The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Silly sceptics thrive on bias > Comments

Silly sceptics thrive on bias : Comments

By Tony Abbott, published 29/8/2006

The media has double standards when it comes to Christianity and politics.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Separation of church and state... a quote from an early American constitution writer, which is found not in their constitution nor ours.

We do have a parliament which isn't allowed to tell us which religion to follow or not follow. We also have a preamble to our constitution stating we are "humbly relying on the blessings of almighty God".

Politics are your opinions about something. if you are religious, its likely your religion will have some influence on your opinions and thus your politics. Considering about 15% of Australians claim to follow no religion, that leaves the vast majority that may have allowed their religious point of view to influence their political point of view. Is this wrong? I don't think so. No more than allowing your socioeconomic status to influence your political views or anything else.

As has been stated, we live in a democracy, and we can vote out our MPs based on their voting record any time we like.

I do not think that Christians influencing parliament is a bad thing anymore than radical atheists influencing parliament. We all have a right to try and influence from each of our points of view, regardless of what originally started them off. It's called democracy.

However, when arguing in parliament, we should try and make it a level playing field. If you believe abortion is wrong because "[God] knit me together in my mother's womb" (the Bible), that's all well and good, and about 75% of Australians may or may not agree with that verse. But it doesn't mean you can argue it on that basis alone. If you can get a good human ethic but then argue it from a non-religious point of view, that's when it becomes politics.

A Christian who happens to vote against RU486, embryonic stem cell research, etc. is not a threat to secular democracy, just because they happen to be a Christian. Especially if they're voting based on their constituents views.
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 11:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the Howard Government's inception they have been secretive and have sought to try to discredit any sources of information that they do not like. They have spent tax payers money on trying to create myths which are in their favour. For example, the multi-million dollar ad campaign in relation to "Work Choices". Their ad campaign was not believed; so now the new strategy is to try and take their critics up a blind alley. That is, they have focussed on what they state is a lack of dismissals; but that is only part of the story. The "Work Choices" legislation has allowed employers to choose to provide their workers with less pay and fewer benefits.

Another myth they have tried to create is in relation to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; any information that went against there NOT having been weapons of mass destruction was squashed. The Federal Government had been told about information that discounted WMD as indicated in The Sydney Morning Herald today http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/man-of-integrity-who-spoke-his-mind/2006/08/30/1156816970612.html

To claim that the media is biased perhaps the Federal Government and Mr Abbott need to set an example about intellectual curiosity and the integrity to accept information that does not fit their views.

Anybody who opposes the of conservative politicians views are seen to be "left wing"; as though properly held views can be so easily discounted. I think Jesus would be seen as a "left winger" if he were to live in our age; he sought to help the less fortunate; not abuse them as the current Federal Government does.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 31 August 2006 8:01:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the more enduring myths about our democracy goes like this:

>>If the public does not like the voting record of a politician, they can simply vote for someone else at the next election<< (matt@righthinker.com)

>>As has been stated, we live in a democracy, and we can vote out our MPs based on their voting record any time we like.<< (YngNLuvnIt)

I personally have absolutely no say in whether Mr Abbott is elected, because he answers to a few thousand silvertails living between Mosman and Dee Why.

We are forced to rely on the party system to translate our votes into action, via a form of representative democracy that doesn't even insist that the elected members keep their promises.

So I can vote on someone's promises or on their historic voting record, but their is no guarantee that my wishes as expressed at the ballot box will be translated into action.

"Never ever", anyone? "Core promises"?

"The problem is, it doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician gets elected."
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 31 August 2006 8:29:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The press have every right to be skeptical and questioning about
Catholic politicians.

The Catholic Church is a VERY political religion and if we
examine the huge worldwide Vatican spin machine, it
has a well worn track record of trying to influence
politicians and people in power, to enforce its religious
agenda on the rest of us. Politicians have a duty to all
of us, religion should be a lifestyle choice and no more.

This url gives a few details of the enormity of that spin
machine, even in Europe. Few are aware of it, its generally
all hush hush stuff.

http://www.population-security.org/cffc-97-02.htm
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 31 August 2006 11:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Wabbott set up a $100,000 anti-One Nation fund in 1998 called Australians for Honest Politics but then promptly lied about it to everyone.

Here is a simpleton full of hypocritical behaviour. (...... not that one would have supported One Nation anyway but what does this say about his religious beliefs?)
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 31 August 2006 11:57:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point is that Tony Abbott is making decisions affecting others on the basis of his faith.

Abortion, contraception pills, stem cell research can ultimately affect life or death situations and many Judeo-Christian beliefs have different views on these than the Catholic Church, not to mention Buddhists Hindus and non-believers.

If Tony Abbott cannot make these decisions on the basis of general values he should resign his portfolio and choose one in which his religious bias does not play a part.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 31 August 2006 8:59:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy