Firstly, I'm not a Catholic.

Secondly, how can Jocelyn so wildly miss the point here?

The politicians are simply being told that they cannot both be a part of an organisation and at the same time work against that organisation.

If the politicians want to vote in favour of allowing cloning and the destruction of embryos that is up to them, but they cannot then expect to be part of a group that believes such actions are seriously wrong.

If a person in a soccer club decides they want to be allowed to pick up the ball and run with it in their arms, they obviously have to leave the soccer club and start playing rugby instead.

If politicians work against the catholic church they obviously have to realise they have to leave the catholic chuirch.

Why shouldn't leaders of the catholic church say that?

I agree with GP - Pell can say what he likes - what has disturbed me is that his adherents believe that there is a strong case for him to be obeyed - that is a short step from every one should obet him - and then a short step to law by encyclical - pontifical that is - may be fewer hands lopped off under that regime than we might have under Sharia law but the idea sucks almost as much - then again the inqusitors were a fairly nasty pack of tooth pullers - lets stick to what we 've got

Gp

I believe you summed up the situation well. Every Politician values or lack of values determines their decsions on all moral issues. Where Cardinal Pell goes wrong in that he assumes that most catholics in politics are practicing catholics. Many catholics I know are more interested in football and beer than they are God or their church. He also works from the unbiblical assumption that somehow having a bit of water sprayed on your head as a baby make you a Christian.

The author of the article ignores the fact that many polticians vote along party lines rather than according to what is right. Should the party be prosecuted for this as some would like to happen to the Catholic church?

Jocelynne

Please inform us - if parliamentarians who were members of Emily's List (this group requires members to be pro-abortion) were to declare publicly that they were now pro-life and that they were going to vote that way, would you consider it reasonable for the president of Emily's List to tell those politicians that they either not vote pro-life or that they leave that group?

What is the difference?

Bet you won't reply.

Pell is simply acting as the Vatican enforcer. He was chosen by the last Pope on the basis of his fundamentalist stance and willingness to threaten and cajole Catholics in Australia -most recently on NSW cloning legislation and the edict for a pledge of allegance to be applied to Catholic school principals. The Vatican is stacked with bishops of a similar stance in much the same way as Bush has attempted to stack the US Suprmeme Court with conservative judges. The end game of this process will most likely be a split in Western countries within the Catholic church between the socially progressive and inclusive and the hardcore of fundamentalists who see support in the Catholisism practised in developing countries such as Sth America and Africa. The same process is more advanced within the Anglican and Protestant churches with the issues of womens ordination and gays in the clergy.

GP - you're so close to finding the real problem here. The problem being that those who suspend their critical thinking and wilfully abandon reason by indulging in supernatural beliefs, could actually have power in the first place.

If you have faith in the unprovable, there is no way that faith will not have an affect on the work you do as a politician. The only way to ever solve the problem is to not allow any religious people in parliment at all. Ever ever ever.

Faith is, by definition, irrational. But we consider it to be a virtue, when clearly the opposite is true.

Its time to identify the real problem: religion. It is dogmatic. It is irrational. It pervades and disrupts politics, scientific progress, education, even health. It abuses (and survives by abusing) children, indocrinating them through propanganda at an age where they are unable to distinguish the real from the unreal.

Why do we keep making concessions? Why do keep having to work around it? What is it about believing nonsense that demands any sort of respect?

First of all, I think that Pell is quite right to speak his mind on this, and on any other matter.

The fact that it places him firmly in the boat alongside Hilaly is nothing to do with religious differences, and everything to do with the attitude that "[insert religion here] is right, and you will obey or face punishment".

In my view, it simply magnifies the problem of having religion as a driving force behind politicians. If it comes to the crunch, whom do you represent, the constituency that elected you, or your religious beliefs?

The morality or ethics of cloning are indistinct, except to people who make it their business to dictate to others along the lines of their own belief system. Real people, thinking people, can have reservations, but can also see benefits.

The church has never been particularly charitable in such discussions. Prompted by a line in the paper this morning, I found this:

"In 1846 James Simpson, a Scottish physician promoted the use of chloroform to relieve pain during childbirth. This was immediately opposed by the Church, citing Genesis 3:16 "...I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children". The avoidance of pain was seen as thwarting God's will."

How kind. How... compassionate.

