2009 ended with a flurry of discussion on religion and politics, and it’s a theme I imagine we’re going to hear a lot more of in 2010.
I was ruminating on this question because of a couple of phrases which have come up this week about political events.
In Queensland, State Parliament has been debating the decriminalisation of altruistic surrogacy (where there is no payment involved). It’s the last jurisdiction where this is illegal, and members of the Legislative Assembly have a conscience vote. Much attention has focused on the fact that the bill enables same sex couples to access surrogacy, and you can get a sense of some of the rhetoric this is producing from opponents here.
We’ve heard, among other things, about “traditional Queensland families”.
Meanwhile, Tony Abbott has justified his support for the threatened preselection of David Clarke by describing his views as “mainstream”, writing to New South wales party members:
The letter argues that Mr Clarke should not be seen as having extreme views when all he does is go “to church on Sundays” and respect “traditional values”.
Yet the 2006 census found that only 63% of Australians describe their religion as Christian, and research found in 2001 that only 19% of Christians go to church regularly (defined as at least once a month). In absolute numbers, there were slightly fewer self-described Christians in 2006 than in 2001, and this identification is significantly skewed by age. Nor should it be assumed that all of, or even a majority of non-church attending Christians sign up to the suite of values defined as “traditional”, and even less so, that all want to see such values embodied in the law of the land.
Yet, in political debate, and in decisions which radically affect people’s life choices, the invocation of such values, and the influence of lobby groups which champion them, appear to have a presumed legitimacy which should be unwarranted in a secular democracy.
Documentation on the legislative process of inquiry into the framing of the bill can be found here.
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett on the Queensland Parliament’s surrogacy conscience vote.
Update: John Birmingham on the LNP and the surrogacy debate.
I would’ve thought David Clarke is somewhat to the right of mainstream Catholicism. I know quite a few devout Catholics, and at least two of them I would consider very good friends. All of them have a strong sense of social justice, and. so far as I can work out, take the view that they (naturally) have the right to practise their religion but they do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others. In fact, unless I bring the subject up (which I do occasionally) they never discuss religion. My impression of Clarke is he wants to impose his extremist views on the whole community. Abbott’s support for him is not surprising given Abbott’s “theological” bent. But from my experience of Catholics, he like Clark is somewhat to the right.
No wondewr Abbott doesn’t want people talking of the ‘religious right’. Its a damaging tag he can so easily be tarred with himself. It would not be a good political look.
So, I’ll start it off – Abbott belongs to the NSW Liberal religious right and his support of Clarke proves it. So there!
Putting aside the issue of David Clarke’s supposedly “mainstream” christianity (haha!) I would have thought part of the reason for this overemphasis on christianity is a general recognition by avowedly non-christian Australians that it has an important influence on our cultural values. Western attitudes to sex – even those of atheists and supposedly irreligious people – are heavily influenced by the traditional christian view of it. Presumably a lot of people have failed to throw off these values fully because they still think that the underlying christian teaching is relevant.
If people still think the underlying principles are relevant, then avowedly religious preachers who spout that crap are going to get more support than they deserve.
It would not come amiss to consider the following statement made by Jurgen Habermas in 1999:
One of the striking things about the “Christian” interventions, and appeals to “traditional” “Christian” values, over the issues Mark raised in the opening post, and other Christian conservative interventions over the “sex, drugs and rock & roll” agenda (which seems to be all they ever talk about) is how little they have to do with the Judaic ethic of justice, the Christian ethic of love and their legacy as outlined by Habermas.
I don’t know about Clarke’s religious beliefs, they might be more mainstream than Abbott’s. The problem with Clarke isn’t with his faith, it’s his friends.
