Mr Abbott writes in regards to biased news journalism, "That [a handful of effective conservative reporters] hasn't altered the dynamic of the newsroom and, if anything, has intensified the "give no quarter" attitude of the Left-liberal media mainstream."

Absolutely correct Tony.

The poor sad elite in media still don't get it - that the rest of us out here, "we the public", don't think like they do. And then, the poor little dears, they wonder why their mainstream media advertising profits are heading south.

Good article Tony,

I agree that the vilification of some of leading conservative commentators is disgraceful, such as the ABC's treatment of Alan Jones. These commentators tend to be very much more in tune with the average Australian, than the majority of the left-wing media. Evidence for this? The clear mandate given to John Howard at the last election.

I'm not a Christian, but I hardly think Christian ideals are particularly bad ideals to be motivating our leaders.

gw

"Every position has been argued on the basis of human values, not religious teaching." - fair comment but as a former christain I'm all to aware of the churches willingness to "spin" their stance.

The core stance comes from the religious teaching, then you go look for "facts" to justify your position. Often it does not matter how misrepresentative those facts are just as long as they have some believability and support your position.

Tony and others may argue their positions on the basis of human values but all to often it is their belief in the dictates of an imaginary god that is driving what they seek to impose on others.

R0bert

Some developments we would not see if Mt Abbott's religious views prevailed:

divorce
abortion
contraception

All of them now with widespread acceptance. The difficulty in using Christianity as a basis for moral development, is the inevitability someone will take themselves too seriously and advocate we follow the laws described in the OT. And who could argue with them?

If "Every position has been argued on the basis of human values, not religious teaching", who determines which human values count?

"Ambush Interview"

TONY JONES: Tony Abbott on another matter, have you met Archbishop Pell during the election campaign?

TONY ABBOTT: Not that I can recall.

TONY JONES: Not that you can recall, because we believe that you've had at least one meeting with him quite recently?

You don't recall that?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, when?

Where?

TONY JONES: At the presbytery in Sydney.

TONY ABBOTT: Ah, actually now that you do mention it, I did met with Cardinal Pell.

So what?

Why shouldn't I meet with Cardinal Pell?

TONY JONES: Why couldn't you recall meeting him, I think, 10 days ago?

Sorry Porkys Tony

Poor Tony,

Doesn't like the idea separation of church and state... Needs Pell to decide his policy on not only Parliamentary, but Ministerial duties.

Believes that he is a devout Christian (shhh - they are the people that hear voices and think it's a god - Lithium Carbonate is a good cure for this.)

Whilst I agree with the essence of his article, it couldn't have come from a more scurrilous politician. It is utter hypocrisy for Tony Abbott to whine about his mistreatment in the press, or anywhere else after his use of the legal system to have a political opponent imprisoned.

I’d rather vote for <puke> the Greens.

Steve Madden,

Perhaps as important was the context of that interview. A couple of days after Minister Abbott met with George Pell the Cardinal came out and critcised Mark Lathams schools policy that would have cut funding for a number of Private Schools. One could assume that the Minister and Cardinal Pell discussed this issue, making Tony Jones question very fair and legitimate.

This issue is one which ties me up in knots.

On the one hand, I am uncomfortable with "aggressive secularism". I can't see the point in religion myself, I think god's a load of hogwash and the bible was really mostly a groundbreaking legal code for ancient times. But I respect the right of Christian people, and Islamic and Hindu (etc) people for that matter, to believe in their Gods and worship them as they see fit. And as a secular person I find myself uncomfortable when I am unwittingly associated with popular mocking of religious people.

On the other hand, I am equally uncomfortable to think that decisions on issues like RU486, euthenasia, abortion, stem cell research etc are being taken by a Minister who appears willing to treat his beliefs not as personal philosophy, but as public policy. As a non-Christian, I don't see why the law should be bound up by Christian philosophies on the value of life. From that perspective I think it appropriate that the media draw attention to the religious values of leaders.

