I watched the ACL sponsored Webcast this week featuring Rudd and Abbott. It was quite an achievment for ACL etc , but I think the pollies only brushed up on their electioneering teckniques. Didn’t even promise to keep “The Lords Prayer” as an opener to parliment.
How can the church influence government? Indeed, does it get you anywhere if you do manage some influence. George Bush was beaten by the big banks and beaten in the elections. Obama isn’t having mush luck in bringing the oilcompanies to see his point of view. Rudd has been humiliated by the big miners. And once upon a time property developers used to join local council to get their plans approved. Now , at least on the south coast, they just book a meeting at a coffee shop.
I have worked for big companies and was very happy with them. They looked after shareholders and employers very well. They even appear to look after cute looking rodents who get in the way of their building and mining projects.All sorts of people would pounce on them otherwise. But do they look after the nation as Rudd has protested?
It seems that we need a religion that can influence big business as well. China and Russia hae “ways” of controlling big business, but the front runners in this area must surely be Israil and Iran. O.M. G.
Churches have lost a lot of moral authority. Child abuse, adulterous liaisons, embezzlement, and similar naughtiness have eroded church authority.
The mindless drivel trotted out by fundie groups and YECSers have eroded intellectual authority.
The quibbling between denominations have pretty much left us without even a semblance of a united voice so that should anyone desire moral guidance from a church, then one is left wondering “which one?”
Church hierarchy behaviour in handling the needs of victims of abuse is possibly among the worst nails in church coffins (at least the Anglican church dealt with this issue reasonably well)
and I think the church’s attitudes to gays varies enormously and is either thought of as foolish (conversion progs that claim to turn gays into straights) or cruel.
Obviously not as much as the unions do - judging from the machinations of the NSW Labor right and both the AWU and the CFMEU over the coup to remove an elected Prime Minister.
It’s obviously just about who lobbies best - and has the sharpest knives - and, whilst acknowledging the vast failings of churches that you have listed above, Owen, I really am not that confident anymore. When I was a young lad, the church had credibility. But these days, after so many scandals and bad public relations fiascos, the ‘brand name’ has taken a battering.
At the moment, I am just not sure how to answer your question. I will need to ponder it a while longer.
It appears that the Christian influence is simply from those Christians, Catholics and nominals who voice their opinions the loudest in the public domain. That would normally come from leaders in the political arena, but also from within the church and broad community.
Sometimes it is representative of the majority of mainstream Christian thought (anti-abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality the commonly expressed) - other times it is not (pro-internet filter, anti-R18+ classification for computer games). Some denominations seem to be more open to expressing their public views then others, hence the confusion that Owen alluded to.
It got a wide range of different church representatives presenting a unified perspective on the sort of things Christians would want from Government. And having the webcast indicated that ordinary Christians are actually interested. This is no mean feat, and the result I think you see in the media attention since.
It also gave the two (then) leaders the opportunity first to speak for themselves. (Shame about Kevin Rudd being deposed - it makes it only half relevant now.)
It has been noted that he calls himself a Christian in politics, not a Christian politician, and that faith has influenced his life but it does not, and believes should not, shape his politics.
I noted these things that he said about his own faith.
The essential teaching, it seems to me, of Jesus of Nazareth was first that we should love the Lord God with our whole heart and our whole mind and our whole soul and, second, that we should love our neighbour as we love ourselves.
Christian faith, properly understood, is genial and inclusive; more given to forgiveness than judgement and conscious always of Jesus’ hope that we should have life and have it unto the full.
Let me close, if I may, with a brief statement of some of my values. ....... As a Christian, I believe that people are basically good and that life does have purpose and meaning and I believe that we should all do more to count our blessings.
As a Christian he believes that people are basically good?
Is this a Catholic thing I wonder?
Ros, What does it mean ” all men are basically good”? I think that if Tony Abbott was a Moore college student instead of a politician, he would write literally 100’s of pages on this topic. Even I could write half that with the amount of religious reading I have done lately . But there woundn’t be an answer that a pleb like me could come to grips with. The quesion is obviously buried in religious doctrine for starters.