(I’ll never get tired of linking to that obituary)
sg @ 2 agree. I used to fill out the census with a tick to catholic as I had attended a catholic high school. I would say though that I have never actually been a practicing catholic, having never taken communion or gone to church other than school mass or a wedding. It’s strange but you’d find a lot of people would just tick the box without too much thought on how that info is used. I am quite strongly against organised religion these days and never had any belief in it at any time in my life, but I only realised that I shouldn’t tick the box when I became more politically involved. Leading up to the next census I’ll probably talk a few of my friends out of ticking the box also – I see this as important in light of Abbott’s leadership and don’t want any of our pollies getting the idea that they can push a religious barrow.
I heard John Dowd (former NSW Attorney-General & state Liberal Party leader) on the radio about David Clarke the other day, and he plainly doesn’t like Clarke — Clarke is from the Uglies and Dowd from the Group. His reasoning, however, was that Clarke is just another hard-boiled ‘numbers man’ and (implicitly) not much good at anything else, like, say, policy formulation or talking to prospective voters.
However, Dowd is old enough to remember when the LPA was firmly Protestant, and he probably doesn’t want to go back there, even if he was deposed by Greiner!
Paul Norton@3: quoting Habermas: “Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.”
The problem with this typical construct is that there is absolutely no evidence that human beings, including those who lived in matriarchal collectives for thousands of years prior to organised patriarchal christianity, did not also exist and survive with similar organising principles. There is no written record, so we will never know.
But take a look at the few remaining, relatively unscathed, hunter-gatherers left on the planet (the prehistorical matriarchies have long been destroyed), draw a line backwards, and you might imagine similar principles of egalitarianism, solidarity, morality, justice, and love, at work, in ensuring our survival though the ages.
The altruistic collective works for elephants and lions on the african plains, and it apparently worked for us, for 100,000 years through paleolithic times, so there is no reason why it should not work now…
What that’s got to do with Tony Abbott, I don’t know.
I would suggest that the “values” and politics that Clarke, Abbott and their Opus Dei
friends represent are summed up in these two reviews of that vile sado-masochistic snuff-flick The Passion–one is by a left-wing Christian (who was excommunicated for his “heretical” views) and the other by two Marxists
http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage7
http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner.htm
Interestingly I am currently reading Marion Maddox’s book “God Under Howard” which discusses how the Christian Right has moved into Australian Politics via the Lyons Forum initially setup to remove Hewson as a moderate and replace him with Howard as their mouthpiece, (hence Turnbull’s removal as well given he also is a moderate), modelled loosely on the US Christian Conservatives of the Republican Party. Given that Tony Abbott was regarded as Howards Protege it isn’t too surprising that the Christian Right is still very much a point of discussion, look at who Abbott has appointed to his front bench, David Clarke also features a minor mention as being Opus Dei’s link to the Australian Parliment
Voxpop@5- exactly right, lots of people tick the census regious affiliation box without giving it a thought. No one in my family has been to church since the early 70′s but those over 50 still tick the box because they were baptised and married there. Eventually that demographic will disaapear, along with any vestigial Christianity. I was comforted the other day when chatting with my 5 year old and discovered she had never heard of the bible. A good start in life.
Oops that should’ve been 5yr old niece, I am happily childless!
I grew up in an Australia that proudly espoused secular values.
How did these dog-botherers get into positions of power?
It is not uncommon to read comments on right-wing blogs which basically want the world’s 1 billion Moslems to go away (or be made to go away by means involving more or less extreme prejudice). I have to say that it is also not uncommon to read comments on left-wing blogs which bsaically want the world’s 2 billion Christians to go away (or be made to go away, albeit with rather less extreme prejudice than what the right-wingers wish upon the Moslems).
Having been as vehemently anti-religious in my youth as only a 16 year old who has just discovered Bertrand Russell can be, I have now mellowed into the kind of secular humanist who accepts that religious folk of all stripes are going to be around for the forseeable future, and the real challenge is finding ways in which all of them plus we secular types can get along without killing one another and without one group of us wanting to dominate all the others. This points to the real problem which I have with the sort of Christian conservatives which Mark refers to in the opening post – namely that they seek to use the power of the state to impose their own take on Christian values on the rest of us, not that they are Christians.
