Family First- One Christian's View

Author's note:
Those interested by this essay will also appreciate my TV interview with Jana Wendt on the same subject where I expand on these issues (given about nine months after the events depicted here). Full details are elsewhere on this same website at THIS LINK.

This essay was written by me prior to the Australian Federal election in October 2004. I subsequently removed it, not because the facts were wrong or because I had changed my opinion, but as a courtesy to people whom I respected, and who had claimed that I had prematurely expressed opinions without fairly giving them a chance to put their side of the story to me. I assumed my gesture would be a precursor to a proper debate on the matter. I was wrong. I have re-posted my original article as of July 4 2005 directly as a consequence of their deliberate refusal to even as much as broach the subject. If my heartfelt invitation had been accepted, this and further comment on this website would not be here.

Part One: Why Does This Matter

Part Two: How Family First Handles the Media

Part Three: Legal and Ethical Concerns

Part One: Why does this matter?

Voltaire said "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

For the benefit of the wider audience: I am a member of 16 years standing in the Assemblies of God Church. The people in question are all men and women whom I love, look up to, or grew up with. I ascribe to them the teachings that are responsible for the strength of my marriage, the depth of my personal faith in Jesus, and my conviction that we are called to make a difference in the world around us.

So why would I write what (an unfortunate few) will characterise as an attack on my Church?

Well, the answer is that it isn't an attack on my Church at all. Family First is a self-confessed secular political party who claim no spiritual authority over anyone. The principles that would rightly restrain me from launching an unconscionable attack on my leaders as Pastors do not apply when they are seeking advantage in the marketplace of political ideas. I happen to support a different political party. The miracle of Australian democracy is that I can do so and, hopefully, remain friends with those with whom I differ in opinion. If Family First are indeed the secular political party that they claim, then their policies (which I support), and their methods (which I don't) are fair game.

So, allow me to make this distinction, and ask you to do the same. I love my Pastors and I love my Church. I just think that they don't make very good politicians, and nor should they try, if it results (as it has) in a denial of Jesus Christ and draws the mockery of non-Christians.

Differences of opinion in the Church (and not just our Church) are far more likely to be seen as "undermining the vision" or "not fully committed to partnering" or being "unteachable". Such people then get short shrift and sometimes the welcome mat is withdrawn. The problem, of course is that this may be true! I'm absolutely committed to my Church. Hawkesbury Church is my home and, believe me, I've had to defend it in my home more than you have in yours, mate. People can and frequently have said unkind things about the Church with the sole intent of bellyaching. So how do we bring a legitimate grievance to our leadership without being branded persona non grata?

Well, the first and most important thing is for us to each watch our own attitudes. Trust me, I've been royally p**** at a dozen different things over the years but, each and every time, I center myself and apply the desideratum "A bad attitude means that the possibility I'm feeling what I am because God wants me to change it is probably zero." There are plenty of times where I've stopped myself from doing things (like writing letters to bonehead Creationists. There, I've exposed my secret vice), because a moment of reflection causes me to realise that my motives were wrong. They were personal, and not based on a conviction that my actions were a) helpful and b) directed by the Spirit.

The Second thing is to get your facts straight. I was happy enough to see Family First as "Mostly Harmless" in the Douglas Adams sense, until Pastor Ian Woods mentioned the flurry of media attention the party had received over the last week in the papers. I read the article(s) he pointed out in last Saturday's Herald, and did some digging of my own. My view has changed.

My Dander is now Officially Up. Those who know me well will testify my Dander is not to be trifled with. (I might add that this would sound more dignified if I hadn't looked up the dictionary and found that "dander" is basically bird dandruff. This shows that the people that coin these phrases ought to be more careful)

I am writing as a concerned citizen and as a concerned Christian, in equal measure. Don't take an argument I'm making about a self-confessed secular political party with views on strange subjects that simply won't work and turn it into an attack on my commitment to Jesus or to our Church. Nor should you accuse me of secretly supporting the Greens. I'm not that stupid.