From the same source:

"Early in the 17th Century, physicians in France and Great Britain promoted inoculations to prevent smallpox. Theologians were quick to respond. Rev. Edward Massy in England preached a sermon blaming the distemper experienced by Job in the Bible upon an inoculation by Satan. Other clergy preached that the technique was being promoted by sorcerers and atheists. Smallpox was regarded as "a judgment of God on the sins of the people......to avert it is but to provoke him more". Inoculation was 'an encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and smite.'"

I think we are having another one of those "whom do we trust" moments.

GP, outside of China, no-one is "pro abortion". They are pro choice. It is the difference between dictating what a woman should do with her body, and giving her the option to choose for herself.

One of the most interesting arguments to my mind put forward by Dr Jocelynne Scutt is that of the responsibility of ICAC to proceed and charge Pell with corruption and bribery under the ICAC act. To reiterate, Dr Scutt’s points.

1. He is exhibiting corrupt conduct because he ‘adversely affects, or could adversely affect public officials (politicians) in a public authority (Parliament) because it concerns bribery.
2. Bribery which involves the offer of something valuable to persuade a person to help or do something for the person attempting to do the bribing.

Pell is saying that he will not allow those politicians that do not translate his religious doctrine into government policy - communion. Communion is the ritual of receiving the “body and blood of Christ”– this is the most valuable concept both materially and spiritually according to Roman Catholicism. And to those that agree to translate the political line of this powerful church figure into government policy this most powerful and valuable component that of receiving the “body and blood of Christ” then they will be allowed to receive this most valuable prize. And the prize for Pell, Ratzingers imprimatur and possible anointing for the biggest prize - that of controlling the biggest and wealthiest global multi national organisation; The Roman Catholic Church.

That Pell is denying the very essence of the core belief paradigm to those that do not obey - to my mind is clearly a case of bribery and corruption and should be immediately dealt an ICAC blow.

Mr Pell like the rest of us can hold to his beliefs and write to his representives under blank letterhead. On the other hand, the Cardinal Doctor Pell should respect the separation of Church and State. Theocracy has long been the enemy of democracy, wherein the eklectos in the Church interpret codes, creeds and doctrines for the hoi polloi.

GP, I loved your posting with its reference to Emilys List...there is no way Jocelynne Scutt will answer you on that. She should just say "touche" and leave it at that! But she can't afford to because for years she has been the masthead for pro abortion feminists (No. Not pro "choice". It's a "child" not a choice) This is what her column is really all about..stifling all opposition to abortion and related attacks on the dignity of human life especially from some one as prominent as Cardinal Pell. As a paid up and passionate member of the Australian Human Rights Society I am particularly offended when I read of abortion advocates like Jocelynne Scutt styling themselves as "Human Rights" lawyers (activist or whatever) The first human right is the right to life Jocelynne. Just try exercising the right to vote, to a reasonable wage, to own property ..or any other right.... if you are dead!

Hi all,
GP is well within his right to make his PoV in the public forum.

However, he 'does not have the right' to back his PoV with a threat or inducemnt(no matter what it may be) against anyone failing to submit to it.

That to me is the crux of the problem here as was with Imam Al-Hallali.

Pell loves to play political hard ball as does his Anglican counterpart in Sydney, Jensen. They both take fundamentalist positions that, if adopted by parliament, would make us little better off than Afganistanians fared under the humourless Taliban.

We need members of parliament who will advocate public policy positions that promote cost effective and better health care options and we desperately need to facilitate an inclusive community.

The hateful belicose of deluded churchmen using threats to achieve their neo conservative vision for Australia should be resisted and reputiated in the strongest terms.

It's time to charge these churchmen for breaching the law when their public pronouncements over step the law.

Quick response,

These clerics like the spot light. In the US, Al Shapton has somehow even become involved in the Paris Hilton controversy. He thinks it is racist! ....A rich "black" person wouldn't be treated like the party happy heiress.

As an aside, apart from the health issues, isn't time the practice of kissing rings was done away with?

An Interesting angle on this has been raised.

If the Politician is a 'Catholic' then under the rules/dogma of the Church, he should be subject to the voice/verdict of the Cardinal... right?

The Catholic Church does have an authority structure which is mean't to effect every member, both clergy and lay.

In fact, any large denominational church has a similiar structure but not quite like Catholics.

