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.
As the cardinals prepare to elect a new pope, the centuries-old conclave process proceeds with solemnity and speed. But beneath the tradition lies the question of whether a closed, clerical system still reflects the needs of a diverse, divided, and global Church.
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.
And so as the 21st century marked its first quarter, reality in the most powerful country on Earth slipped into a vortex of blurred lines of what it meant to be a living, moral being.
As Australia prepares to vote, the legacy of Petro Georgiou casts a long shadow, reminding us that politics can still be principled, compassionate, and deeply human. He reshaped multicultural policy, challenged cruelty, and proved that conscience has a place in party politics.
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 Australia approaches a federal election, the bishops have offered a statement of gentle encouragement themed around hope. Yet in its caution and generality, it raises questions about missed opportunities for moral clarity, national relevance, and a more engaged voice in public life.
In cities that pride themselves on liveability, a quiet war is being waged against the homeless with urban design and tough bylaws. What appears as civic order is, in truth, a hardening of public conscience, where compassion gives way to concealment, and suffering is swept from view.
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.
When Cyclone Alfred swept through Queensland, the damage was swift, but its most enduring effects are harder to see. As the clean-up began, a quieter crisis emerged: disrupted care, rising health risks, and a fragile health system ill-equipped to cope.
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.
Amid rising hate speech and tighter laws, something deeper festers. In a culture wired for outrage and shaped by tribal algorithms, we’re learning not just to disagree, but to despise. What happens when identity is built on enmity, and public debate becomes less about ideas and more about who we’re against?
Across a range of divisive issues from gender to race to public health, newsrooms are increasingly blurring the line between reporting and advocacy. As language is reshaped to reflect activist priorities, and opposing views are treated as moral threats, journalism risks losing its most essential commitment: telling the truth plainly.
1-12 out of 24 results.