Part Two: How Family First Handles the Media:

a) In Queensland:
Ronald Reagan wasn't a President well known for his command of detail. "The Great Communicator" was, however a master of winning a crowd over. In 1980, running for the Presidency for the first time, he attended a huge charismatic Christian gathering. Here was a constituency that would be valuable if he could win it over. National Church leaders were careful to explain their dilemma to the aspirant before he took the stage. "You understand," they explained, "we aren't political. We can't be seen to endorse one political party over another. It just isn't proper." These leaders had previously given tacit endorsement to Jimmy Carter in 1976, only to be disappointed by his Presidency. Reagan mused. "Fine." he said and approached the podium. "I know you can't endorse me, but I want you to know that I endorse you." The quote launched the Christian Conservative movement as a political force in the U.S.

It's a shame that the operators behind the Family First party haven't shown as much wisdom in handling the obvious connections between their party and the Church. This matter would have merely been picky if it weren't for the fact that both the party and the Church are coming in for escalating, withering criticism (like The Chaser Decides on the ABC last night with their mock news headline "Family First party denies Jesus Christ three time before cock crows"). It made me feel embarrassed.

The Family First website has issued several press releases in the last week or two to clarify the issues. The first one made this claim:

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION: The (Family First) party is not a church party or an Assembly of God party, nor is it funded by AOG churches."

The second one that was released yesterday was even more emphatic:

"Recent media reports have labelled Family First Party a "Christian party" and, in some cases, an offshoot of mainstream Christian church, Assemblies of God. Lead Queensland Senate candidate, John Lewis, said that the labelling of the party bordered on slander."

Read that twice. The Family First party are so angry about being associated with the Assemblies of God that, in the view of Queensland Senate candidate John Lewis, it amounts to slander.

Now read this July release from the desk of Wayne Alcorn, president of the Queensland Assemblies of God:

"FAMILY FIRST

By now you would be aware that Pastor John Lewis will be standing for the Senate at the next Federal election... As ministers of the Gospel, we must have a genuine sense of responsibility as we watch our social fabric deteriorate. We all need to handle political issues wisely, and though we have no right to tell our people how to vote, I urge you to:

1. Call your people to pray leading up to this next election.
2. Be aware of what each candidate stands for. Where necessary, meet with them prior to the election.
3. Encourage your people to vote for men and women who will stand for righteous values &endash; not just play some party line."

Proof that the Queensland Churches "got the message" about who they should support is indicated by a story that appeared in an article in the Sunshine Coast Daily on 26 Sept:

"Parishioner upset at mix of politics and religion: 'Get politics out of my church'.
That was the call by a disgruntled Nambour parishioner yesterday after a campaigner for a political party interrupted a Pentecostal church service to appeal for financial donations and volunteers.

The parishioner, who declined to be named, said he was angered when a volunteer for the fledgling Family First party was allowed to make a 15 minute political advertisement mid way through a recent Nambour Assembly of God service."

In conclusion:

Family First denies that it is not funded by AOG members, and yet complaints of soliciting campaign funding and support through Churches are reported in the papers.

A Family First candidate responds angrily to the mere suggestion that they are associated with the Assemblies of God, accusing those who do so of slander. Meanwhile, the State President offers fulsome praise of exactly the same man (and obviously with his approval), thinly disguised by the non-disclaimer that "of course, we don't tell anyone how to vote." Hypocrisy!

b) In New South Wales:

In New South Wales, the Family First party has come in for a deal of media scrutiny about the same connections between itself and the Church. A SMH report on the 25th of Sept (website link, or PDF) contains this quote:

'Joan Woods, from the Family First party and wife of the president of the Assemblies of God church in NSW, is adamant: there's "absolutely no connection" between the two organisations. Church and state are absolutely separate, says the party's lead NSW Senate candidate. There is no funding link between the two, indeed no formal link at all. "Not in any file, in any legally written document, in [the party] constitution," she says, a little indignantly.'

