I see what you are saying R0bert. But I would have thought that the numbers of abortions performed annually in this country would be testament to the fact that he is not having THAT big an influence on the decision. We certainly saw his approach to the RU486 pill as being a manifestly religious one. However, the resultant uproar I think went to show that the wheels of democracy can still work when religion is involved, as there will be few that will forget his stance in future years. It will forever be held against him (or for him in the opinions of some).

Country Gal, I'd be trying to remember the number that went with RU all afternoon ;(.

I've not followed up on dates but the reading I've done suggests that the statements I refered to are not really anything new in concept. While the Health Minister had sole discression regarding RU486 he was possibly in a position where he faced excommunication if he had allowed it's use. That would seem to be a clear conflict of interest. Did he know he faced that risk? Did the archbishop point it out in their meetings? I don't know.

That was also a power that he campaigned hard to keep rather than relinquishing.

That's one example where the issue did go public and a lot of taxpayer dollars were spent in the process of placing that power where it more properly belonged. His position gives him power in a lot of situations which are not so easy to tie down - funding for councelling services is a topical one which comes to mind.

Individuals holding public office will always face issues regarding their personal values and the conduct of the office. In this case where an external party has made a clear and specific threat directed against politicians on a particular issue the situation seems to become more clear cut.

R0bert

Celivia,

Thank God, that Josef Ratzinger did become Pope. He is a true man of God, and I'm not even a Catholic.

Someone mentioned the constitution and separation of church and state. Separation of church does not mean that Christian believers could not inform their decisions as parliamentarians by their Christian faith, in fact the framers of the Constitution expected that they would. They expected and hoped that Parliamentarians would be people of strong Christian faith and make decisions in line with that.

Separation of Church and State means that no one Christian denomination/religion (that was when denominations were referred to as religions) would become the "State" church as the Anglican Church is in England or the Lutheran Church in the Scandinavian countries, or the Catholic Church in other countries.

RaggedtyAnnie

RaggedtyAnnie,
Separation of Church and State, this does not necessarily mean that the Church has no influence on politics. The reason, or principle, of this separation was designed to protect freedom of religion from the state, not vice versa.
What can the state (or politics) do to guarantee its freedom FROM religion?

On some issues, such as same sex marriage and euthanasia, the religious right have had a big influence, resulting in religious values demanding priority over human rights.
And why is it that in the job network, church-conducted employment agencies have been allowed to take over the government’s Commonwealth employment service?

I find that the Australian government is linking (Christian!) church and state.
Religion schould not be excluded from the anti-discrimination Act. Did you know that Australian religous schools are exempted from some of the aspects of the discrimination Act, eg. they have the right to discriminate against sex and homosexuals?

Freedom of religion should only be allowed if it doesn't interfere wiht the freedom of others, in my opinion.

And what is so good about Ratzinger?
The man is mega-conservative.

The reasons I am not wild about him is for several reasons.
He condemns contraception.
More unwanted children, more AIDS.
One must be extremely ignorant or uncaring to condemn safe sex.

His vision on divorce?
This takes us right back into the last century.

His opinion that Roman Catholicism is the only right religion?
That isn't helping ecumenical cooperation during the age of globalization and worldwide communications.

His vision on abortion?
The new 'pregnancy supporting' services are not stopped from misleading women- some of them do not even include the abortion option.

His view on euthanasia?
Denying elderly and very sick people the right to die a dignified death is cruel.

His opinion that anyone not believing in the Pope is not a real Christian?
Then the vast majority of people, even the religious (e.g. protestants cannot count on a place in heaven.

His view on homosexuality?
Another human right denied.

Tell me what is so appealing about this Pope because I haven’t discovered his appeal yet.

The most damaging religion in Australian Politics is secular humanism. It lacks any moral absolutes and results in death. Agnotics and athiest are its keenist disciples! Really it is the worship of self.

"It lacks any moral absolutes and results in death."

A bit like real life really.

Abbott is part of the current gummint and the current gummint does not do representative democracy. Populism occasionally, but not representativeness.

Representative, informed democracy is on hold in this country. Abbott's conflict is not so much a cause as it is one of the symptoms.