Baptists have a "union" Open Brethren have a "Trust" which overseas matters of property ownership, but they don't dictate doctrinal matters, not do they tell individual members 'your out' if they go down a heretical path. The local church does that.. ours did it just recently with an Elder.

I imagine that if one of our members were a member of parliament, we would take strong issue with him/her if they advanced values which were for our detriment or the detriment of the community.
We would rightly expect such a person to withdraw from fellowship and dissassociate him/herself from the local Church.

Pell is just extending this idea in Catholic terms, though Pell has not suggested the Politician leave the Church unless I missed it.

I believe you are right on this Boaz, and I hope it will be fully explored in the coming weeks.

Save any revisionist statements from Pell himself, he is categorically stating that Catholic members of Parliament should adhere to Catholic doctrine ahead of the constituency they represent.

It would seem reasonable, if this is the case, to ask all prospective members to state this to their constituency prior to their election, so that the public at large knows what to expect from their elected member.

Similarly with any other religious order that places obedience to a "higher authority" - whether or not this is in the form of an earthly individual - above their duty to their people.

"The Catholic Church does have an authority structure which is mean't to effect every member, both clergy and lay.

In fact, any large denominational church has a similiar structure but not quite like Catholics." - DB

On what basis? The CC was formes over a century after Jesus and has made up its own mandate. The early Bishops were Jews, because Jesusism was a Jewish cult.

Pell has no more right to dictate morals that Fred Nerk. If people have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise, well, fool them.

Church leaders often speak out on political and social issues when they feel there is a conflict with Christian morality.
For instance leaders of most denominations spoke out against the Howard Government's workplace laws (including Cardinal Pell).
Kevin Rudd, appealing for the Christian vote, has called for the churches to take a bigger role in politics (Monthly Magazine Oct. '06).
Cardinal Pell has simply stated that his Church judges embryonic stem cell research to be morally repugnant and that politicians who regard themselves Catholics should, as a matter of conscience, vote against it.
Cardinal Pell has been heavy handed, but for Dr. Scutt to wave the ICAC Act around is plainly ridiculous hyperbole for which the left is notorious.

So we all agree: the problem isn't that Pell is outspoken, the problem is that he's a fundamentalist superstitious twit.

First a declaration of interest. I am an atheist. Have been for over 50 years.

I have never been a member of the Catholic Church. The mere thought of being involved with the church makes me shudder.

BUT

Pell has acted within the rights granted him under the constitution to practise his religion freely. The Catholic Church is a community of believers. Presumably if you do not believe in the core teachings of the church, the church has the right to decide you are no longer entitled to participate in its rituals.

Alexandra Smith and Linda Morris have the right to ignore the Cardinal and vote as they see fit. That's one of the many beauties of secular democracy.

But Smith and Morris do not have a legal right to participate in the Catholic Church's rituals. In fact there is no human or constitutional right to participate in the rituals of the Catholic Church. Not even if you're born a Catholic do you have that right.

Those like Jocelynne Scutt who want to dictate to the church who may, or may not, participate in its rituals are breeching the divide between state and religion they say they are trying to protect.

IT IS JOCELYNNE SCUTT AND HER ILK, NOT PELL, WHO IS THE DANGER.

Now if Pell had issued a death threat against Alexandra Smith and Linda Morris that would have been a different matter. But he didn't. The substance of the Cardinal's "threat" is that they may be denied the right to participate in some Catholic rituals.

The idea that the Catholic Church should be investigated by the ICAC because of Pell's statements is unhinged. It is also precisely the sort of misuse of legal process that has become the trademark of modern law. We don't like what they're doing so we'll threaten them with litigation.

IT IS THE LAWYERS, NOT THE CARDINALS, WE SHOULD FEAR

This article is a joke right?

One comment by a Christian and this is the outcome? Where are you people when the likes of 'women must be indoors, covered, in their room' so they won't be attacked?

Or the demand that Islamic holidays be included in this nations holiday calender, a nation totally built on Judeo-Christian values.

Those who don't say Islamic values are utterly immoral, backward depravity are party to the brutality of women under those values in any number of countries - including Australia.

This writer wouldn't make a good triage nurse. There's people bleeding to death everywhere, and you've gone up to the guy with a minor cut to his arm!

Unless you types protest against the Hilali's, against the vast majority of the redneck Muslim leadership, it is cowardly, weak to say anything to anyone else.

