For those that don't read ZenTiger's satire pieces, it may have escaped your attention that he's just blogged on a very serious piece of news from Australia.
Recently, Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell said that there would be consequences for Catholic politicians voting for stem cell research. The Greens have taken this to mean that the Archbishop is interfering in the political process, so have launched an investigation into whether on not his comments were a contempt of parliament. If found guilty, it could result in the head of the Catholic Church in Australia being imprisoned for up to 25 years.
If it got that far, it would not be a good look for Australia, given that Pope is visiting next year for World Youth Day being held in Sydney and being organised by the Archbishop's archdiocese.
Personally, I think that the idea that a person's religion might actually have a bearing on how they vote is a scary, scary proposition for people like the Greens. Religious views on the environment and the world ending are fine, but religious views on the sanctity of life? Especially when there are Greens in the world that are putting forth proposals that couples ought to limited to two children only? No, that sort of opinion must be quashed. And quashed good.
Related Link: Cardinal Pell defends stem cell warning
Recently, Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell said that there would be consequences for Catholic politicians voting for stem cell research. The Greens have taken this to mean that the Archbishop is interfering in the political process, so have launched an investigation into whether on not his comments were a contempt of parliament. If found guilty, it could result in the head of the Catholic Church in Australia being imprisoned for up to 25 years.
If it got that far, it would not be a good look for Australia, given that Pope is visiting next year for World Youth Day being held in Sydney and being organised by the Archbishop's archdiocese.
Personally, I think that the idea that a person's religion might actually have a bearing on how they vote is a scary, scary proposition for people like the Greens. Religious views on the environment and the world ending are fine, but religious views on the sanctity of life? Especially when there are Greens in the world that are putting forth proposals that couples ought to limited to two children only? No, that sort of opinion must be quashed. And quashed good.
Related Link: Cardinal Pell defends stem cell warning
Lucy, there is a very longstanding tradition in Australia's parliamentary system whereby the Church is rendered separate from the State. We call it 'the separation of Church and State'.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you don't have it in NZ, but I'd be surprised to hear that since it's fairly well accepted as a fundamental pre-requisite for a free and fair democracy.
The idea behind it is that, whilst all politicians are free to participate in whatever religious belief they wish, those personal beliefs should never directly interfere with their obligation to represent the people. It is, after all, fundamentally undemocratic for a meber of parliament to make legislative decisions based on their personal religious beliefs (although I'm sure it happens quite often).
Pell stepped over the line not by stating his opinion, but by threatening parliamentarians with religious consequences if they did not vote the way he wanted them to. He was clearly using religion to blackmail members of parliament.
You wouldn't put up with this kind of threatening behaviour from a Mufti to Muslim members of parliament, so why do you condone it in Pell's case?
Mondo,
ReplyDeleteBefore I answer your question, answer me this. Would be saying exactly the same things as above if the vote had been for the complete extermination of ... say, all disabled people?
ALso, Mondo, read Ian WIshart's book Eve's Bite. You will find out that this church and state seperation stuff is pretty much a crock - it' doesn't mean what you think it means.
ReplyDeleteInteresting counter.
ReplyDeleteI would have to admit that no, I'd be very unlikley to complain if Pell made similar threats over a proposal to exterminate the disabled.
My position in such a hypothetical, however, would be based on emotion rather than a genuine attempt to uphold the integrity of our parliamentary system. That is, I guess I would be willing to betray the principles of democracy if I believed stongly enough that the issue at hand was that important.
But make no mistake Lucy - I would still be betraying the principles of democracy.
Ultimately, the fervour with which someone holds to a particular morality can only ever be an explanation for illegal behaviour - not a defence of that behaviour.
Are you willing to admit that Pell is not being penalised for expressing his views, or for being Christian, but rather for directly attempting to interfere in the operation of Parliament?
The 'consequences' Pell was talking about probably have nothing to do with anything political. There are always consequences when someone sins and breaks the law of God; you may not always see it, but there is - perhaps a general lowering of moral standards that affects the whole country. Perhaps he meant spiritual, or that they were in danger of being excommunicated..
ReplyDeleteps, there is a good article here THE POLITICAL CHRISTIAN - Legislating Christian Morality which isn't exactly what we're talking about but it's very very good.
Mondo;
ReplyDeleteI support the separation of Church and State, in fact it is vital.
(1)When the State is doing something wrong the Church can and do speek out loudly against it. As such it can act as a check of sorts against tyranny.
(2) When someone stands for Parliament you evaluate their suitability as a candidaye based on who they are past accomplishments etc and include their religious or lack thereof adherence.