There seems little doubt to me that Abbott brings his religion to his job, and that health law is at least partly regulated by Abbott's religious views. I don't like that. And it doesn't matter that these were widespread values a generation ago. We're not "a generation ago", we're in the present.

Anth

So Tony Abbott thinks Piers Akerman is an effective conservative voice. Piers Akerman is a hack who has never yet written a balanced column. He is a large blot on journalism in this country. I think it was Mike Carlton who once likened reading Akerman to "wading through dog poo". Could not agree more.

It fascinates me how politicians can claim to be religious. I know that 'ordinary' people who claim religion do the wrong thing, but politicians like abbott?. This man claims to be a believer but he constantly lies (read his denials re meeting pell- for one) or backs lies told by others of his party. Not only that but this politician who has been termed as "howard's rottweiler" on command from his master cowardly attacks the opposition members. In these attacks insinuations and lies are used, foul innuendos and language (being a liberal he is not normally pulled up by the "impartial?" speaker) when in full flight. Then he looks to his master for his approval instead of looking to his maker. This same man was a star player in the destruction of Pauline and Cheryl by chicanery, lies and deceit.
Politicians and Christianity ~ I just dunno. regards, numbat

I have no problem with Tony Abbott holding profound religious beliefs. However I do have a problem, and so should he, when those beliefs influence his decisions as Health Minister. As Health Minister he should be obliged to act in the interests of all Australians, not just those who share his beliefs. If he is unable to reconcile those conflicts he should resign as Minister.

It is stupid to blame the media when he brings this conflict of interest on his own head.

As someone who does not attend church, a synagogue or a mosque, I find it astounding to see so many journalists routinely bash anyone with a "Christian" viewpoint, who dare to express their opinion.

Generally those same journalists or "commentators" are the same ones who would likely criticize President Bush for using the phrase Islamo-Fascism or would argue that Tony Blair is being culturally insensitive for discussing an "elemental" battle.

Similarly in Australia, the use of "religious right" as a pejorative term seems acceptable to the left-wing commentariat, many of whom have likely never even visited the south of the United States nor could identify where South Carolina is on a map.

While I may disagree with Tony Abbott on a range of issues, to use his faith as a basis for attack is both intellectually vacuous and hypocritical. If someone is a politician who is a Catholic, a Protestant, a secular humanist, Jewish or Muslim I have no problem as long as they are open about their faith.

I do continue to have issues with journalists who cry "freedom" of the press when attacked, but yet would deny the right of an individuals "freedom" of belief.

If the public does not like the voting record of a politician, they can simply vote for someone else at the next election

I hate to contradict such an upright citizen as T. Abbott but in my lengthy experience politicians are certainly not "invariably" trying to make a better world. Otherwise we would have a better world, wouldn't we. Instead,it's pretty rotten. They are all too often there because they are addicted to power, money and media attention. One good way for T. Abbott to avoid the so-arduous demands for media comment is to cease to comment on matters of which he has no knowledge/direct experience: abortion, homosexuality, RU486 etc. That would lighten his shocking burden considerably and leave decisions to people who actually need to participate. As the old slogan goes: "not the Church, not the State, women will decide our fate." If only !

There is a serious failure in the Australian community to identify the predominant paranoid left wing bias in the Australian media which sees the Liberal Party conservatives and ultimately George Bush as the cause of everything from Hurricane Katrina to terrorism to Global warming and escalating banana prices.

The ABC are the prime agitators here with their "behind the scenes" documentaries from "hard hitting Journalists" which usually amount to no more than unsubstantiated innuendo from unknown sources while promoting David Hicks and Jihad Jack as victims of right wing conspiracies rather than psychopathic dangers to society.

Tony Abbott has a point.

Dear Minister,

Thanks for the opportunity to communicate with you, I hope that you or one of your minders reads these posts.