Then again though, you probably like the idea of your head remaining on your body, so you, like someone not very intelligent, will pick on those you can and hide from those you can't.

And Muslims make up less than 2% of our population?

Get your act together. Pell isn't going to kill anyone for saying Christ (well, what can you say bad about Jesus - I'm actually a non-religous person, although have a deep respect for Christ's philosophy) was this or that, or if you vote on stem cells.

Try that with Muslim values. You try to tell them that it isn't holy that their prophet had a six year old wife (how many of you people even know that? Or know that Muslims consider this paedophile, murderer, bigot, robber, the supreme example?) and see what happens.

Hirsi Ali is the prime example.

Yet you talk about Pell - where are your morals?

Sancho said ' They are pro choice. It is the difference between dictating what a woman should do with her body, and giving her the option to choose for herself' WRONG my friend. It is not HER body that is flushed down the toilet. It is the body of another. Another. Another. NOT HER BODY. Get it now?

Why is it that some people take the words ' separation of church and state' to mean elimination of the church?

father of night, if you think the argument about abortion is that simple then you're a fool. But that doen't matter: we can argue about moral issues. What is irrepairably absurd is when poeple like Pell and Hilali take their rigidly held moral cues from mythical beings.

Steven.... glad to see your assessment of 'Lawyers' is in agreement with Jesus. (If ur not aware of what he said about them, google "woe to you lawyers" and it will come up)

We also need to be at least 'wary' of Cardinals, they represent considerable power within the Church. The highest 'rank' in the New Testament is 'Bishop' which is simply suggestive of an elder endowed with wisdom and high moral standing, who also happens to be:

"The Husband of ONE wife"

Which suggests it is fine for Priests to be married. There is no rank or category of 'priest' in the New Testament. None whatsoever.

Here is a Catholic discussion about the concept for those interested:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_24111998_pnewt_en.html

The danger of 'big' religion with 'big' organizational structures is the same for Christianity as for Islam. There can be a fine line between having the power and "using" it to 'remove' (to use the politest term) enemies of the faith.

No matter which way we go, the Body of Christ will always have some kind of network and structure, although personally I feel a loose network is best, and avoidance of direct political control is most preferable.

The Biblical idea, even since Kings took power, (or were given it in many cases) was for the voice of the prophet to call the King to account, and back to God. Whenever they went off the rails, morally and spiritually the nation suffered.

Without a moral GPS, we are at the mercy of the loudest voice.

Father of Night asks –
“Why is it that some people take the words 'separation of church and state' to mean elimination of the church?”

The answer is simple enough: hatred. This is old news, isn’t it?

Denny sees this, re Jocelyn Scutt. Jocelyn is playing the long game on abortion, so she will do all she can to discredit the Catholic Church on any subject at all, so she can roll it out next time there’s an abortion flare-up.

But, none of this answers the real church-and-state issue.

Admiral von Schneider says –
“Cardinal Pell has simply stated that his Church judges embryonic stem cell research to be morally repugnant and that politicians who regard themselves Catholics should, as a matter of conscience, vote against it.”

True enough.

On the other hand, Pericles says –
“Pell … is categorically stating that Catholic members of Parliament should adhere to Catholic doctrine ahead of the constituency they represent.”

This is probably where the problem lies. If there is a clearly visible direct clash between Catholic doctrine and the views of a Catholic politician’s constituency, then that politician might have to go with the constituency or resign from office.

But, there would need to be a direct clash. And it’s worth bearing in mind that there may not be many. Further, I’m not exactly clear how one determines the views of one’s constituency, apart from local referendums.

Pericles’ solution is – “It would seem reasonable, if this is the case, to ask all prospective members to state this to their constituency prior to their election, so that the public at large knows what to expect from their elected member. Similarly with any other religious order that places obedience to a "higher authority" - whether or not this is in the form of an earthly individual - above their duty to their people.”

This might be right, except that it would have to apply to all politicians, not just religious ones. They might all have to show their hand. After all, they all have views, consciences, associations, allegiances …

Pax,

It is impossible to get your moral rules from an unquestioned authority, whether it's a parent, Pell, the Pope, or a mythical being. Doing something because Pell (or anyone) says it's moral to do so isn't being moral, it's being an amoral rule-follower.