Alas we have MMP but A Pro life Catholic MP would be attractive to me all other things being equal because they are likely to support policies I support and oppose those I oppose.
In other words a Pro Life Catholic (I'm not Catholic btw) better represents me than an athiest feminist would.
And that is how democracy is supposed to work. You choose someone to represent your views in Parliament.
Lucyna;
ReplyDeleteI'm such a sinner, I have twice as many kids as I should it seems.
With any luck they will all do the same or better in turn.
Maybe we can breed the greens out of existance.
The purpose of separating church from state is also (if not primarily) to protect people's religion being persecuted by the state.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the State deserves all sorts of criticism and vigorous debate over the laws it will pass, because it expects those laws to be upheld.
If they want to pass laws allowing euthanasia, capital punishment, late term abortion, abortion, solitary confinement as punishments etc then they should expect vigorous debate.
If a bunch of Buddhist monks wants to expel one of their order for killing people, then so be it. That's not a threat, it is a consequence. As fdar as I can see, same deal with the Catholic issue here.
It's the Green's threats I take far more seriously as an affront to our democratic system that Cardinal Pells. They disgust me.
Andrei, you make a good argument, but I think there's a difference between:
ReplyDelete1.) An electorate voting for a particular representative based on their religious views, and that representative then voting in Parliament in accordance with those views (which is perfectly fine within a democracy), and
2.) George Pell attempting to threaten NSW Parliamentary representatives, who are not his representatives and who have no connection with him at all (apart from being Catholic), into voting in accordance with his wishes.
In essence, he was instructing elected Australian officials on how he, as their spiritual leader, wanted them to vote - and then he took it a step further by actually threatening religious consequences if they didn't do what he wanted. This is an unnacceptable transgression of the Church into State affairs, and needs to be investigated.
After all, as I keep pointing out, not one of you would object if this same treatment was being applied to a Mufti.
An erroneous assertion Mondo Rock. I'm not even Catholic.
ReplyDeleteZentiger - can you explain?
ReplyDeleteI've not addressed the issue of your religion in any of my posts, in fact I've not addressed you in any of my posts, and thus fail to see how your beliefs are relevant to the argument I've made.
I don't think you can get around the bottom line.. that a human embryo that will grow into a human being (barring accident or deliberate action) is destroyed by such stem cell research. As we know from test tube babies, human life is present once the sperm fuses with the egg.
ReplyDeleteThus such research kills humans, and then becomes a matter for each individual's conscience as to right or wrong.
Personally I couldn't support such research without more compelling reasons than have been offered.
So I'm on Pell's side, and in a nice irony, the vast majority of Muslims.
JC
But JC - surely you can accept that the 'side you're on', while certainly justified in terms of your personal views, is irrelevant to the question of whether there's been a breach of the separation of Church and State by Pell?
ReplyDeleteI mean, he either breached it or he didn't. Whether you agree with the argument he was making at the time is surely irrelevant to this question.
Mondo,
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for answering my question. It gives me a better idea of where you stand in order to better answer the main questions.
Next, I need to point out that the separation of the Church and State was originally designed to protect the Church from the State - not the other way around. The State has always had more power, and needs to be restrained in as many ways as possible from using that power.
In the 1930's, every Catholic Church's Priest read out from the pulpit an encyclical denouncing Hitler. In retaliation, he imprisoned over 1000 Priests. Many were never seen again. That is not all the Catholic Church did (and I won’t get into it all), yet now there are still people who believe the Catholic Church didn’t do enough to stop Hitler and the massive loss of life directly attributed to the Nazis in his racial cleansing campaigns.
When it comes down to it, people expect the Church to not only speak up for the sanctity of life, but to actively defend it.
It seems from your previous reply to me, that you do not believe the sanctity of life is at issue here, so democracy is more important. Yet, what it the point of democracy if it does not protect the weakest members of society? What is there to defend any more?
The point here is that anyone who votes for stem cell research on human embryos has crossed the line. A line that needs to be defended, whether you recognise it or not.
Mondo, I posted twice on this issue, and commented on this thread. Shortly after my comment you said
ReplyDelete"After all, as I keep pointing out, not one of you would object if this same treatment was being applied to a Mufti."
It seems to me I had managed to worm my way into the list of people on your list of "not one of you".
There will be a breech if the Greens throw Pell into jail for 25 years.
ReplyDeleteThey might decide any Green voter that threatens not to vote for them is threatening them. That would be the only possible interpretation, and 25 years in jail (without the right to vote) would be a fair punishment I think.
The point here is that anyone who votes for stem cell research on human embryos has crossed the line. A line that needs to be defended, whether you recognise it or not.
ReplyDeleteThis, Lucy, is a statement endorsing anarchy. You are quite explicitly arguing that the law should not apply to people whose morality requires them to break it.
You guys are quite clearly passionate in your beliefs about the issue of stem cell research. That's great to see, however this passion does not give any of you, including Pell, the right to break the law to pusue your agenda. It particularly doesn't give you the right to attempt to subvert democratic process simply to get your own way.
Pell has potentially broken Australian law by attempting to unduly influence a Parliamentary outcome. He is being investigated for it by an independant Parliamentary panel (not the Greens, as you imply in your article). If it is found that he has broken it he will be convicted and sentenced. This is the way it should be - the way any society based on law and order should be.
Whether you agree with his agenda or not is irrelevant.
Mondo,
ReplyDeleteIf you are a member of certain organisations, such as a political party, you undertake to follow the party line.
If, when in Govt, you deliberately cross the party line, you can be threatened with expulsion, and that happens often enough in democracies.
The same can happen in the Womens Division of the Murray and Upper Murrumbidgee Knitting Circle as well. If their MP member tries to drop a knit instead of a purl in Parliament the Circle is perfectly entitled to threaten expulsion or denial of cups of tea at the Circle for such heresy.
In a democracy, Pell has the same rights if he has the authority of his organisation.
JC
"Pell has potentially broken Australian law by attempting to unduly influence a Parliamentary outcome. "
ReplyDeleteFair go! All kinds of lobby groups, union organisations and businesses do exactly that every day of the year.
If Pell called himself "the Union of Concerned Socialist Cell Conservationists" he'd be quite ok by the greens.
Mondo Ro (Can I call you that? Typing in the extra two letters takes a bit of extra effort, and you may not mind if I drop them)
ReplyDeleteThe law is the law you say.
Well, the RC Church has a whole list of club rules that mean instant and automatic excommunication. Those rules existed well before this little flare up with the Greens (who instigated the lynch mob, and tried to "influence" the makeup of the privileges committee to ensure they got the outcome they desired. - And don't you just hate the way MP's try to use their power to influence committees and laws and things to get the outcome they desire?)
So, if you are brought up your whole life as an RC and you forget to check out the 10 things that get you automatically excommunicated, wouldn't it be helpful if the Cardinal stepped in and reminded you that assisting in, or being an accomplice to abortion is grounds for automatic ex-communication, you might actually be pretty thankful, if you took the whole RC thing seriously.
A bit like a traffic cop pulling you over and reminding you that if you drink and drive you are an idiot. Not a threat, a statement of fact. Could be construed as a threat if he adds that the law might come down on you if you go ahead and do it, but locking up the cop for making that threat isn't the way to handle it.
Drink. Drive. Suffer the consequences. It is still your choice though.
And as far as I can tell, Pell didn't threaten excommunication before you get too excited.
KG said: Fair go! All kinds of lobby groups, union organisations and businesses do exactly that every day of the year.
ReplyDeleteWell then you have nothing to worry about in respect of the Parliamentary enquiry. If what Pell has done is the equivalent of lobbying then he will almost certainly be cleared.
Zentig - I don't disagree that the Catholic Church should be able to enforce its club rules. That is its prerogative. However, as I have already argued, the Church's right to self determination does not override it's obligation to abide by the law.
All that has happened is that a Parliamentary enquiry has been asked to investigate whether Pell's statements constitute a threat, and therefore whether he has broken the law. If he has, then he will be punished - not by the Greens (as you wrongly imply above), but by the NSW criminal justice system.
The Greens, strangely enough, do not have the authority to unilaterally investigate or jail people in this country. They have only made a complaint to the watchdog - which is an independent body. If he is found guilty it will not be 'by the Greens' - it will be by our courts.
I think I correctly imply that the Greens are doing their best to get Pell jailed.
ReplyDeleteI also pointed out how they tried to influence the body that will find him innocent or guilty (they tried to get three of the "judges" removed). Agree or disagree?
I believe they have also suggested throwing him into a pond to see if he floats.
I might be wrong on the last point though.
Indeed they have Zentiger.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I agree that they are absolute zealots in their pursuit of what they consider to be a moral imperative (i.e. the use of embryonic stem cells), the difference between their pursuit and Pell's pursuit, is that they have operated wholly within the law.
Could be that Pell has too, mind you, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the committe says.