If this isthe case, then this email from Michael Murphy, deputy President of the NSW Executive may be a little hard to explain. Fully in the public domain, this letter was circulated to every Pastor of an AOG Church in NSW. Extract:

"Dear Pastor, As you are probably aware, God is doing a unique thing right now …I need to inform you of our latest such opportunity that Joan Woods, our own President's wife, has just accepted. Joan has been asked to represent the Family First Party as their Federal Senate Candidate for NSW. Whenever one of our own takes such a stand, I think we have a responsibility on a number of fronts.

1. Pray 2. Support - wherever possible."

You will recall that Ian Woods made an emphatic statement from the pulpit that the "Assemblies of God is not a political movement. We are a movement, but not a political one. We do not support any particular party." If such an email had come directly from the State President of the AOG, such an email would have been wholly improper. Is it any less improper if it is sent by his deputy?

c) Nationally:

The Sydney Morning Herald front page story on September 21 (website link, PDF), "So God said: go to NSW and create poll mayhem" contains the following quote:

"Pastor Brian Houston, the national president of the Assemblies of God church, said several people from the church supported Family First. 'But as far as I am aware there is no instruction on how Assemblies of God is to vote,' Pastor Houston said."

Please! I can picture Pastor Brian with furrowed brow, scuffing the ground with the toe of his shoe. "Family First, Family First... hmmm. I don't know. I feel I should know that from somewhere, but... nup, nuthin to do with us! "

Meanwhile, will Joan Woods or other Family First candidates attend services at one or more of the Hillsong campuses this Sunday to be "presented" to the congregation, only one week from polling day? Watch this space, based on one rumour passed on. One wonders how many other political parties will receive such a boost from Brian Houston?

Part Three: Legal and Ethical Concerns

All Federal Elections in Australia are governed by the Commonwealth Electoral act of 1912. Several sections deal with situations where improper influence or a lack of full independence on the part of a candidate can result in a conflict of interest. The Australian Electoral Commission has a primer on such matters at its website. Section 326 of the Act, says (in part):

A person shall not, with the intention of influencing or affecting… any candidature of another person; or any support of… a candidate… or a political party by another person… give or confer…, any property or benefit of any kind to that other person or to a third person.
Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

It is also true that It is also true that of the 23 candidates that are standing in lower house seats in NSW, fully 10 are from the Hawkesbury Church. Five are paid staff at Hawkesbury Church. These are:

• Jon Dorhauer standing in Greenway (Riverstone),
• Carolyn Dorhauer standing in Robertson (Gosford),
• Cat Cannone standing in Watson (Hurstville),
• Michael Woods, standing in Hunter (Cessnok),
• Melanie Woods standing in Calare (Bathurst)
  

A small but noteworthy point is that several fail to disclose their association with Hawkesbury Church in their candidate information forms lodged with the AEC. The others are members of the Church who have never expressed political aspirations before.

Unfortunately, perusing this list of candidates also reveals another embarrassing fact. Here we have over ten political aspirants engaging in the political process. Absolutely none of them come from the electorates they are seeking to represent. I would wager that none of them could give a list of the six most pressing issues that dwell on the minds of people living in those electorates, nor would any be willing to move themselves and their families to those electorates in the event they won the seat.

The reason this is embarrassing is because Family First had previously made a virtue of the fact that the "overwhelming majority of its candidates are local". For example, look at two press releases from the Family First website:

"Monday, 6th September 2004 - Senate Battle is really between Greens and Family First "
"...Standing over 100 House of Rep. candidates - The vast majority of candidates are local "

and again in a second press release a week later:

"Tuesday, 14th September 2004 - Family First Now Fourth Major Party "
"The Family First Party on debut in the Federal Election will have 126 candidates across the nation, with the majority living in the electorate they are standing for. "

Hawkesbury Church and the NSW Senate Lead Candidate are offering up 10 candidates (plus a handful who are affiliated with Hawkesbury Church). What's their track record on local representation? Zero.