However I offer an alternative veiw which suits me. God’s most noble of creatures—the horse, is basically good.Some are broken in by their masters by brute force and may rebel some time in the future. Many methods of horse breaking use gentle persuasion and communication, and obtain a more compatible and obedient horse. So the answer is I suppose—-it depends.
Doug, thanks for your response. You always have an interesting perspective.
With all the scrutiny of the various Labor pollies’ faith (or lack of faith, in Julia Gillard’s case), I thought one should also take a closer look at one of the Liberal pollies’ actual faith position, as far as he’s actually revealed. No one else seems to have mentioned it much at all.
What did Mr Abbott mean by saying he believes people are basically good? Perhaps he meant something like what I would express as all people have intrinsic value, and deserving of respect. Perhaps it was primarily a political statement. But he made it freely, as representing his values as a Christian.
Myself, I’m convinced people are basically rotten; and this in tension with believing in our intrinsic value as I mentioned above. This is not a conclusion from religious doctrine, but from a modicum of self-knowledge, and just from looking at the world around me, in the news, and in history. And it’s the reason why I became a Christian in the first place.
The horse is basically good because it was never in a covenant with God which it broke, because it was never in a relationship with God that it abused, because it was never a subject who rebelled against its king, God.
God blessed only people with those things. But we screwed it up in every way possible.
The Greens are ideologicalically driven and anti-Christian, (as well as anti-Labor), in practice. It wouldn’t make sense for a labor-voting Christian to switch to them.
Labor is pluralist when it comes to faith, so I wouldn’t expect Julia Gillard to pursue any atheist agenda.
Having faith in politics15 Jul, 2010 12:00 AM
The beliefs of our new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, have attracted considerable attention and generated debate. Rather than swear on the Bible, she became the first prime minister to take an affirmation of office. She makes quite a contrast from her two predecessors, John Howard and Kevin Rudd, who were observant Anglicans.
She is a religious non-believer of Baptist heritage (that heritage, too, is somewhat unusual as the major Christian denominations have produced almost all prime ministers so far). In response to a query from an ABC interviewer who asked her specifically about her religious beliefs, she made her position very clear in a way that suggested she was prepared for the question. Her response indicated that she regards herself as a religious non-believer, best described as an atheist.
Both her position and the care and clarity with which she explained it make Gillard a little unusual when compared with the 26 men who preceded her as prime minister. But she is not that unusual. A look at the beliefs of previous Australian prime ministers suggests she is not much more unusual than Howard and Rudd. Australians, as Monash University religious affairs commentator Professor Gary Bouma described recently, subscribe generally to a laid-back ‘‘low-temperature’’ religion. In their own different ways, Howard, Rudd and Gillard have raised the temperature. Observant Christian believers like the first two may be as counter-cultural as atheists like Gillard.
Howard and Rudd had some observant, even devout, predecessors. They included the early Protestant prime ministers, Alfred Deakin, Joseph Cook and Andrew Fisher. Later, there were the Catholics, James Scullin, Joseph Lyons, Francis Forde and Ben Chifley. But only a minority of all prime ministers were observant, regular church-going Christians as distinct from merely laid-back conventional irregulars or even just nominal census-type Christians. There is a big time gap among the observant ones, from Chifley, who lost office in 1949, to Howard, who won in 1996.
The intervening years were dominated by low-temperature Christians and agnostics. Gillard’s Labor Party is the party of agnostics as well as devout Catholics. To be agnostic is acceptable within Labor; not out of the ordinary at all. In the early years, there was Billy Hughes during World War I and then John Curtin during World War II. In recent times, there have been Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke. Both Whitlam, from an observant Presbyterian family, and Hawke, whose father was a Congregational minister, left no one in any doubt that they were religious non-believers but tended to describe themselves, as Hawke did just this year when interviewed on the Andrew Denton show Elders, as agnostic rather than atheist. Agnostic is a softer, more ambiguous term than atheist. It may be more acceptable to the general community and therefore the preferred descriptor of careful politicians.