"Well then you have nothing to worry about in respect of the Parliamentary enquiry. If what Pell has done is the equivalent of lobbying then he will almost certainly be cleared."
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that what Cardinal Pell did was the equivalent of lobbying.
YOU said he "has potentially broken Australian law by attempting to unduly influence a Parliamentary outcome."
And my answer to that was that lobby groups, union organizations and businesses do that every day of the year.
"That" being attempting to unduly influence a parliamentary outcome. So I wasn't talking about lobbying in the sense you mean.
Besides, if it's a matter of all he has done is lobbying he will almost certainly be cleared you're missing the point--if all he has done is lobbying, then why aren't the other groups mentioned being attacked by the greens?
You can't have it both ways.
Mondo,
ReplyDeletejust looking at it from a different perspective I would argue that Pell is not "interfering with the operation of Parliament."
Look at this scenario: the politicians ignore Pell, and vote how they want to. The law is passed, and life goes on. There is no effect on their position as MPs in Parliament, and certianly no ongoing consequences of Parliaments operation. Outside of Parliament, for those MPs who belong to the Catholic church, they may well (I'm not 100% sure) be excummuncated. That affects them in their capacity as a private person, but certainly not in their capacity as an MP.
Now, if Pell threatened to arrange the murder of a Catholic (or any) politician, then that is wrong, and is threatening the operation of Parliament and also importantly, the MPs in it.
This is what free speech is all about: anybody and everybody expressing their views. People can listen to what the other person freely says, and act according to their own free will.
Looking at it another way, a person, even an MP, is highly capable of voting how he/she wants to, believe it or not. As an exaple, if you were a friend of mine, and you instigated a course of action that I could not agree with, and then I said that I would no longer allow you to visit me in my house (if you went ahead), then you are free to make your own decision. It depends to you how important the relationship with me is, and how important the issue is. There are hard decisions in life, and they all have consequences; no-one is exempt (least of all MPs) from that. It's part of being human.
Yeah - it's hard to see how excommunication from the Church and the subsequent eternity of torture in the depths of hell could be interpreted as a threat . . .
ReplyDelete"The law is passed, and life goes on."
ReplyDeleteBut it doesn't - that's the whole point!
So jail him. Bring it on. See where that gets the greens.
ReplyDelete--The biggest whack on the snout they have ever seen.
The average Oz has had it up to the ears with liberal creeps. Our Australian cousins have a pugnaciousness that is totally lacking in this gutless dump. Bring it on, Greens, bring it on.
Lets have you.
KG said: All kinds of lobby groups, union organisations and businesses do exactly that every day of the year.
ReplyDeleteThen claims: I didn't say that what Cardinal Pell did was the equivalent of lobbying.
No KG, of course you didn't. You just said they were exactly the same. If you can't be honest about your own argument then I see no reason why I should continue to engage you in debate.
Matthew - you make an interesting case, but let me throw your hypothetical back at you. What if I was an MP and you, as a personal friend of mine, decided to threaten that you would no longer allow me to visit your house if I voted a certian way in relation to upcoming legislation.
I could not, as a concientious (sp?) parliamentarian, succumb to your wishes. I have a duty to represent all the people in my electorate and I cannot allow my political position to be dictated to me by a personal friend. It would be a simple decision - I would tell you that I was sorry you felt that way but that I had a larger commitment to the people of Australia and I owed it to them to base my decision on more than just my personal relationship with you.
I doubt anyone here would disagree that this would be the right thing for me to do.
But what if, instead of simply threatening to expel me from your house, you instead threatened to kill me if I didn't vote the way you wanted? Surely you would agree that this 'threat' levelled by you ceases to be part of the normal cut and thrust of politics, and transgresses into the realm of contempt of Parliament. That is, it well and truly steps over the line of acceptabel democratic behaviour.
I'm not saying that what Pell did is the equivalent of threatening to kill someone. I'm not even arguing that he definitely stepped over 'the line' (although in my personal opinion he did) - I am only arguing that it is entirely appropriate that his comments are reviewed by an independent committe to determine whether that line was crossed.
KG said: All kinds of lobby groups, union organisations and businesses do exactly that every day of the year.
ReplyDeleteThen claims: I didn't say that what Cardinal Pell did was the equivalent of lobbying.
No KG, of course you didn't. You just said they were exactly the same. If you can't be honest about your own argument then I see no reason why I should continue to engage you in debate.
Matthew - you make an interesting case, but let me throw your hypothetical back at you. What if I was an MP and you, as a personal friend of mine, decided to threaten that you would no longer allow me to visit your house if I voted a certian way in relation to upcoming legislation.
