I can see both sides here, but ultimately I fall on the side of Jennifer Wilson in this somewhat ugly debate.

I don't think anybody has a responsibility to disclose his/her religious beliefs when expressing an opinion or lobbying for something. As many have already said, arguments should be judged based on their justification rather than on the religious attitudes of those who present them. Our opposition leader, Tony Abbott, serves to illustrate this point. He openly professes his Catholic faith and, when opponents have difficulty countering his arguments, they just call him the "Mad Monk" and move on as if that served as sufficient rebuttal. Many non-Catholics may share his set of values; many Catholics may disagree with him. To his credit, but also often to his detriment, he makes their origins clear. I think rebuttal on the grounds of religion says more about the opponent than about Abbott.

In Reist's case, however, it seems that she likes to drop the occasional veiled comment about her religious beliefs, and links those comments back to her broader arguments. Whether she argues because of, or in spite of, her religion is irrelevant: she appears to acknowledge a connection. Then, like a teenager seeking an air of mystique, she backtracks and refuses to answer any questions about the topic. In doing so, she does herself no favours. Either her arguments are reasoned and in keeping with her faith, they are reasoned and contradict her faith or they are unreasoned and in keeping with her faith. She does seem to have something to hide. I can see where the Streisand effect comes into this: she asks us not to talk about it, so we do.

<"The right of someone to follow their conscience is not dependent on whether they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter how batty someone is, if they are convinced of the immorality of something then that must be respected."
Posted by Mishka Gora, Saturday, 18 February 2012 2:17:50 PM"

Thanks for highlighting that quote, McReal, it illustrates another bugbear of mine; the whole notion of human "rights". Human rights were rhetorically conjured up and are vested, by humans, in the human "capacity" for fulfilment and suffering and not in natural law.

By your logic, Mishka, as stated above, Hitler's morality must be respected. That is nonsense!
If someone is going to set-up as a public intellectual, or arbiter of morality, or life and death, the onus is on them to give a full account of their reasoning. I'm not interested in MTR's or anybody else's convictions. A computer makes more sense!

Here you go Squeers.

It's interesting that you should raise the issue of Human Rights. It was a central plank of MTR's lawyer's second letter to Jennifer Wilson.

http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/02/07/the-second-letter-tankard-reist-claims-human-rights-abuse/

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
If you wanted to decrease the rate of abortions, you could probably significantly decrease the rates overnight. It does seem too many immigrants are using abortion as a system of contraception, as occurs in their own country, and if they used contraception, the rates of abortion would significantly decrease.

But the ghastly practice of abortion is central to feminism, and the non-human practice of IVF has also become central to feminism, so we can’t discuss either, or find better or more progressive ways of living, without abortion or IVF.

Otokonoko
You are somewhat correct I think.
MTR doesn’t have to disclose or talk about her religion, or be forced or pressured to. It is illegal to do so under the Anti-discrimination Act, but she can talk about it if she wants and when she wants.

I personally would not want to be forced into a position where I was interrogated by a feminist about my religion or anything else.

A truly fascinating thread, and so many side arguments too!
I wish I hadn't been away from OLO so long this time :)

I tend to agree more with Jennifer's views on the subject of Reist's views.
Reist can't expect to have books, web-sites, tweets and blogs out there in the public sphere extolling the same moral views and values as Christians on subjects such as abortion, cloning, surrogacy, euthanasia and sexuality, and not expect others to ask her about her religious views.

Although I applaud many of Reists' views on women's rights, I feel she is being a little 'precious' in her denial of the obvious fact that her views are very much coloured by her Christian beliefs.

I fail to see why she isn't prepared to tell about this already obvious part of her being. Why is she so reluctant about sharing this?

I don't believe that a true Christian can also be a true feminist.
Anyone who will deny a woman the right to abortion, and thus 'force' her to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will, cannot have a woman's welfare at heart at all..

@vanna,

The aim should not be to decrease the number of abortions but to educate women to have greater control over their fertility. The number of abortions will drop as a consequence. And of course, no amount of contraception will stop all unwanted pregnancies.

It is a value based and unhelpful opinion to call abortion a “ghastly practice”. It is a necessary medical practice. That kind of language is not helpful to the discussion as actual women do have to have actual abortions. The Atheist Foundation of Australia supports their decision either way.

David