But agnosticism is certainly not restricted to Labor prime ministers. There is no tradition of public agnosticism within the Liberal Party leadership, given the party’s membership and its historic Protestant values. But some of its leaders, such as Harold Holt, are best described as agnostic, and others, such as Sir Robert Menzies, John Gorton, William McMahon and Malcolm Fraser, were low-temperature believers as prime ministers. They were mostly irregular church attenders and, while attending to the formalities, wore their religious beliefs very lightly.
Gillard provides a most useful test of the influence of religious faith on political ideologies and government policies. Much attention has been given to the ideological effects of the faith of Howard and Rudd, in particular. Commentary and scholarship have tended to jump to conclusions and to exaggerate religious influence; sometimes Howard and Rudd were even seen as a threat to secular, liberal democracy because of an alleged inclination to impose their beliefs on others. In the same vein, the prospect of Tony Abbott as prime minister has led to fears of an overly religious government, mainly because of his anti-abortion attitudes while health minister. Yet he told the Australian Christian Lobby recently that he should not be seen as a Christian politician but as a Christian in politics. He promised that any government he led would be an orthodox Coalition government.
Gillard will be watched closely by fellow secular humanists and Christian lobbyists. Her prime ministership, after 14 years of Howard and Rudd, will enable a dispassionate disentanglement by observers of personal beliefs, party ideology and political acumen.
How different will the balance be for Gillard? She will be judged on her policies rather than her personal beliefs. She may surprise and even shock observers. Her first foray into the territory where Howard and Rudd policies were often linked to their religious beliefs has been same-sex marriage. She has reaffirmed the Rudd government’s opposition to same-sex civil union ceremonies that might be seen to mimic heterosexual marriage.
This suggests that the link between prime ministerial beliefs and government and party policies is a complex one. Religion or the lack of it is just one aspect of party political ideologies, like conservatism and social democracy.
Furthermore, all political leaders are political beings first and foremost. They read the whims and wishes of the electorate and, even when otherwise inclined, they must often submerge their personal beliefs in dialogue with their front-bench colleagues. Too much was often read into Howard and Rudd’s religious beliefs. Not too much should be read into Gillard’s religious unbelief. Despite their very different views on religious belief, Gillard may turn out to be remarkably similar to Rudd.
John Warhurst is emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
Ken: Will Christian influence affect the next elections in respect that Julia Gillard PM is an atheist. Will died in the wool Laborite Christians vote against her on this account?
While the first statement is true, many/most Protestants would think that a Catholic like Abbott may as well be an atheist anyway. Cancelling each other out on that point, and leaving choice to other matters such as policy. I also find it a little hard to believe that you once voted for Labor!
Ros: Religion or the lack of it is just one aspect of party political ideologies, like conservatism and social democracy. Furthermore, all political leaders are political beings first and foremost. They read the whims and wishes of the electorate and, even when otherwise inclined, they must often submerge their personal beliefs in dialogue with their front-bench colleagues. Too much was often read into Howard and Rudd’s religious beliefs. Not too much should be read into Gillard’s religious unbelief. Despite their very different views on religious belief, Gillard may turn out to be remarkably similar to Rudd.
True but I don’t know about the last sentence. Maybe Gillard will come close to Abbott, hopefully without the latter’s inane comments.
I also find it a little hard to believe that you once voted for Labor!
i think Winston Churchill once said - “If you don’t vote Socialist when you are 20, you havn’t got a heart. But if you still vote Socialist when you are 50, you havnt got a brain.”
“If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is
not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head”—Georges
Clemenceau, Former French Prime Minister and one-time radical. (There
are many versions of this saying and many attributions of it but the
original utterance seems to have been by mid-nineteenth century French
historian and politician Francois Guizot, who said: “Not to be a
republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof
of want of head”. He was referring to the controversy over whether
France should be a republic or a monarchy.
There seems something fundamentally wrong about that kind of thinking.
Surely the head and the heart ought to be able to get together and agree on something.
(Am I thinking that with my head or heart, I wonder? (Or even both?)
Qualifying what I wrote above -
Sure, gaining wisdom with age is good,
I just object to the implied heart / brain dichotomy of that particular saying.
Recent research indicates it’s just about impossible to make sensible decisions without emotional input.
