist the political evils which are besetting us? Once again, is it not very possible to operate out of the flesh rather that the leading of the Holy Spirit? What if our efforts to retain or regain political power hinder us from communicating the gospel? This would be like fighting against God. The scriptures show us times when God’s people may act foolishly in this way: Numbers 14 v 39 – 45; Jeremiah (virtually this whole book is very relevant to this theme); and Revelation 13 v 7 and 8. We need to find, as in the words of Daniel 11 v 32, a way to fight that is effective.
Some may be called to political action, I would love to think that a moratorium, as I have suggested, could achieve something; but unless the Holy Spirit is leading, it would be a dismal failure. It may be better to fight and lose that not to fight at all. But this in not the way Christ leads us. (Revelation 2 v 7; 2 v 11; 2 v 17; 2 v 26; 3 v 5; 3 v 12; 3 v 21; 15 v 2; 21 v 7.) Be filled with the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 5 v 18.) Share the gospel my brothers and sisters. (1 Corinthians 9 v 16; 2 Timothy 4 v 2; & Matthew 28 v 19, 20.) Our heritage is in the first century church. If we fight a godly fight like they did, in the power of the Holy Spirit, we can be confident that we are not on the losing side.
I put in a compliant to Mark Scott MD today about the program.
ABC can do a lot better, but maybe they don’t want to.
regards and all the best
Here is an update to this story. It demonstrates just how careless with the truth these guys are:
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch