Painting Fakes

So, I finally got a reply to my previous letters to the Prime Minister (you can read them here and here ).  At least, I got a letter from the Prime Minister which was apparently prompted by my letters.  It's essentially a piece of spin, assuring me what a great job the government is doing on climate change.  If only that were true! Of course I didn't have high expectations and I have decided to discipline myself to be persistent in this correspondence, so unlike the PM's staff, who ignored everything I said and just spun their own lines, I decided to reply point by point.  Here it is for your enjoyment! Dear Prime Minister Thank you for your letter of 13 November in response to my letters to you on climate change. It is heartening to me that you have not followed the lead of some of your colleagues and tried to cast shade on the science of climate change – it’s a relief not to have that discussion. It’s possible I would have been more reassured by your le

I've been writing about human rights, in the light of Australia's debate about religious freedom and the Government's proposed Religious Freedom Bill.  In the first post I had a look at the controversy over Israel Folau's infamous meme.  In the second I provide a beginners guide to the international covenants which provide the basis for human rights legislation and the question of what happens when rights collide.  In the third I provided a quick analysis of  the proposed Australian legislation.  To conclude I'd like to share some thoughts on how Christians should approach human rights. Christians often make the claim that the idea of human rights is founded in a Christian understanding of humanity.  The Centre for Public Christianity's documentary For the Love of God provides a good example .  Christians adopted the Jewish idea that humans are made in the image of God, and this was profoundly countercultural in the Roman Empire where human worth was judge