Recent research indicates it’s just about impossible to make sensible decisions without emotional input
Hi Ros,
Some folk believe that, for example, younger folk are indeed more inclined to vote ‘emotionally’ about environmental and other emotion stirring topics ( refugees and whaling are just two that immediately come to mind ) - rather than take time to do research to ascertain what the facts are.
Also, I see a difference between making a “sensible” decision and making a decision based on an emotional reaction. And that is why I see a ‘danger’ in lowering the voting age to a mere 16 years - as many on the left side of politics would desire - especially the Greens from what I have read lately.
I am certainly basing my vote on assylum policy (but then I am well up on what the facts are). I voted Democrat at the Tampa election & will vote Green at the upcoming.
I am disgusted at the turns both major parties have taken on the issue and will be pleased to see the Greens have balance of power to thwart the policies of the major party on this issue.
Be that as it may, there is actual research on the indispensible role of emotion in decision-making.
It seems, as I understand it, that emotion is needed in establishing value and in motivation, and also functions to eliminate irrelevancies.
Clarification: ‘emotion’ here does not equal ‘emotional’, as commonly understood.
A quick google of ‘emotion decision’ yields gems such as:
The neurologist Antonio Damasio,of the University of Iowa, has written two acclaimed books,the second of which,“The Feeling of What Happens”, was published in Britain last week.
He has developed a family of ideas telling us that emotion,consciousness and reason have to together to achieve competent decisions. To illustrate this, he tells the story of a patient with severe damage to a vital part of his brain.
Such people survive perfectly well - but all is not quite right. They cannot make plans, ahead, or make a coherent life for themselves. And everyone,especially their family and friends, say that they are emotionally flat, some how not all there.
This particular patient’ s combination of competence and disability is bewildering.One winter’s day the roads are very icy,so when the man arrives, Damasio asks him whether the drive was difficult.
The man gives him a dispassionate,systematic,faultless account of the journey and how to drive on ice. He mentions that he saw a woman in another car skid off and crash into a ditch. Curiously, though, he says this incident did not affect his self-confidence; he drove over the same icy patch without mishap.
In this scenario, to have been emotionless was an advantage - any normal person might have panicked, stood on the brakes, skidded and ended up in the ditch, too. The patient behaved like a computer programmed to use optimum driving techniques in all circumstances.
But the next day the disadvantages of his condition and of the absence of emotional response become clear. Damasio tries to fix the patient’s next appointment and suggests two dates a few days apart in a month’s time. The man then embarks on an interminable, beautifully argued enumeration of the pros and the cons and the maybes of the alternative days.
But the decision never comes. After half an hour, any normal person would have tossed a coin or done something - anything - to cut the process short. Not him. Finally,Damasio tells him that he should visit him on the second of the two dates.“That’s fine,” the patient says,as though there had never been any problem.
So emotional health does matter. Your computer-like brain does not operate better without anger, love or sadness. On the contrary, it seems that the emotional part of our makeup is essential to making decisions.
From my point of view (regardless of who said what, or what psychologists say) seeing Whitlam’s government back in the 70’s opened up my young eyes just how bad a Labor government can be. I voted for Gough, and realised my mistake just months afterwards.
Kevin and Julia’s government would rank right up there with Gough in the overspending category. Sure they had to spend, but why so recklessly and over what was needed? Typical Labor.
People should see that the problem wasnt Kevin Rudd, just as it wasnt Iemma or whoever led NSW Labor. The problem is a Labor party led by idiots in the backrooms. And it will always be so. How many people are sorry they voted Labor in the last NSW election?
The young and foolish are misled, and that is how Labor get into Govt every time.
(Until many of the young, like myself, wake up and change their vote next time they vote. But alas, up come a new batch of green, wet behind the ears suckers again.)
Ros, Re the Mind and/or the Heart, I would like to think that both are always involved—getting the balance right is always a problem.
The main thing IMO is what you apply the heart and mind to. The Aboriginal religion I admire because the heart and mind is applied to God’s world as it IS for all to see, believe and adore. They have stories for sure, but the stories of Dreamtime and rainbow serpents were not written down in books to be idolised.
