Abbott: the modern day radical prophet
One of the more interesting but somewhat unnecessary and distracting battles that will occur in the lead up to the federal election is the battle of the christian vote. Kevin Rudd has maintained for a long time that he is a strong christian and even a 'christian socialist'. He seems to have taken it upon himself to try and wrestle the christian vote away from the conservatives.
Well let the battle begin with this upcoming response from Tony Abbott reported by the Weekend Australian. In an upcoming speech Tony Abbott says the following:
Oh and another quote from Abbott:
Abbott seems to be considering himself a prophet of some kind if he is trying to rework the teachings of Jesus and God in this modern age. If so, Abbott must be considered a radical one because he has gone against the teachings of even his own church (the Catholic church criticised the IR laws).
Do us all a favour Rudd and Abbott, leave religion out of politics. It is a distraction from us all independently making informed decisions about your stances on issues.
Well let the battle begin with this upcoming response from Tony Abbott reported by the Weekend Australian. In an upcoming speech Tony Abbott says the following:
Reluctantly perhaps, a Christian could conclude that sending extra troops to Iraq, for instance, might make more sense than leaving the sectarians to their own murderous devices.Correct me if I am wrong Tony but I don't ever seem to remember in any part of the bible it said that Jesus supported Jewish troops against Romans. I always thought that Jesus was a passivist in the most extreme.
Oh and another quote from Abbott:
From a Christian perspective, indeed, from a commonsense one, the test of fairness should not be whether workplace conditions are set by unions, industrial commissions or contract, but whether they produce more jobs, higher pay and fewer strikes.Well I always thought it was a stretch that Rudd link christian values to industrial relations. However, Abbott's quote here is utter nonsense let alone commonsense or even christian. My impression of Jesus' teachings is that it is primarily about concern for the welfare of all humans, to be treated with dignity irrespective of their wealth or job.
Abbott seems to be considering himself a prophet of some kind if he is trying to rework the teachings of Jesus and God in this modern age. If so, Abbott must be considered a radical one because he has gone against the teachings of even his own church (the Catholic church criticised the IR laws).
Do us all a favour Rudd and Abbott, leave religion out of politics. It is a distraction from us all independently making informed decisions about your stances on issues.
posted by Joel MacRae @ 9:49 am
8 comments
8 Comments:
I am of the staunch view that religion and politics should never mix.The abortion drug debate a while ago cemented that enormously for me. I'm not saying anything against religion, just that personal beliefs need to be kept sidelined in certain circumstances. One cannot force their views onto others, simply because it is what they perceive as right.
It will be interesting to see how Rudd handles things in his tussle for the Christian vote.
As good as it sounds on the surface, I don't think it's reasonable to expect religion and politics to remain completely separate. Though we assign them different labels, they're not discrete and disparate entities.
I think there will always remain a place within our polity for religiously informed debate. That's a good thing; it adds to our democratic society.
That said, I think it is reasonable that we should demand such things as 'transparency' and 'tolerance' in any debate, although the interpretation of these terms can sometimes be problematic.
Perhaps I was slightly harsh in my first comment. I realise that it is too simplistic to expect that religion and politics to be kept isolated.
I am simply speaking from my own experiences which have often found religion being tainted by a certain amount of intolerance (this of course depends on the person and on the faith) especially when it comes to other faiths.
I find it amusing that it is fine that we have Christian mp's, but if Rudd or Abbott were Muslim, regardless of the increasingly infamous reputation Muslims have received since the Cronulla riots, would they have gotten to where they are now?
Differences are something to be celebrated, in all forms. I simply wished to convey that understanding of other opinions should not be lost in context.
As a member of both the Rationalist Society and the Humanist Society, I certainly agree that Australia should remain, or become (depending on your p.o.v.), secular and pluralist.
I’m not calling for a secular revolution or anything. But I think we could start to do away with many of the religious symbols extant in the Govt. I’m thinking mostly of the ones that favour one religion or ‘type’ of religious belief over another. For instance, The Lord’s Prayer should be dropped in favour of either nothing or a generic moment of observance. And John Howard should stop saying that Christianity is the greatest force of good in this country. They might just sound like silly symbols, but there are still people out there who think that ‘we’ are Christians and ‘they’ aren’t and, through immigration, ‘we’ are sort of letting ‘them’ come and live in ‘our’ land. I think some of the Christian rhetoric and symbolism plays a part in perpetuating this unfortunate view.
The point you make about Christian MPs vs MPs of other faiths certainly has some validity. It’d be nice if we could do away with some of these labels, since they’re often inaccurate indicators of a person’s political beliefs. Maybe the average Aussie Joe has more in common, politically, with Jan the Muslim than he does with John the Christian, but unfortunately the labels do, as you say, affect how we vote and therefore also the ultimate success of any political aspirant.
C’mon Joel, tell us you’re a Christian…
Perhaps I take a more critical approach when it comes to religion in politics. Whenever i see a church make politically motivated statements in the media I get disappointed and annoyed.
What is even more disappointing is when politicians dirty themselves and the religion when they deliberately use religion to gain votes. Rudd and Abbott are making a mistake by targeting the "Christian vote" and framing their policies in terms of Christian values.
You are right ilWade in that religion plays a part in helping to form individuals moral stances on the world. This then translates to their choices at the ballot box. I guess this more indirect way of informing individuals is acceptable.
However, i believe a line has been crossed. To overtly state that a policy is "christian", whether it is a politician or a church representative, is a blurring of the state-religion divide that is totally unacceptable to me.
Why, you may ask? It is because it implies the sanctioning of a certain church, perhaps favouring it over another form of religious belief. This is not the role of Government.
lol ilwade, as you would probably guess, i refuse to answer a question regarding what my religious beliefs are. I find it irrelevant. I would say the same for any journalist in the future.
Good point, Joel, about describing a specific policy as 'Christian'. I guess this is where it gets tricky.
Do you think it depends on the audience?
For instance, if Rudd's going for a news grab on channel 7, then it seems wrong to be talking about 'Christian' policies.
On the other hand, if he's writing an essay for, say, 'The Monthly', then it doesn't seem so bad to develop an argument that says one party's policies are more compatible with a particular doctrine than those of another party.
Surely context plays a role here. Guys like Tanner and Rudd make a good contribution to the public debate, so I'd certainly like to see them continue, even if their views are inherently partisan and (at least in Rudd's case) Christian-inspired.
And on top of all that, it's obvious that the popular media plays a large role here, since they (largely) dictate what filters through to the politically indifferent. People who don't follow politics can easily be led astray by a few choice news grabs.
Sigh.
ilwade,
Making any link in the public sphere between a parties link and a certain set of religious beliefs is unacceptable to me. Thats not to say they must ignore their religious belief when forming policy (thats impossible), and it shouldn't be the only thing informing their beliefs.
Its a fine line I know but its not their responsibility to convince us that their policy alligns with a religious faith. Thats for the voter to decide individually and independently.
Post a Comment
<< Home