Your online opinion reminds me of a story I've heard. I may be getting it a bit wrong, and forgive me, I don't know it's source, it may have been Yes Minister. It goes something like this: a Minister of State is voted out of office, and he is clearing out when the new Minister moves in. He gives the new Minister some advice on three excuses he can use in Government, which will be sitting in the bottom drawer of his desk when required:

The first time something goes wrong, you blame it on your predecessors.

The second time something goes wrong, you blame it on your department.

The last time something goes wrong, you blame it on the media.

I think the reason why that's the last time is that people with that attitude tend to get voted out.

A christian purports to seek the truth. A politician ceaselessly tries to hide the truth. Obviously the two are totally incompatible. We are helping the Septics make more stem cells than we will ever need in Iraq

"Australian journalism needs to be more intellectually curious and less implicitly judgmental."

This quote from Tony Abbott nicely fits politicians within the Coalition Government. Any Christian who believes in the Christ of the Sermon on the Mount would want to divorce Tony Abbott and his so called Christian Coalition fellow politicians.

They are a very mean bunch who are willing to incarcerate refugee women and children or place people's lives at risk as indicated by Robin Rothfield on 26 August 2006 in "The Age": "This inhumane policy was continued with later boats. A pregnant woman aboard SIEV 3 was denied permission to be flown to hospital even though the request had been sought by a military officer on grounds of possible delivery complications."

The meanness has also been directed at Australian citizens where administrative thuggery is employed against people on Disability Benefits at the behest of the Coalition Government.

Just prior to last Christmas the Coalition Government gagged the Senate and pushed through the nasty "Work Choices" legislation in a hasty manner; did Tony Abbott protest that legitimate concerns were squashed as a result? If he did not protest this factor then his quote above is somewhat hypercritical.

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.

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.

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."

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

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?)

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.

I can't help but think that the use of a term like "Christian culture that underpins our society" undermines Abbott's argument.

It points to a line of thinking which gives greater credence to biblical babble than rational thought. It is one of those fasionable right wing politically correct terms, goes well with a dose of intelligent design and other modern fables.
The more rabid the right winger the more likely they will add a "Judeo" in front of the Christian to reinforce their Old Testament leanings.

Abbott may like to see Australia as a fundamentally Christian country but he is wrong. Australians don't believe in anything in particular, and most believe in little with any passion or conviction. Football and cricket are "tragic" exceptions. Fortunately Aussies read the sports pages and ignore the bleatings of self important columnists right or left.

The reality is Australians are almost universally utitilarian, bugger principles or morality, if it works and can make a difference we will use it. I am not being critical, this approach to life seems to me no less moral overall than any other.

Mr Abbot makes reference to "Left-liberal"

Does he mean people like Petro Georgiou, Judith Troeth, Judi Moylan and Russell Broadbent?

These days, many of the most important and difficult debates don't occur in parliament but in lengthy live media interviews where politicians are expected to have instant answers to every question and a single mistake can be disastrous.

The above is perhaps brought about by not answering with sincerity questions in question time. Closing disscusion with collusion. An open parliment has gone, we need the press to flesh out decisions, like"did god tell you to say or do that"
Thank whoever Tony your not a Muslim.
fluff4

Tony Abbott is entitled to believe anything he likes and he is entitled to live according to the precepts of his beliefs as rigorously as he likes as a private citizen. He is not, however, entitled to use his position as a minister to legislate to restrict my rights according to his personal beliefs.
No-one wants to compell those who do not personally believe in them to use contraception, take RU486, benefit from any medical breakthroughs in stem cell research, or terminate an unwanted pregnancy. What infuriates those of us without religious belief is when many of the religious - including, on occasions, Minister Abbott - seek to impose their beliefs on us. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions, I believe, but, to their credit, they do not seek to insist that the rest of us do not have them.
It is fine to be an active Christian, Muslim or Zoroastrian in your private life, but as an elected representative in a secular, pluralist society, it is important to carefully assess issues according to their merits and respect the personal views and beliefs of all your constituents, even if you personally disagree with them.