As a church-going Catholic who loves our secular ways, I still get somewhat upset when churchy types are criticised for advocating their view.
They believe it to be good policy, whether correctly or uncorrectly, and to expect them to pipe down because their views are informed by their religious beliefs is a form of discrimination.
Sometimes deeply religious belief is also good policy. For example, with regard to capital punishment. (I mean the current Catholic teaching against capital punishment. I get misunderstood too much on here.)
Being a secular society means that religion shouldn’t be a factor, either for or against. Argue your case, do it any way you like, and the people who make the decisions will do so impassionately with the best regard for the welfare of the people at heart.
Having said that, I’m more than a little worried about what is going on in the USA at the moment.
But HC that suggests that if you aren’t Catholic then you are for capital punishment which is complete rubbish. Deeply held religous beliefs can also lead to bad policy. Tony Abbott as health minister anyone?
I was told by my Dad when I was a child that we were ‘heathens’, when it came to ticking the religious box. That’s how I still answer at census time. I’m really a secular humanist who likes to live and let live when it comes to religion. I don’t respect any of them as institutions, but I respect the religious faith of individuals. I just don’t want anyone telling me what I can and can’t do, based on their belief system.
That Habermas quote surfaced in an article that was part of a series of exchanges with John Finnis, where Habermas was being very accommodating and Finnis was most emphatically not. I think it should be read with great care (in light of its origins).
Apart from that, I’m not even sure it’s true. Just as those of us on the skeptical side of the fence need to remember that dismissing religion must not involve dismissing people, everyone needs to be aware of the danger of giving religion too much credit.
Liam,
Best obituary I’ve read in ages.
Mindy @15
Reading HC’s comment as implying non-catholic = pro capital punishment is stretching it a bit.
OTOH:
That’s a wildly optimistic (and – ahem – perhaps a tad naive) view of how policy is formed. Tony Abbott’s banning of the use of RU486 while he was Minister for Health is a good example of how things really work when you’re dealing with real people with real human passions.
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett on the Queensland Parliament’s surrogacy conscience vote.
Update: John Birmingham on the LNP and the surrogacy debate.
Well, I even get misunderstood when I try really hard not to. Because the Catholic policy on capital punishment is anti-capital punishment, and it good policy, does not mean that non-Catholic policy is pro-capital punishment. Worse, you all know it.
I also wasn’t talking about the process, but the motivation. Abbott firmly believed RU486 should be banned. Because his beliefs coincided with that of his religion, he’s not to be trusted. Kevin Rudd’s policy on capital punishment coincides with his religion, and as well as Abbott’s is probably informed by it. Is it therefore not valid? Can it therefore, under no circumstances, be good policy?
We are a secular society, but not a areligious one. We are actually permitted to believe what we want to believe. But many here want politicians to completely divorce themselves from their religious beliefs. I think that is primarily because many here don’t agree with them.
I think it’s pretty clear that Habermas was talking about the influence of religious culture on the law and social norms over a long historical period, not making any claim about non-Christians being in favour of capital punishment.
I also think, Howard, that the issue with Abbott is not the fact that he holds certain views, but that those views constrain and restrict others’ choices, and he would like to see them embodied in law and governmental practice (for instance his opposition to Medicare rebates for terminations of pregnancy). In a liberal and secular democracy, he has no right to have the state privilege his private religious views of what others’ choices should be.
OTOH, almost 60% of Liberals thought that Nazism was A Bad Thing.
That’s gotta be good news.
HC @ 22:
First, what Mark said.
And to expand on that a little – there’s no evidence that in maintaining the ban on RU486, Abbott acted “will do so impassionately with the best regard for the welfare of the people at heart” – unless you mean that Abbott acted in an impassioned, rather than a dispassionate. There’s no evidence, for example that he had the “best regard” for women patients whose welfare might have been improved by the availability of RU486 – rape victims seeking an emergency contraceptive, or in cases of in utero death of the foetus.
