Mishka Gora,
I reached my post limit and was unable to post till now.
Thank you for clarifying your position but my Hitler analogy still illustrates the need for rigour and transparency in public representation and debate. I said above that none of us is objective and I would call upon all those who seek to influence public discourse to theorise and expound their reasoning whatever the position may be. I've said something very similar to Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc in other threads, asking him to expound the intellectual basis behind his atheism, and met with indignation and refusal.
The state of populist politics these days is such that no one seems to think they have to justify the position taken, it's intuitive. Freedom of conscience is starting to look like a euphemism for "I dunno it's just what I believe". In fact any issue is far more likely to garner support and respectability if it expound upon it's reasoning and make it compelling. In practice, freedom of conscience seems to be a species of rhetorical evasion. Just so, Hitler struck the right note and had no need to elaborate his position in a world receptive to fascism. If MTR is not guided by Rome, or whatever her belief system entails, then why are we denied access to the position she's thrashed out with herself? We get the same from politicians of every stamp, all they have to do is make the right noises, mouth the usual pieties about hard-working and patriotic Australians (Gillard's specialty), or apply the kibosh, "it's unAustralian", and it's Nuf said.
Freedom of conscience is a matter of private conceit and indulgence, and shouldn't be used in the public sphere as an excuse for dumbing-down important issues. As I've said above, I want to seem some rigour on all sides, and not just puerile populism. Indeed I could just as easily ask after the credentials of pro-choice and get nothing but the usual pieties. It's pathetic!

The slaughter of one's child in the sacrificial rite of abortion in today's dominant religion, has an ancient pedigree.
http://www.arimathea.org/index.php/j/p/abortion_as_a_sacrament/

Poirot,

As I mentioned above, the denomination is not the issue. Her alliance with conservative christian organisations are what matters. That she attends a Baptist church would indicate that irrespective of how she prefers to label herself, that her values don't fall far from the tree.

That she wishes to keep her "label" secret is recognition that christian fundamentalism does not help her "feminist" credentials.

Shadow minister,
Maybe there should be a feminist panel, and if someone wants to call themselves a feminist and a Christian, then they have to be questioned by this panel.

You know, like in the movie 1984.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087803/

Squeers, I think we largely agree. If you look at my earlier posts, I've clearly said that I don't like MTR's evasiveness and we have a right to hear some cogent arguments on the issues about which she is campaigning. What we don't have a right to know is her entire belief system. For starters, I'm not sure she could give you a coherent answer. I don't, however, see how whether she's a Christian or not, is part of her "credentials". Do you need to know someone's religion before you employ them? I hope not. Anyway, I agree there needs to be more rigour and rationality, and I think MTR's refusal to answer reflects very badly on her (and can be interpreted as a lack of conviction), but she has every right to behave in such a way. I think it reflects worse on Jennifer Wilson that she has branded MTR unethical for it. But then perhaps MTR is playing us all for fools in the knowledge that there's no such thing as bad publicity... in which case Jennifer is playing into her hands. MTR now appears to be a 'victim' and she's getting lots of publicity for her cause....

Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. What is to be gained by questioning (never mind getting a straight answer) MTR's beliefs except to support prejudiced views of her arguments?

Which by the way are nonsense: I just wasted about five minutes of my life scanning the website of a woman who must surely be the most oversensitive, whiny wowser in all of Christendom. And I'm never getting those five minutes back: thanks, MTR.

So never mind the beliefs, just look at the nonsense she spouts (if you feel like punishing yourself). If JW cannot fault on her on that alone, I'm amazed anybody bothers to read her blog (which I won't bother scrutinising: once bitten, twice shy).

Cheers,

Tony