I could not, as a concientious (sp?) parliamentarian, succumb to your wishes. I have a duty to represent all the people in my electorate and I cannot allow my political position to be dictated to me by a personal friend. It would be a simple decision - I would tell you that I was sorry you felt that way but that I had a larger commitment to the people of Australia and I owed it to them to base my decision on more than just my personal relationship with you.
I doubt anyone here would disagree that this would be the right thing for me to do.
But what if, instead of simply threatening to expel me from your house, you instead threatened to kill me if I didn't vote the way you wanted? Surely you would agree that this 'threat' levelled by you ceases to be part of the normal cut and thrust of politics, and transgresses into the realm of contempt of Parliament. That is, it well and truly steps over the line of acceptabel democratic behaviour.
I'm not saying that what Pell did is the equivalent of threatening to kill someone. I'm not even arguing that he definitely stepped over 'the line' (although in my personal opinion he did) - I am only arguing that it is entirely appropriate that his comments are reviewed by an independent committe to determine whether that line was crossed.
Yeah - it's hard to see how excommunication from the Church and the subsequent eternity of torture in the depths of hell could be interpreted as a threat . . .
ReplyDeleteNot that Pell actually threatened excommunication, but don't let that stop you.
It's also hard to see how destroying human life is going to stop you from going to hell if you do not truly repent. That is to say, if you are going to believe in hell, then it follows you should believe that the way to get their may indeed be by supporting abortion and somewhat more abstractly, stem cell research.
It's also hard to see how destroying human life is going to stop you from going to hell if you do not truly repent. That is to say, if you are going to believe in hell, then it follows you should believe that the way to get their may indeed be by supporting abortion and somewhat more abstractly, stem cell research.
ReplyDeleteNow there's an argument I can get behind. If you identify as a Catholic, then surely you have to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you simply pick and choose the teachings that you want to follow then you are no longer Catholic - you're your own religion.
I firmly agree that the Catholic MPs who voted in favour of the stem-cell research have betrayed their nominated religion. Excommunicating them for it would seem like a fair response, except for the undemocratic impact that would have on the MPs future voting patterns.
Of course the problem for the Catholic Church in all this is that if they create a political environment in which Catholic MPs are forced to tow the Church line there will be very few Australians willing to vote for those MPs.
Why vote for a representative whose first loyalty is always going to be to his personal God?
Aren't approximately 25% of Australians Catholic? It could also be argued that if Catholic politicians did tow the Church line, that the group they represented could have quite a bit of political power. Maybe that's what the Greens are worried about.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this conversation is hypothetical, as Cardinal Pell has stressed that he did not threaten excommunication.
ReplyDeleteI would consider voting for a person of any religion if he or she could demonstrate consistent integrity.
In fact, it adds some predictability to the way I could expect my MP to act. Such a person would be less likely to bow in to special interest groups, bribes and do despicable things like weight the composition of investigatory committees to arrive at the outcome they desired.
Aren't approximately 25% of Australians Catholic?
ReplyDeleteMaybe - but how many of them do you think subscribe to Pell's version of Catholicism?
Clearly not the 'Catholic' MPs, eh?
Mondo,
ReplyDeleteyes I accept the hypotheticals being applied to me too.
"I'm not saying that what Pell did is the equivalent of threatening to kill someone. I'm not even arguing that he definitely stepped over 'the line' (although in my personal opinion he did) - I am only arguing that it is entirely appropriate that his comments are reviewed by an independent committe to determine whether that line was crossed."
Two things. It appears that there is some controversy around the makeup of the committee. Secondly, you are entitled to your personal opinion. But the issue here is you have to debate and show that your personal position is correct to others. It appears now that your opinion is a "line" that has been crossed by Pell, and it should be investigated. For me, I can't engage with "a line" in the context of an MP as it is too indeterminate. Conversely, I gave an argument based around the powers an MP has are distinct from the powers they have as private individuals. This immediately separates the "line" (that Pell may have put down) that will affect their private life, and the "line" that will affect their role as an MP. There is no "line" in their role as an MP - Pell's comments wont affect their position as an MP at all. In fact you just demonstrated yourself that you would not be affected by the first ultimatum (and the second, which Pell has not done, and which I think is wrong, would need to be dealt with accordingly) so therefore your private life is affected, and your role as an MP isn't.
Anonymous,
of course I agree with you that "life doesn't go on", but I was making that statement in a different context - the context being that Pell's comments wont affect the role or ability of an MP (in a functional way) after they vote in a way that he disagress with.