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 24 results, only the first 24 are displayed here.
Become a subscriber for more search results.
The 2025 election marked a pause in Australia’s political life. As old policy narratives falter, we have an opportunity to ask ourselves: what kind of society are we trying to build? Across faiths and traditions, the idea of the common good offers a path forward beyond division and drift.
In an era of reflex opinion and vanishing accountability, moral seriousness can seem an anachronism. Yet history teaches that ideas — and the people who defend them — shape lives and nations.
From across the Pacific, Australia’s election looks refreshingly sane: debates over fuel taxes and modest wage hikes. But the surface calm belies deeper frustrations: housing scarcity, voter disillusionment, political evasion. But for an American watching from a fractured homeland, the question is how long that difference can hold.
Three elections, three systems, one shared question: what kind of person should lead? As voters and cardinals choose their next leaders, attention turns from policy to personality — to character, courage, and conviction. In an age of division, the qualities that guide a life may yet decide the fate of nations.
Faith, once a quiet undercurrent in Australian elections, is now entangled in questions of ethnic identity, foreign policy and cultural grievance. Religion has returned to the centre of political life, only to find itself more divided, and more contested, than ever before.
As we witness those wars that continue to rage, we might wonder, this Anzac Day, what were the effects on our First Nations people when their lands were first taken? We can now see only too clearly that it is difficult, if not impossible in the longer term, to defend one’s land when the invader has more powerful resources and shows no intention of negotiating peace.
As Australia moves through another federal election campaign, a quarter of a million new voters in the nation’s outer suburbs remain largely invisible in political discourse. These are not marginal communities in the cultural or economic sense; they are the nation’s most dynamic zones of growth, diversity, and aspiration.
What makes a war just? Can any goal justify the deaths of tens of thousands, the bombing of hospitals, the starvation of civilians? As the devastation in Gaza deepens, these questions press harder. In a conflict marked by profound suffering, what moral, legal, or human standards can still hold?
In a move as nostalgic as it is economically incoherent, Donald Trump’s proposed global tariff hike promises to punish the world’s poorest nations while claiming to revive America’s rusted-out industries. But the math is dubious, the logic muddled — and the unintended consequences, as ever, potentially vast.
Countering a rise in youth crime with tough new bail laws will ensure community safety, but risks compounding the very crisis they aim to solve. As more children are placed in detention, the changes raise urgent questions about justice, policy failure, and the long-term social cost of prioritising punishment over prevention.
Covid offered a rare chance to reimagine the role of the state. What might have become a pivot to care and collective responsibility became a bonanza for entrenched interests. The crisis passed. Inequality returned. And the deeper reckoning that beckoned was quietly deferred, perhaps indefinitely.
As Australia approaches another federal election, the Catholic Church, long ambivalent about democratic politics, prepares to weigh in. Its official statement could play it safe, as in years past — or it could offer a deeper moral vision, confronting the global drift toward division with the quiet radicalism of synodality.
1-12 out of 24 results.