I could forgive those good people in Bathurst, or Hurstville, or Cessnok from being a little bit cynical about the representation they are being offered, let alone in Greenway where the Liberal candidate (Louise Marcus) is an AOG employee (via an external welfare agency), and yet the Family First candidate, AOG Pastor John Dorhauer is being gagged from pushing anything except the party line "No, we don't have anything to do with the AOG." Louise Marcus is tipped to win the seat from Labor by a wafer thin margin, largely through Family First preferences.

Although I support the efforts of Christians to aspire to elected office (and have myself done so on several occasions), the paramount concern is that candidates do so within the boundaries of the law. Beyond the legal requirements, I would also say that candidates who profess a Christian faith ought to also stand in an ethical manner, and not rely on subterfuge and denial in an attempt to gain a wider constituency. All candidates who stand for elected office in any sphere are charged with a solemn responsibility to be legitimate and sincere in seeking to represent the citizens of that electorate. Standing candidates for other purposes is misleading and, in the words of Aquinas, "Leads the truth of our faith to become a matter of ridicule among the infidels." Well put.

In reality, standing these lower house candidates is really to aid the Family First campaign in the Senate. Joan Woods has been candid about this, stating to SMH journalist Mike Seccombe (Website link, PDF):

'Mrs Woods concedes that almost all the Family First candidates are AOG adherents. She concedes many of them have only been in politics for a few weeks and many don't even live in the seats they are standing for. "We're just a young party," she says. "I have to use what I've got in my hand in terms of my network, and those that relate to me. See, what I needed to do was field as many candidates as I could in the lower house..."

The reason is, while the lower house candidates have little chance of election, the party needed their 'bulk' to become a player in the preference-swapping game, and increase Mrs Woods' chances of winning the Senate seat.'

Of Course. Nor should we blame Joan Woods for the strategy, because it was the way Family First conducted their campaign in South Australia and got Andrew Evans elected. The Family First press release "15th September - The Polls vs Family First" explains the party's success in the South Australian parliament, despite not

"fielding a full complement of lower house candidates to support the upper house candidates." but then going on to state "At this election we will have a full complement of candidates in Tas, Qld, SA and Vic, as well as a large number of seats in NSW and WA."

This is further proof that the lower house candidates are there to support a Senate campaign. I'm not denying that this practice isn't common. Many minor parties do it, and at all levels of government. I'm merely suggesting that the practice is fairly cynical one and insults the citizens of those electorates where they stand- especially if the candidates have no affinity or connection with those communities.

Family First went with their cap in hand to the other parties recently to say "Hey, we got over 4% of the vote in our only electoral showing to date (in S.A) and you should sign here (website link, PDF) to a) support our policies and b) give us a good preference deal." Indeed, Family First claim "some candidates have been asked to sign a three-year voting agreement on certain Family First policy platforms before preferences are included in any deal." Here's the irony: With so many candidates having little or no connection to their electorates, that figure of "over 100 lower house candidates" is actually a whole lot less impressive that it first looks. Most of those candidates will be likely to get maybe a few dozen votes. Not exactly an earth-shaking influence. The other parties may well have been duped by the overstatement of Family First's influence. Should Christians seek political advantage in this way?

This leads me back to the Electoral Act. Legal precedent regarding section 326 interestingly includes feelings of "created feelings of gratitude or obligation" in their definition of "benefit". So, in that context, let's ask these questions:

1) Have any candidacies been influenced in contravention to the spirit of section 326?

Consider: Strong and proven encouragement of the State AOG executives for others to assist in the promotion of Family First candidates. The fact that ten members (and five employees) of one Church who have never expressed political aspirations before are now standing in various seats for which they have neither residency nor affinity.

