Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
In the wake of recent elections in Britain and France, global democracies are seeing voters reject established parties amidst a deepening cycle of disillusionment. But can a return to honesty and integrity in politics break this downward spiral?
How do you respond, when members of your own tribe share their distaste towards those who rub them up the wrong way? Do you ‘unfollow’? Do you engage? And if you vent against those who who offend with their own dearth of tolerance, are you guilty of doing the same?
We are now witnessing a changed dynamic within the movement for church reform. The balance within its component parts has changed towards a more pessimistic view. A minority is still hopeful; a few even remain optimistic, but most are struggling.
Domestic violence is not a simple or straightforward issue, and we know that not all cases have the same dynamics or the same causes. Rather than applying one size fits all responses, we need to begin with addressing the diverse underlying causes.
The national conversation is very much spotlighting domestic violence and violence towards women. As a nation, we need to consider hard questions around the abundant factors within our society with connections to violence. Over three decades, we have made gains, but there’s more work to be done.
Each year, the Stations of the Cross liturgy affects me more than I had planned. Annually, I am left wondering: why does this ritual work? Well, it has much to offer: a narrative with exposition, climax and denouement; characters big and small; blood, gore, politics, virtue, cowardice and a pointer towards mystery.
Dante and Hopkins named it lavishly: Christ’s vita nuova, shared to Easter in us; Ignatius of Loyola called it: magnanimity . . . How could we then, receiving, hoard or dispense it stintingly, like Scrooge before his Christmas haunting?
The Federal Government looks set to bring in legislation which would make it more difficult for new candidates to put themselves forward in future elections. In a nation where more than a third of voters opted not to vote for one of the two major parties, this should concern everyone.
In a hierarchical society, we routinely celebrate and reward various dominating and competitive behaviour. When children and young people replicate this in the playground, we call it bullying. Anti-bullying measures may be more effective shifting the focus away from perpetrators and on the social and institutional context.
The referendum result was a disaster for the country and a tragedy for First Australians and there has been little appetite for public discussion about lessons to be learnt from this abject failure. If we are to move forward, it’s time to begin the conversation about past mistakes.
Once upon a time it was fairly easy to distinguish fact from fiction, but now journalists in particular regularly merge the two. We are now forced to cope with notions such as alternative facts and the post-truth era. I, for one, cope badly with both, with this twisting of what I would like to be an essential and straightforward matter.
Can a journalist responsibly undertake impartial reporting while receiving benefits? For an industry founded on the principle of publishing with neither fear nor favour, the acceptance of favours has possibly outweighed journalistic responsibility towards an Australian public seeking objective knowledge.
1-12 out of 200 results.