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.