2) Would any of these candidates have otherwise stood for election in their chosen seats, except for the fact that they were doing so at the behest of their employer, and because of the substantial links and expectation that all AOG employees/members will "do their duty"?

3) Did all candidates pay for their candidacy fees from their own pockets?

I would suggest that the answer to these questions do not rely on whether they "chose" to stand in line with their democratic right to participate in the parliamentary process. I am sure that all will claim that their candidacies were voluntary and lawful. As indeed they were! My question is: Are such actions ethical?

- Nathan Zamprogno

Battlestar Galactica 2003, And Why It Represents The End Of Western Civilisation

OK. That’s a big call, but I’ll try to back it up.

Those of us of a certain age remember our childhood TV fare with fondness. When I was at School, it was a saturated diet of afternoon Dr Who, The Tripods, Buck Rogers, Star Blazers, Space 1999, and Battlestar Galactica. The lens of time has lent some of these old favourites a lustre they scarcely deserved. Who remembers the papier-mâché monsters and cardboard sets of the Jon Pertwee Doctor era, or the 70’s sideburns and bell-bottom spacesuits of Space 1999? Now in my 30’s, I occasionally revisit them and marvel at how simple they were. Yes, they were cheap and their morals were uncomplicated, but their appeal was, and still is, genuine. As my mother says “In my day it was easy. The bad guys wore black hats, rode dark horses and looked like Jack Palance. The heroes wore white hats and looked like Lee Majors.” Is the world poorer for the loss of this simplicity?

Rather than merely generating nostalgia, comparing the television of our youth to todays fare gives us an interesting insight into how our entire culture has changed, since TV is emblematic of our culture as a whole.

In this context, the pressing question then becomes “Is the remake of Battlestar Galactica merely the worst kind of crap, or does is actually represent the end of Western Civilisation?” Let's talk about that.

Americanisation

Re-working beloved franchises has become a huge industry. The power of nostalgia has been correctly identified as a huge lever for studios to push their wares. Why develop an original idea when you can get a huge draw by branding a series as a remake or “re-imagining” of an old favourite? Unfortunately, in this case one is tempted to rework an aphorism of Cervantes and state that “Good producers venerate old favourites, bad ones vomit them”. This Battlestar Galactica brings new meaning to the word “vomit”.

The most irritating change the producers have made is to the overall feel of the production. The original 1979 production of Battlestar was a story of humans, but the design took pains to show them as unlike any modern nation-state. They did this by using design cues from Egypt and ancient Greece, which was a clever way to create a sense of familiarity without letting us forget that they are an alien culture, removed save but by ancient ancestry from their mythical “Earth”. Sad to say, but Battlestar 2003 is…well, America. Not just America, but early 21st century America. The distinctive Colonial Vipers (our hero’s one man fighters) are no longer ships, but “planes”. They no longer shoot lasers, but bullets, complete with tracers. Their pilots, when off duty, wear green khaki singlets and dog-tags (note, sept 2006: This blog post gets an inordinate amount of hits from people Googling "dog tags" in relation to Battlestar Galactica. Can anyone tell me why?) The cues are obvious to the point of idiocy. The Galactica herself is now basically an aircraft carrier, no longer one of 12 proud Battlestars in the old series, but merely a creaky museum piece overdue for retirement, among a fleet of over 130. A Colonial transport ship, conveying a group of VIP’s and journalists to the Galactica for a decommissioning ceremony is a carbon copy of a modern passenger airliner, with the windows, the seats, the bathroom, heck, even the cheesy in-flight announcements made by the pilot right at home on a Qantas or United Airlines flight. If the parallels weren’t obvious enough, when disaster strikes and a lowly government functionary finds out that she is now the President because everyone ahead of her in the chain of command is dead, she is administered the oath of office in a scene with echoes of Lyndon Johnson’s hasty inauguration after the assassination of Kennedy. By way of punctuation, the pilot announces to surrounding traffic that the ship is now “Colonial One”. Puh-leez!