The answers from an 'unquestioned authority' certainly seems a lot smarter than those who condone the murder of unborn babies and then try and excuse it by unscientific science! Give me that 'unquestioned authority' that has led to the prosperity and peace of the West for decades as opposed to that humanistic philosophy that has led to death and poverty everywhere.

Anybody who derides what Pell had to say and waffles about seperation of church and state obviously thinks that someone who believes in a particular faith or strand of that faith should do that only on Sunday, or whichever is the preferred day of worship. There would be many who do just that, but some take their beliefs very seriously.

The article suggesting bribery is silly. The point is can a truly devout person of whichever faith vote against his beliefs? I can't see how they can. The Bishops, Imams, Rabbis and whatnot are doing their job by reminding their followers of particular responsibilities. A plus is that the rest of us then know what our elected oficial is likely to vote.

For a Catholic not to be able to participate in Holy Communion is far, far worse than being asked to leave Emily's group. There is no comparison whatsoever. That was a silly analogy without any insight. Holy Communion is more than just a 'church ritual', the Catholic Church is more than just a lobby group.

That is why I would prefer a person standing for election be open about having any religious beliefs at all. I think it should be mandatory to declare.

BOAZ-David,

Priesthoods go back to Shamanism. In our path of history priesthoods evolved in Sumer 4,000 years before the Messiahic period when the Jews were under Roman occupation. Jesus teachings were assimilated into Church structure - that is usurped. We ahve Paul and Constintine [perhap's Constitine's mother] to blame that one.

Another example is the title of "Defender of the Faith", given by the Pope soleyto the Catholic Henry VIII for his a Theological Thesis he wrote. The British Monarch descendents of warlords, Germanic houses and norseman viking raders, usurped the title. What right does one with artificial designation of Monarch of England have to the head/defender of a religion. Anglicanism, without sanction from the catholic and universal Christian, set it self-up. A state religion. Why can't a Jew, Muslim or Catholic, or, Athiest be Queen of England?

i love to see religious arguments on public affairs. it reminds me, and all of us, that a successful society has to think of a way for all of us to get along together, even when those 'others' are clearly nutty.

while i can speak at length on the failings of the framers of the american constitution, they came close to the mark with the 'right' to free speech. a society without it is composed of subhumans. not that a well behaved sheep isn't a pleasant companion...

if oz is going to simulate an advanced society, we must all welcome remarks we don't agree with. if those remarks have some element of truth, we can learn. and if they are totally boofheaded, we can laugh. neither situation threatens any but the intellectually disadvantaged.

george pell's remarks are a mixture of both- i learned a little and laughed a little. thx, george.

If I remember correctly Pope John Paul was against the war in Iraq. If the Catholic Church has the right to comment on moral/political issues, why didn't Pell tell the Catholic members of the Federal Govt that it's wrong for Christians to go to war? Seems to me that Pell is a little selective in what he is outraged about.

runner, i was making a point of logic: that the unquestioning following of authority by its very nature precludes the moral element. But let's ignore the fact that you completely missed the point. And let's ignore your question-begging characterisation of abortion. And let's ignore your presumptuous characterisation of the moral stances of "humanistic philosophy", whatever you mean by that expression.

Which "unquestioned authority" are YOU referring to, which has supposedly brought us this peace and prosperity. And to exactly what peace and prosperity are you referring?

The issue is a moral one.

Should politicians follow their own moral conscience, should they follow the edicts, supported with threats, of a religious leader or should they follow the will of the community who elected them?

If we assume that a politician follows his own moral values, how does he continue to respect the will of his electorate, who elected him to reflect their will, assuming it conflicts with his own?

If we further assume a religious leader has right to freely express his own opinion, when does that right of expression end and right to intimidate begin?

A religious leader may well suggest he is against any particular procedure but should he then be at liberty to use duress (in this case threats of denial of religious sacraments) to impose his will on a politician, coercing that politician to (possibly) reject the will of the electorate?

I dated a dutiful Catholic lady for several years (she had separated from her husband prior to meeting me) she was told by her priest that if she continued in our relationship, she would be denied communion. She followed her conscience. She attended church regularly but never went forward for communion. She earned my respect for having the courage to stand up for herself in the face of duress.

I trust Catholic politicians sitting in any of our Houses of Parliament, Federal and State, have sufficient backbone to resist this blatant attempt at duress and coercion on the part of Pells.