In fact, the evidence suggests the contrary very strongly – Abbott’s power to ban RU486 resulted from a bit of horse trading between the government and Senator Brian Harradine, where Harradine demanded the ban as his price for the passage of a totally unrelated bill. Harradine may be a man of strong moral convictions but his political behaviour frequently showed a complete lack of principle. So too with Tony Abbott.
I did mean “dispassionately”. Thanks for all for not using the “teh” insult on me.
Katz @ 24,
You mean 40% of Liberals think Nazism is a good thing? That is a bit of a worry.
I like to write in pagan or pagan/witch or Catholic pagan witch in the census forms.
One could always put down Torchwood, I suppose.
Why is that question on the census anyway?
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110124.NSF/0/86429d11c45d4e73ca256a400006af80?OpenDocument
It has always been there.
Once upon a time different denominations experienced great pleasure or suffered enormous consternation at the numbers revealed in these census returns.
The steady rise in Catholic numbers caused countless mottled wattles to shake in righteous protestant outrage.
as a statistician I can’t believe I say this but… the issue of the question on the census is closed. All good leftists, regardless of their personal religious views, need to write “Jedi” in the other category. I can’t believe there is any doubt about this.
I’m with grace et al in rejecting completely the idea that christianity has any significant relationship to our fundamental moral values (about theft, murder etc). However, I do think it has had a significant impact on the window-dressing around those morals and how we enact them in our day-to-day lives. Particularly about sex, which is largely where christians get their knickers in a twist, and which also happens to be the main area of politics in which christians seem to want to ride roughshod over personal liberty.
Also I suppose there is a long, hard debate going on in every denomination of the christian faith about how to reconcile god’s “teaching” (ha!) with the principles of a modern liberal society. It’s funny to see it being fought so viciously within the “liberal” party.
Thanks for the answer.
That’s what the ABS says now.
That explanation has nothing at all to do with the original reason for inquiring into the religious identification of Australians.
At the turn of the 20th century, religious affiliation was thought to be crucial as a predictor of social values, political affiliation, basic loyalties and even essential worth as a citizen.
The authorities regarded these qualities to be of primary importance for the health of the polity.
Yes, they introduced the question so they could hunt down the Sith Lords. Clever buggers wrote “Exclusive Brethren” though, and slipped through the net…
Paul Norton @13: ” This points to the real problem which I have with the sort of Christian conservatives which Mark refers to in the opening post – namely that they seek to use the power of the state to impose their own take on Christian values on the rest of us…”
Exactly! Well said!
Regarding the census figures, and why parents send their kids to religious-denominated schools, and what people might declare on forms, the numbers are probably not what they seem.
I was baptised catholic to please my grandma, and went to church to please her when visiting. If church attendance was taken as a sign of devoutness, it would have been misapplied. Similarly for many spouses that accompany their devout partners, and not least reluctant kids until they are old enough to rebel (like Abbott’s wife and kids).
I was sent to a presbyterian school for a couple of years (the rest were non-denominational), because my parents deemed that it had the best scholastic reputation. Many others in my class didn’t attend church, much less presbyterian, and were also sent there on scholastic grounds. These days, a lot of the kids at that school are of asian extraction, so possibly not even a christian orientation. Does that mean the school figures accurately reflect the number of presbyterian kids, christian kids, or even strongly religious families?
I don’t recall what denomination I put on the census form. Pagan would have been a grand idea (thanks Paul @27, must remember that…) It could easily have been “catholic”, for no better reason than it matched my baptism. Better half has probably done the same, as many people may have done. The census figures are scarcely a reliable reflection of the considered religious position of Aussie citizens, much less their actual actions.
Shell International wanted to know people’s religion in their application forms. Dutch employees explained that the correct answer is either “protestant” (similar to the bulk of Shell management), or something like “agnostic”, rather than “atheist” or perish the thought jewish or muslim (these were regarded as difficult for certain postings). The company justification was something about working in a variety of countries and needing to be aware of potential religious conflicts, etc, etc. I would guess that the management also have a distorted view of the religious orientation of their people.