Why writers and producers think that there is something about any story that isn’t set in the United States (or a transparent substitute) that audiences won’t “get” is one of the great mysteries of our time. It is, of course, a long-standing trend, and one that can be easily traced even if we confine ourselves to a study of the Science Fiction genre. In the 60s and 70s, where was the heart of science fiction? Well, we had Star Trek, in which the Federation was not dominated by any particular 20th century Nation State. Sure, the Captain was from Iowa, but on the bridge we had a Russian, a Japanese, an African and a Scot. In the original series, Warp Drive was invented by a man from Alpha Centauri. Fast-forward 30 years to the movie Star Trek: First Contact and Warp drive is now invented by a drunk man from Colorado. Fast forward to Star Trek: Enterprise. If you aren’t an American (or at least a Vulcan with pert breasts), get the hell off my bridge!
In 1891, Herbert George Wells wrote The Time Machine. Naturally, it was set in England. I suppose it could have been set elsewhere, but the story neither benefited nor suffered for that choice. In 1960 George Pal, an American director filmed it in a magnificent adaptation I still love to watch today, starring Robert Taylor. Wisely, he stuck with Wells’ choice of setting. Fast forward to 2002 and the execrable remake of The Time Machine starring Guy Pearce. For reasons known only to themselves, the screenwriters decided the story had to be transplanted to… New York. They also took various other unnecessary liberties, but don’t get me started. Another article, perhaps. In 1898, Wells wrote War of the Worlds, again set in England. Again, and for no good reason, this wouldn’t do. The movie version in 1953 was set in rural America.

The Crisis of Confidence in our Values

In the original Battlestar, the Cylons were evil, period. In fact it’s not just that they were bad, it wasn’t the fault of our heroes that they were bad. There wasn’t any angst, no moral conflict about the fact that they were trying to wipe out humanity, and no guilt was required of our colonists in fighting against the evil.

In the introduction to this remake, we are informed that the Cylons were in fact created as mechanical slaves by Humans. “We are the flawed creation” our new Commander Adama agonises. Our representative Cylon, who is less chrome plated cyclopean and more Penthouse pet named “six” appears and, in the first 60 seconds, seduces a hapless Colonial officer to distract him as his space station is attacked around him. Later, in what can only be seen as a blunt and unnecessary plot point to establish just how “evil” these fembot humaniform Cylons are, Six goes up to a baby in a perambulator in a scene set in an outdoor market and kills it while it’s mother is distracted for a few seconds. It was at this point that I felt physically angry- not at the character, but at the writers and producers of this “re-imagined” Galactica.

Taken as a whole, it’s fair to say that Galactica 2003 has been thoroughly hijacked. It’s not enough any more to be just escapist fun, with the moralism appropriately confined to affirming that evil will never entirely triumph over good. No, the producers have decided that Galactica is now their vehicle for social and political commentary about issues confronting our society in the 21st century. In many senses it’s a predictable symptom of the crisis of Western confidence brought on by decades of post-modernism. In 1979 we wouldn’t have seen Lorne Greene’s Adama wringing his hands and bemoaning that, in some way, “we deserved what happened”. Nor would he have permitted half the human “rag-tag fleet” (including the stereotypical little girl, oblivious to her fate, waiting in vain for her bedtime story from her Daddy) to be sacrificed to the Cylons because they were not equipped with faster-than-light drives. It had all the subtlety of a scripted drive-by shooting on Sesame Street, and all for the sake of making the plot point “war demands sacrifices”. Our protagonists are disunited. Apollo is estranged from his father, Adama. Boomer is no longer a black man but an Asian chick (and possibly a Cylon in disguise). Tigh is a white drunkard rather than a capable adjutant.