If they do not, I hope such deficiency of character shows their inappropriateness for public office and the electorate, who they are supposed to represent and put them where they are, respond by replacing them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Fatherofnight I can see where you are coming from and all I can say is

Only when you are prepared to accept “HER” moral values as a determinant for your actions,
will you be ready to demand her actions be determined by your moral values.

If you want an abortion debate happy to give you one anytime.

Yet another attempt to quash free speech.

Whether whatever Cardinal Pell said was acceptable or not is up to his church to sort out.

The rest of us should join this fight against the growing clampdown on freedom of speech and on the democratic responsibility we all (used to)have to speak up on public issues.

Bushbasher

I refer to your Creator and the One who loved you enough to die for your sin and your rebellion. It was on His Word and principles that many of the laws of Australia and the US were based upon. It was men who served him that brought an end to the slave trade. It was Him who healed the leper and forgave the prostitute. It was men who served Him who set up the first schools and the first hospitals in most of the Westen world. I'm sure you know His name is the Lord Jesus Christ. And before you point out all the horrible things done in His name I suggest you try and reconcile these things with His teachings. I am glad you asked.

john kosci, don't be absurd. No one is attacking Pell's freedom to speak.

runner, i don't think there is any obvious inconsistency between your religious belief and my logical point. For what it's worth, I actually asked you two questions. Thank-you for answering one.

Cardinal Pell has not threatened anyone.
He is reported as saying that Catholic members of the NSW Parliament who voted for the embryonic stem cell research bill (a conscience vote) “would need to think seriously about taking Holy Communion."
That is a personal decision for those politicians.
As a long lapsed Catholic I see the Cardinal's statements as perfectly correct.
To expect to continue to fully participate in the life of the Catholic Church while at odds with its basic tenets is hypocritical - even for a politician.

Bushbasher

You don't see throwing the ICAC at me just because I express my heartfelt opinion, no matter how right or wrong it may be, as an attack on free speech?

Admiral von Schneider,

It is not as straight forward as you present. The Cardinal should not be addressing the State. If Father O'Brien the local parish priest has a word with his parishioners, say, Mr. Iemma, not the Premier, then perhaps Iemma can makes his own decision. Likewise, the Catholic Church is far too selective and hypocritic: e.g., usery and swearing one Bible. Both common place. Selectivity based on power politics!

Whether Jesus is a god or not, what he said was, "do this [communon] in rememberance of 'me' [emphasis added]'. JC didn't say you can't have the eucharist, if you don't follow the creeds of specific churches. The Pope, Pell and Co, are barstardises. Herein, Pell is applying sixeenth century creed, not twenty-first standards, nor Jesus' own first century teaching, given the latter existed,as a human or a god.

The Catholic Church is being political. Should the State tax the Church's collections, if rings three bells, instead of two at Communion? I think not. Pell should keep his trap shut.

AvS, you present an erroneous posit, I suggest

I don't mind the Catholic Church being political. I mind the Catholic Church being superstitious and obtuse.

AvS,

I would add the above that athiests should they choose take a communin meal in rememberence of Jesus'life and humanist teachings. That is to the letter of the instruction without any religious baggage. Perhaps, in rememberance of a exceptional human life?

If Jesus added a religious touch [he didn't], it would have been to knock over-observence of Jewish Law "to the Jews" in Jews meals. Nothing at all to with the Catholics, Nicaea, the Greek/Russian Churches, or, the Protestants, whom stem from Paul, not Jesus.

Alot of you miss the point!This is about using influence to control a vote outcome. If some one crosses that line, they should be held accountable. End of discussion. As for benjamins point," This nation was built on Judeo-Christian values". If that is what those values are you can stick em where the sun dont shine mate. My Education tells me this land was built off the back of whip, on the back of some-one who stole a loaf of bread to feed a family! Probably took the wrong bread, maybe it was for the useless gimmick of bread breaking in some useless church!.Where did Abortion become apart of the discussion?. This was an easy topic to follow and is easier to finalise...Churches have NO place in the governing of a country, They are flat out trying to keep the congregation in control, their own ministers in check, and get too much for nothing already.
P.S. I am only anti-religion...not anti-god....Religion is foul and must really piss God to see them clamour over themselves for self service.(hierachy? that is)