The figures may well be almost meaningless.
I don’t know what ‘Asian extraction’ means, precisely, Elise, but there are very many Korean, Taiwanese and Vietnamese background Christians in Australia. Most in the former 2 categories are Protestant, so it could be that a different ethnic/cultural mix would make a Presbyterian school more overtly Christian.
Incidentally, I think the ABS’ explanation is fairly spurious. I suspect the real answer is ‘because the question’s always been there’.
But I’m happy it’s there, because it’s of great interest to social scientists, and if it weren’t, I suspect that there’d be a lot more claims around that Australia is a ‘Christian nation’!
Mark @36, who knows what orientation people are?
I guess I assumed that many SE asians followed one of the asiatic religions: hindu, buddist, taoist, etc.
If people think that a certain answer will lower their chances of getting a job, or getting their kids into a certain school, or whatever, then many are likely to give a “suitable” answer.
Even Princess Mary traded-in her espoused religion, faced with the need to fit in.
A reading. From the book of the Liberalites, Chapter 234356 Vs 23838438484:12-124.
In the beginning there was darkness. Alan Cadman actually. It lasted quite a while. And the Lord their God David Clarke hovered over the waters of the Castle Hill Golf Course. And said. Let there be light. And there arose a city of mansions, a land of milk and money, with loads of Born Agains looking for someone to vote for. And the Lord their God David Clarke looked upon the safest Liberal Seat in the Land and said: “It is not good for this seat to be not under my religiously right control”. And behold. He begat the scary Alex Hawke upon Mitchell and Hawke laid siege upon the walls and they crumbled like pfft. And behold, as they were crumbling there appeared a champion of the Moderates. David Elliott. How David Elliott became a moderate is beyond me. Having worked for the other greater Lord their God John Howard and having run the ACM campaign which worshipped an ancient English Goddess with terriers, he was apparently now ‘a moderate’. Anyway, fat lot of good it was for the stupid moderates to wait until the last minute and then bring forth a champion. Alex Hawke machined gunned him down without looking back as he ambled amiably into the land of milk and money and there he worshipped the Lord his God David Clarke and David Elliott retreated into another lobby job until the time was right.
Time passed very fast in Mitchell since Cadman left. Hawkie went down to Parliament House in Egypt and his heart began to seek after other idols. There was debauchery and licentiousness. Chardonnay and canapes. And behold he came to worship that loaded Wentworth Pharoah Malcolm Turnbull who, interestingly, had run the ARM campaign and Alex Hawke forgot the Lord his God of his youth and apparently became a Moderate too. Who knew???? Everyone’s a Moderate now in the Liberal Party.
Well, back in lotus land, imagine what God David Clarke thought. You can just imagine can’t you? Indeed it came to bloody pass that the Lord their God David Clarke thundered about the garded and decided to smote that Alex Hawke. An lo, at every local party branch meeting there began to appear 50,0000 potential new members wanting to join up for no good reason that I can think of. Can you??? And so it came to pass that the cops were called time and time again as the Lord their God caused dissent and internal party rents which Tony Abbott didn’t so much mind back in the day when it was David Clarke who was dissenting and renting. Funny that.
But soon, behold, a few newspaper reports reported David Elliott’s heart turning towards the Lord their God David Clarke and worshipping him. And, um, also talk of a lower house seat that true son of Howard, moderate my arse, wanted out that way. Seems the Moderate was turned Right. Again. Seems. But no.
Behold. one more time. David Clarke didn’t much like that idea and said, like, no. Or something. And David Elliott again became a Moderate and lay seige to the Lord His God David Clarke’s upper house seat. Pretty pissed apparently. With apparently quite a chance this time. All the while backed by some Moderates. Again. But wait, just when you thought you knew where the Moderates were heading this time, the King of the Moderates in NSW Barry O’Herod was worshipping the Lord his God David Clarke, the God of the religious hard right. I KNOW. Apparently the Lord his God had worked hard to heal rifts between left and right and Herod was pleased to offer heads and platters. I KNOW, I know.