The producers have made a number of excuses for these changes. Chiefly, they say that a “mature” audience will only accept a story where the boundaries between good and evil are a little grey- where relationships are not perfect and human failings are more acknowledged. Maybe, but such claims are advanced without proof. Beyond this, so many of the changes are so arbitrary that they represent a deliberate and insulting slap in the face to fans. The original Cylon warrior design appears for 3 seconds, in a glass case in a museum! The original music score, so inseparable from Galactica (DA da-da DA da-da DAH DAH DA-DA-DAH…) appears for 5 seconds, off key and tinny during the Galactica decommissioning ceremony. The subtext is clear- lip service. The other differences have been well discussed in many forums, such as changing the character of Starbuck to a girl, or the design of the Galactica herself. A series designed without these cues might only cause a little notice in its similarities to the original premise. With them, we soon realise we've been suckered. It's just enough Galactica to make fans of the original series take notice, but not enough to keep them on-side.

It just seems to me that a very acceptable Galactica could have been constructed around the original concept, without arbitrary changes to the race, gender or character of the protagonists, let alone a wholesale gutting of the premise. Whoever said “sexy Cylons!” at the initial brainstorming sessions should have been turfed out the nearest airlock without a suit, and whoever suggested that the good guys not being able to stand one another was a good idea to create dramatic tension should have been sent back to writing for The Young and the Restless. Whoever suggested ditching Stu Phillips’ definitive score should have been met with angry townsfolk with torches and pitchforks on the way home. What has been left may well be Science Fiction, but just don’t call it Battlestar Galactica. I could clone cells from the cadaver of Lorne Green and have them act in a petri dish and get more out of that that this bastard incarnation of an old favourite.

Post September 11, two great ideas are fighting for dominance in the western mind. One is that no society deserves the terrors such as have been visited upon us. Terrorists are “evil” in the sense that the original Cylons were evil. They just are, and even if there was a backstory, or some supposed self-justification for what happened, the acts committed negate such arguments and their validity. Thus, we may destroy evildoers/evilbeings with a clear conscience- with as little pity as we would extend a tumour we excise from a body. The alternate idea goes like this: We made the terrorists. Western society and its pride has caused the destruction we see around us. Although we decry the loss of individual innocent life, corporately we share in the fate of Victor Frankenstein for what has happened- destined to realise in our moment of despair that we are at least partially the authors of our own destruction. Thus no one is truly evil. Cylons and terrorists have a worldview that is as valid as our own. We must examine them, and ourselves to see if we are worthy of survival. And maybe we aren’t.

Such extremes of viewpoints manifest themselves as gung-ho U.S imperialism or as hand-wringing puerility like Battlestar Galactica. There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle. I for one think that the ideals of Western Society and the Enlightenment are eminently defensible. Then again, I’m an unreconstructed believer in the “White Man’s Burden” as well. Again, don’t get me started.

So there we are. Battlestar Galactica. Great concept, loathsome “re-imagining”, bad execution (with the exception of the new whiz-bang special effects, but that’s merely a matter of money), and even bad politics and bad apologia for Western Civilisation. Will the creators of this ordure curl up and die? No, they’ve been given the green light to launch off from the mini-series and produce a fully-fledged season, screening in early 2005. Expect more fembot Cylons with pert breasts and internecine conflict among the good guys.


- Nathan Zamprogno

In the beginning

In the beginning, the world was formless and void. And the spirit of the Creationists hovered over the waters, proscribing just how God was permitted to create the Universe, lest the creationists' faith be bruised by the knowledge that the world was in fact older than 6000 years. And lo, God spake and said "has it occurred to you that I'm quite capable of doing this without your input?" Verily, the creationists were astonished by this hubris and said "well, when your Son comes down in some future age and he gives his life for the sins of the world, we'll make sure that when we spread that message, we'll encumber our audience with unlikely claims of lions eating vegetarian and Koala bears walking across two continents and swimming an ocean to get to their habitats. And we'll also insist that if they don't beleive our claims, then they can't really be saved, can they?"


And God said "Do I know you?"