Comments on: Australian version of the global gag rule done away with

By: Liam

Liam — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:51:11 +0000

Sorry. Mea culpa.
[says Hail Mary]

By: Helen

Helen — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:45:43 +0000

Liam, in the above comment you make out that it was me who made the remark about Creepy Cardigans.

Apart from that there’s nothing in it that I disagree with.

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:52:08 +0000

I remember sectarianism. I was told by my father I’d go to hell if I ever went into a Protestant Church.(I was brought up Catholic.) Mind you, that’s no real excuse.

By: Liam

Liam — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:49:29 +0000

But Helen, there’s not much point to a set of religious beliefs (or corpus of atheist skeptical beliefs) if they don’t inform political practice. What else are to we make of the Beatitudes in the Christian New Testament?
Our issue with the global gag rule as it existed was that it was bad policy for women; not that it had a faith-based genealogy. As I’ve said, there are many other issues on which politicians establish positions based on faith with which we wouldn’t disagree. Homelessness policy, for instance.

I won’t be able to voice my disagreement with say Julian McGauran or De Bruyn without being called an anti-Catholic.

Personally, I think best practice for disagreeing with Catholics was exhibited by, of all people, Frank Sartor in 2007 over a bill on stem cells:

The Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, a Catholic who supports the bill, described Cardinal Pell’s comments as reminiscent of the church in the Dark Ages.
“I’m very sceptical about people who claim to speak in the name of God but are human beings, because if you look at history people have been burnt in oil in the name of God,” he said…
“These are matters for individual conscience. Churches are there to guide us; they are not meant to be there to tell us.”

Acknowledge legitimacy—then disagree (successfully). See? No need for creepy cardigans.

By: FDB

FDB — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:37:15 +0000

“If religious belief and political stances really are indivisible, I won’t be able to voice my disagreement with say Julian McGauran or De Bruyn without being called an anti-Catholic”

Indivisible ? identical.

By: David Irving (no relation)

David Irving (no relation) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:16:47 +0000

Nothin’ wrong with a bit of mick (or proddy) bashing, anyway.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:16:03 +0000

Helen @ 44 – The concept of church and state separation was originally about separation of the institutions. For example, the head of government should not be the head of a church because of the conflict of interest and the huge amount of power that would give. These days we’d extend that concept to secular organisations as well. The head of the business council shouldn’t be the minister for workplace relations and the head of unions ACT shouldn’t at the same time be the minister for small business. Though its generally accepted that the same person can do the two roles at different times in their career.

On an individual level however, it seems to make as much sense to say someone should not bring their views developed from their association with a religious organisation as to say they should not bring them from a secular organisation they are a member of.

I really hope we don’t go down the US route of much stricter church/state separation to the point where people can’t even put temporary memorials like crosses for loved ones who have died on public land as this would technically break the church/state separation.

By: Helen

Helen — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:43:12 +0000

religious belief and political stances are indivisible.

I just think that’s a false premise. Atheist, then, would necessarily always vote informal? Are there no Anglicans, quakers, buddhists, Hindus or agnostics opposing the Iraq war? Joining Trade unions?

This also seems very muddled because you are objecting to me objecting to measures taken by catholic politicians/lobbyists (e.g, the Catholic doctors opposing the Victorian abortion legislation) which in this specific case, unlike the Iraq war one, is clearly and overtly informed by their faith-based thinking. If religious belief and political stances really are indivisible, I won’t be able to voice my disagreement with say Julian McGauran or De Bruyn without being called an anti-Catholic. Thus, debate with all religious politicos would be off limits.

The weakness of the Church/State separation in Australia is a hindrance to good government for everybody, not a desirable thing unless you’re a member of whoever is the dominant religion. Maybe, if you’re female, not even then.

By: Ute Man

Ute Man — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:26:29 +0000

Roam about stealin’ horses I bet.

By: Beret Boy de la Haiku Escrivá

Beret Boy de la Haiku Escrivá — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:53:41 +0000

Homo Utilis, you know the song: I’m a wanderer, I Rome around.