 |
| Anthony Albanese (Pic courtesy Parliament of Australia) |
One way of looking at the history and conduct of prime ministers in Australia is to consider their mentors.
B. A. Santamaria, a prominent Catholic layman, and strident anti-Communist had a strong influence on Abbott. Many of Abbott's cultural views were modelled on Santamaria's proto-Fascism, particularly his opposition to the Republicans and his support of the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War.
 |
| B A Santamaria (Pic courtesy Catholic Weekly) |
Abbott wrote a foreword to Alan Reid's novelisation of Santamaria's life (The Bandar Log) in 2015, and launched Gerard Henderson's biography in the same year.
Morrison's mentor was Hillsong Pastor Brian Houston. I write "was" because he has distanced himself from Houston since the latter was arrested on charges of concealing his father's sexual abuse of minors. There were also reports in 2013 and 2019 that he had engaged in inappropriate behaviour with two women associated with his church.
 |
| Brian Houston (Pic courtesy The Guardian) |
Albanese's mentor was Tom Uren who was Deputy Leader of the federal ALP from 1975 until 1977, and served as a junior minister in the Hawke government from 1984 until 1987.
 |
| Tom Uren (Pic courtesy The Australian) |
The public conduct of these three Prime Ministers is a study in contrasts.
Did this have anything to do with what they learned from their mentors?
Comments closed.
20 comments:
The Hillsong Christian has not yetbeen found guilty or not guilty...yo have jumped the gun in an effort to smear.
Don't forget to correct the spelling in the previous comment.
Show me where I said that Houston had been convicted of anything. I simply reported the facts.
I didn't post this, although I could have -https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/police-knew-of-allegations-against-hillsong-founder-brian-houston-s-father-court-told-20221205-p5c3n6.html
Where in your link does it point out that Morrison's mentor was "disgraced", as you put it?
At this point in time allegations have not been found proven.
The cover-up allegations are just one issue. There were others.
In March 2022, he stepped down as the global senior pastor of the church, after he was found to have breached its moral code in his behaviour with two women.
The church he headed up believes he disgraced it, and I'm simply reporting their opinion.
The criminal charge of a cover-up is another matter entirely, and is still to be resolved.
What you don't appear to understand is that under current criminal law, anyone in possession of knowledge of the sexual abuse of a minor, and who fails to report it, has themselves committed an offence.
This is the whole legal basis of child protection, and it's interesting to consider Pell's behaviour in relation to this law.
It's designed to prevent the use of individual and institutional power and authority to shield perpetrators from the consequences of their behaviour thus allowing them to continue to traumatise children.
I had over twenty years experience as a principal of schools in which the children were vulnerable because of severe disabilities, and on at least two occasions had to report suspected abuse under this law.
My experience is not unique, but it has given me a heightened awareness of the issue.
Once again skirting around the question, Bobby. "Where in your link does it point out that Morrison's mentor was "disgraced", as you put it?
At this point in time allegations have not been found proven."
On what do you base your opinion that I don't appear to understand the criminal law as you state? "What you don't appear to understand is that under current criminal law, anyone in possession of knowledge of the sexual abuse of a minor, and who fails to report it, has themselves committed an offence." I have much more knowledge and experience in this arena than you think Bobby. Two examples doesn't even come close to my experience Bobby. You really should get down from your high horse.
He is disgraced as far as his church is concerned. I won't argue with that.
You put up the link, Bobby. Where does it say he was disgraced as far as his church was concerned? You still ignore the question regarding the accuracy of your claim about the information in your link. Do you have another source where the church has stated that he was disgraced as far as they were concerned or is this merely your assumption, which you are often found to be relying on as gospel.
Off topic....Like us, Pell was not considered a nice man.
Today 9 News
"Pell, formerly Australia's highest-ranking Catholic and one of the most controversial figures in the country, died in Rome aged 81 earlier this month after complications following hip replacement surgery.
He was jailed in 2019 over child sexual abuse allegations but always maintained his innocence."
Nine by choice made the decision not to mention the fact that Pell was found not guilty. Omitting that point indicates the one-sided opinion held by the editors/producers and even after death they attack him.
Here's the other source. Read the whole thing, but especially this reference - The investigation by the integrity unit appointed by the global board found that although all parts of the complaint were unable to be sustained, important elements of the complaint were sustained and the conduct was of serious concern. Ultimately, the board found that Brian had breached the Hillsong Pastor’s Code of Conduct.
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/statement-from-hillsong-global-board-re-brian-houston/
You're correct - it's off topic.
You are a fool and nothing has changed in that regard since 1970.
Does that link say that Houston disgraced the church, or are they your words and interpretation? It is a simple question?
They are the words and interpretation of the Hillsong church, not mine.
"Morrison's (mentor) was a disgraced evangelist." ...that is your wording and not that of the church. That is your interpretation/understanding of what you read and believe. It is not the interpretation of the Hillsong Church, in any of your offerings/links or sources.
Apparently you were too lazy to follow the link to the church's own publication "Eternity News".
Here's the relevant extract - Ultimately, the board found that Brian had breached the Hillsong Pastor’s Code of Conduct.
We also acknowledge that whatever the circumstances at this time, this person did not deserve to be placed in the situation she found herself in by Pastor Brian.
There were two separate complaints involving his behaviour with women, both of which he admitted. This was one of them. Both were referenced by Hillsong. That's without beginning to discuss the coverup of his father's paedophilia.
What is your interpretation of his church booting him out? Do tell.....
But where was the term "disgraced" used. In your replies you claim that is the interpretation given by the church, when in fact it is your interpretation. Teacher you make claims and then deny that you have made the claim and then claim that it is the opinion of some entity other than yourself. Wakey, wakey, wakey...you know the rest.
"What is your interpretation of his church booting him out? Do tell....."
The Hillsong crowd just like the Catholics, football clubs etc don't like criticism that may put the church or club etc in a poor light publicly. This has become the way of the world and now individuals are punished without trial or even fair hearings for creating bad publicity.
They will blame ethical decision making and create all sorts of reasons just to clear the air around the public view of the body involved, to protect the image of the organisation. Without the ability to test the veracity of the "victims" it is impossible to accurately interpret the outcomes. Strangely enough Governments make ex-gratia payments to alleged victims to prevent drawnout adverse publicity. You are a long term public servant and are aware of some I am sure. One of the more recent ones is the Higgins matter.
and now individuals are punished without trial
Houston is indeed standing trial -https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/december/hillsong-houston-trial-charges-coverup-evidence.html
They will blame ethical decision making and create all sorts of reasons just to clear the air around the public view of the body involved, to protect the image of the organisation.
And who protects the abused child - in this case a seven year old?
Post a Comment