Unfortunately “civilised” Europeans put Christian religion into books and then had the audacity to say that they were God’s words. Well they might be to, if ever the religious hieracy can stop fighting and confusing people in an attempt to run the whole world via the “word”
In contrast the world of God is there for all to see and feel, and honour the great creator..
Doug, I don’t quite follow your reasoning. General revelation such as experiencing God’s world is good, and possibly under-appreciated by evangelicals. But everyone needs Jesus if they are to be saved. To find Jesus, you need the gospel, in some form.
Ros, Sorry I don’t follow your reasoning either. All Christians love and believe the Bible. It’s just a matter of getting it into the right perspective in this critical period of the world’s existence.
Love your point re heart & mind Doug.
Ros’ point re the psychology of decision making is good although it should be noted that emotions in decision making, as she pointed out, doesn’t mean being emotional. The psychology can be reduced to: Logic builds up the basis for decision making, but an emotional impetus needs ot be applied to actually make the decision. if the emotional centres are disconnected to the logical/ reasoning centres of the brain people are perfectly capable of putting all the pro’s and cons of a decision together, but actually making the choice appears near impossible.
Re Ken’s notes on Labor. It does seem to be a Labor trait to spend. But it is also a Liberal trait to so damage basic elements of civil society that we need the relief provided Labor policy. I prefer a shift from one party to another so that both the economy and civil society stand a chance to survive. Too long with either system is a problem. The damage that the libs did after a decade in power was pretty extensive.
Not least among their attacks were the insistence that advocacy was different from service provision and that advocacy, or complaint against Govt policy could render a service defunded. That damage may take some while to fix up.
The young and foolish are misled, and that is how Labor get into Govt every time.
Yeah right!
Assuming you’re talking about under-25s or even under-30s there aren’t that many compared to the rest of the population. And not everyone has remembered to enrol to vote!
It’s the older voters that prop Labor up most; in my opinion the retirees are a much bigger factor - as those on the pension want it preserved and fear that it would be slashed under a Liberal government.
I actually know (as in regular face-to-face contact) only one of many adults above the age of 40 who votes Libs. I think Ken your anger is misdirected!
Just letting you know that Ken is not alone in his thinking about young voters and their voting trends. Most research figures that I have seen over the years tend to agree that the majority of younger voters - and there are millions - favour the left side - especially on ‘emotive’ issues.
And those research papers that I recall have a clear majority of “older” voters voting for the conservative side of politics. And the reason for that is obviously clear for those of us who recall the disastrous year under Whitlam, Hawke and Keating.
Those who recall 18% home loan interest rates and 11% unemployment under Labor have LONG memories - and will never trust any Labor government again. There is nothing like experience - and our experience is that Labor always stuffs it up. Just look at the NSW state Labor government - and the many, many failings of the past 2 1/2 years of Federal Labor.
I guess by now you’ve figured out how I’ll be voting. Also, I have yet to find anyone who will be voting Labor - and I talk to lots of people.
[null]Abuse victim 'tried to kill warden'The West Australian[{}]“L” said he had been brought up in a Christian family, but after being sent to the Anglican hostel, he “saw the hypocrisy of the church” and had no faith since then. Now aged 52, he also told the inquiry he had been an advanced “A student” in his early ...
[null]Jean Pakter Dies at 101; Women's Health AdvocateNew York Times[{}]Abortion was still illegal during Dr. Pakter's early years in public health, and she had the task of compiling reports about the commerce in abortion. These reports provided some of the few reliable estimates in the country about the number of women ...
[null]Is the Church Becoming Less Catholic?New York Times[{}]That said, there is more to the Catholic Church's position on abortion than Maureen Dowd cares to acknowledge. The church views abortion as the murder of innocents and thus as an absolute evil, so “absolute intolerance” is not an inappropriate response ...
[null]Does It Mean Anything that a Record Low Are 'Pro-Choice'?New York Times (blog)[{}]Asked to pick one of the two labels applied to the abortion debate, a full 50 percent said they were pro-life, whereas only 41 percent said they were pro-choice, down from the previous low of 42 percent recorded in May of 2009. Republicans are the most ...
RSS Feed