Well no I don’t actually. Buggered if I know what is left and right is anymore when it comes to the cross factional Liberals and their left and right shimmies. I can’t keep up. Can you???
Next Week a reading from the Book of Exodus David ???. Chapter 183438434738 Vs 232333834-283843843843.
Despite my atheism, I strongly support the right of politicians to hold religious views and to apply those beliefs in govt provided it is congruent with the party platform. I know I would apply my own non-party specific beliefs given the chance – eg vegetarian, feminist. However, it is important for politicians to be upfront about their belief systems so we can see the sausage being made in the party room debates on moral and ethical issues that inform party policy. The ALP’s current anti-same sex marriage policy is a case in point. The religious right have the numbers and Kevvie’s social conservatism on marriage is also religious-based.
Fair enough, they got voted in and have the right to dominate policy if they have the numbers. But most of this stuff is hidden and policy springs fully formed into the public arena. The average voter has no interest in the religious affiliation of their local candidate. A problem only arises when the candidate is silly enough to espouse a particularly antediluvian religious dogma. That’s why I think it is more important to flush ‘em out early on and let the electorate judge their suitability to represent them. So let’s talk about religion. morality , ethics in politics – it’s important to get the full measure of the MP.
And I for one, would never vote for you nor for any party that endorsed you as a candidate.
The position you’ve taken is that it was OK for Tony Abbott to use his office to impose his beliefs on others, and it was OK for Brian HArradine to use his position in the Senate for the same purpose because one day, with luck, me and my side might get to do it too. That shows the same lack of principle I described in my comment @ 25.
Gummo: “And I for one, would never vote for you nor for any party that endorsed you as a candidate” That’s my point exactly. I would never vote for Abbott, Harradine or the party that endorsed them. The problem is that we know too little about MP’s personal beliefs despite the fact that they are operating all the time to “impose their beliefs on others” – that’s what politicians are elected to do. That’s why I want to know as much about them as possible. The problem can’t be solved by an exhaustive party platform (although the more detailed the better for me)
You may rage at politicians “imposing beliefs on others” but that is in the eye of the beholder. To me, Abbott was imposing his beliefs by preventing me from accessing a beneficial drug, to others he ws taking a principled stand to protect the unborn. Did anyone ever suggest he exercised his discretion unlawfully? No – so he used his discretionary power after taking into account medical and ethical positions as we allow him to do under the current system.
Look at the recent surrogacy debate in Queensland. It has been very useful to hear the personal views of some of the politicians. If I was a Queenslander, it would definately make a difference to my vote if I was a constituent of an MP that imposed their negative views on homosexuality in a debate about surrogacy. But a conservative Christian would be relieved to know that these polticians understood the pressing concern of childeren being raised by sexual perverts. They would feel that Bligh is imposing her radical social views on them in an unethical manner- engaging in social experimentation with the vulnerable young.
Elise,
Since we’re using Tony Abbott as the example of a politician who has trouble with the difference between exercising his ministerial office in a principled responsible way, rather than as a source of personal power to exercise his conscience on others, maybe this will clarify the distinction:
Unlike Wooldridge, Abbott was quite happy to act as health minister for himself and his personal moral beliefs. If you can’t or refuse, to see the importance of that difference, and the importance of promoting a political culture where not just ministers, but our elected representatives respect it, then there’s nothing left to discuss. The game is simply not worth the candle.
People, people, you’re missing the point about Clarke.
Technically, he should be utterly invulnerable. If you’re an arse-kicking factional chieftain you can slot yourself into a safe seat, hold it until you get tired, and then hand it over to whomever you like. If Clarke was still calling the shots in the Liberal Party that’s what would happen.
What’s happened here is that Clarke has blown it, basically. Barry O’Farrell and others have realised that if the road to government lies over David Clarke’s dead body, well then dig a hole and push him in.
In the Liberal Party, when you corner the moderates they just slouch away, like I did, or they do the lion-in-winter thing for a while like Turnbull is doing now. When you corner the far right they chuck a hissy-fit: threaten to go to the cross-benches, divert preferences from their buddies (gun nuts, Hansonites, apocalyptic religious nutters, conspiracy theorists, white supremacists etc) away from the Liberal Party, and generally threaten all-out war until you give them what they want for the sake of “keeping up appearances” (a powerful force within the Liberal Party, much underestimated by non-middle-class folk in other parties who’d rather a fight than a feed or a fuck).
I reiterate: getting rid of Clarke is not the Liberal Party sabotaging its best chance of NSW State Government in a generation, it is the Liberal Party getting ready for government. Do the far right command a whole lot of votes in marginal seats that the Liberal Party needs to win government? No. Do the ranks of the far right include talented individuals? No. Do they have money or other resources desperately needed by a modern political party? Again, no. Their bluff is being called, and about fucking time.
Mind you, Elliott is not exactly wringing wet. Like all warm-blooded vertebrates, he’s better than Clarke.
While I’m all giddy about the prospect of the extinction of David Clarke, let me point out that in 1980s there were still Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyites in the ALP. Just sayin’.
Mark said:
Democracy is GIGO system for choosing governments and deciding policies. If you don’t like what voters are prepared to put up with then you need to change the constitution to protect the state from the voters, so to speak.
Religious theology is just as legitimate (or illegitimate) as partisan ideology as a shaper of policy preferences in a democracy. You cannot stop people feeling the way they feel and voting on it.
“In a liberal and secular democracy” Abbott has every “right to have the state privilege his private religious views of what others’ choices should be”. And differing citizens have every right to challenge that outrageous attempt at establishing privilege and boot the bum out, if they so prefer.
If they don’t mind then for irate liberals thats democracy, look at the scoreboard,
“too bad, so sad”.
Thanks Mark for providing the link to the documents relating to the surrogacy issue. I thought the submission made by the Catholic sponsored Queensland Centre for Bioethics was the most rational of the handful I read.
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/historical/documents/committees/SURROGACY/Submissions/Sub%2072.pdf
There is a stark contrast between their submission, which was clearly addressing the rights and welfare of children, and the submission of many of the pro-surrogacy lobbyists like former Attorney General Dean Wells in which children were not even mentioned.
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/historical/documents/committees/SURROGACY/Submissions/Sub%2010.pdf
Wells’ likening the ban on surrogacy to a form of eugenics has to be at least equal in craziness to Ray Hopper’s public toilet comments. But alas only one is ridiculed.
Clarke’s maiden speech, where all the madness and badness is condensed:
http://www.davidclarkemlc.com.au/Pages/maidenSpeech.aspx
And the role of the “dark skinned” to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water no doubt in this “holy” vocation pronounced by the celestial dictator’s agent David Clarke. And those who rebelled did not understand nor appreciate the “vocation” that almost exterminated them. It gets worse:
Not to mention those paragons of noblesse oblige and the “white man’s burden”: Captain Cook and those voracious land grabbing pastoralists that followed. (And fuck international refugee law btw)
Shorter Clarke, I do not respect the rights of gays at all. In fact I regard them as a heinous evil threat to my illusions of the eternal righteousness of God, Queen, country, the Liberal party and the RSL.
Aaaaargh. In which case, FFS, a NSW collective suicide is arguably called for, but I’d settle for David Clark and the rabid Ahmadinejad wing of the NSW Liberal right being rolled.
Re 45:
Nothing but the most rigorous of rational argument there – give or take a begged question or two.
God damn Gummo you’re good. How could I have missed those begging thingamajigs? I now understand Anna Bligh is obviously right that altruistic surrogacy is okay, because everyone has a right to be a parent and some people can only become parents by using altruistic surrogacy.