Beware the religious invasion of our polity (1 Viewer)

[Comrade nathan]

Beware the religious invasion of our polity

Brian Rotman in the London Review of Books sums up American chosen-ness thus: ". . . in America, where every dollar bill proclaims the nation's trust in God, where school children pledge allegiance each morning to God and the United States, where Jesus rules the patriotic lives of tens of millions . . . belief in the Almighty and the ongoing maintenance of American national identity are inseparable. Nowhere is this more evident and dangerous than in the fusion of evangelical Christianity and extreme-right imperialism that now controls the levers of American power. In thrall to the Bible and convinced once again of its Manifest Destiny, American exceptionalism continues to remake the world in its own image."

Whatever happens in America happens in Australia 10 years later. Already Australia is drawn into the aura of American arrogance and ruthless militarism. Is it possible that the organisations that have been so influential in controlling the Republican Party and the national agenda, could also be infiltrating political institutions here?

We tend to reassure ourselves that the average Australian is too naturally sceptical to fall for religious demagoguery, but the sinister elegance of the Dominionist program is that it doesn't care what the hoi polloi think as long as the ruling elite are doing God's will. And here we enter the realm of speculation.

When Peter Costello and John Howard turn up at Pentecostalist "prosperity" churches, apparently endorsing the new version of the Gospels that proclaims that God makes the good rich, are they attending as true believers or are they cynically appealing to a new constituency?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/04/16/1113509965969.html?oneclick=true

 

[black_man]

have you presented this as just a point of discussion? or do you feel this is really happening? how do you think this sort of Americanisation is manifesting itself in australian life? sorry, i dont mean to ritz you on this, i just want to hear what you think, it's really interesting

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Somewhat extremist but it does raise the important point that the state and religion must be separate. You can't see too much influence in Australia at the moment, but certainly the situation in America is a dangerous one - to the point where John Kerry was forced to announce a belief in God in order not to lose ground to the massive support of Christian groups all across the country.

I suspect that if religious peruassion in the US was analysed in terms of constituency, it would be divided on similar lines to the voting results.

 

[somechick]

Religion is a great tool for world leaders. It's reassuring to the masses because it contains univeralisms etc. which makes it seem that EVERYONE feels the same way, so its legitimate. Religion is used by the Liberals today in their policy and agenda making. They win elections by putting forth a certain agenda like gay marriage or abortion, adopt christian doctrines in speeches and policy making and give it to the people 'prepackaged'.
Bush's speeches during the iraq war were all about civilising the barbarians and putting forth the modern and universally good christian values to those uncaring people with the wrong ideologies.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Separation of church and state is different from the state not having a formally recognised religious doctorine....

"Separation" of church and state often goes way too far.

 

[Josie]

IMHO there is no such thing as "too much" separation of church and state- It'd be brilliant if we could ensure there was no way the line could be crossed, but human nature doesn't allow it. Power breeds the desire for more power, and what better source of power than blind dogma? It's worked in governments for centuries.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

"Separation" of church and state often goes way too far.

How is that possible?

 

[spiny norman]

Somewhat extremist but it does raise the important point that the state and religion must be separate. You can't see too much influence in Australia at the moment, but certainly the situation in America is a dangerous one - to the point where John Kerry was forced to announce a belief in God in order not to lose ground to the massive support of Christian groups all across the country.

Do you not recall the comments made about Mark Latham's agnosticism?

I'd say Australia definitely has a large church influence.

 

[Rorix]

How is that possible?

I think he means that seperation of church and state doesn't mean that the state has to activity discourage religion (as is often expected from some parties) but it merely cannot encourage a religion.

For example, the government can fund faith-based initiatives provided it equally funds initiatives for different faiths and secular groups without violating the seperation of church and state - there was a recent example in the USA, the details of which I can't remember too well, but it had something to do with that.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The words 'separation of church and state' aren't in the constitution, they were found in a letter written by jefferson.

The 2nd ammendment really seems to be talking about there being no STATE religion, basically it's more of a protection against america becomming any form of theocracy.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Do you not recall the comments made about Mark Latham's agnosticism?

I'd say Australia definitely has a large church influence.

That's a good point, yes I do remember it. But I think it doesn't have a huge sway on things. You'll notice Howard is somewhat reluctant to make too much of a stance on religion that might discourage voters, he simply confirms he is a Christian.

I think he means that seperation of church and state doesn't mean that the state has to activity discourage religion (as is often expected from some parties) but it merely cannot encourage a religion.

For example, the government can fund faith-based initiatives provided it equally funds initiatives for different faiths and secular groups without violating the seperation of church and state - there was a recent example in the USA, the details of which I can't remember too well, but it had something to do with that.

Ah that's clearer. Yes that's what I mean by necessary separation, I don't mean discouraging of religion.

The words 'separation of church and state' aren't in the constitution, they were found in a letter written by jefferson.

The 2nd ammendment really seems to be talking about there being no STATE religion, basically it's more of a protection against america becomming any form of theocracy.

Regardless of the constitutional basis, it ought never to be the case.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well do you think that "separation of church and state" means that for example, chirstmas tree's, shouldn't be displayed on public property?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well do you think that "separation of church and state" means that for example, chirstmas tree's, shouldn't be displayed on public property?

I think that Christmas has more than a religious significance nowdays, so I can avoid the issue and answer in the affirmative on other grounds

But generally I think the government should remain neutral on religious matters. In a liberal democracy, freedom of personal belief and association is so fundamental a right that it goes without question. But in a sense, it is actually also a good safeguard to religion as a whole, because the endorsement of one religion without others involves discrimination and repression of all the other religions not so endorsed.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Howard makes it Pretty clear he is Christian. Church goer and his daughter married the son of a minister!

That's true. I get the feeling he likes the idea of belonging to a select group rather than, a solid belief in what it advocates per se. Of course that's an unfounded speculation, it's just a feeling =\

 

[MoonlightSonata]

another tid bit...proposed reform to the sex discrimination act will allow women to be discriminated against on the basis of marital status. All part of amendments to unfair dismissal laws and the aformentioned sex discrimination act.

Do you know what the bills are called, or the acts which they amend? I can't believe these things go forward without some public scrutiny from the media


I'm sure Phanatical will be jubilant

 

[ohne]

Actually Howard is not a regular church-goer, he doesn't go every week. Costello and Abbott are more religious.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Actually Howard is not a regular church-goer, he doesn't go every week. Costello and Abbott are more religious.

I don't think regular was mentioned... but yes, those two are certainly extremely religious.


Just think, a suburb away and I would be in Abbott's constituency.... not that Bronny is that much better

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Anne Summers, who spoke today, did note Helen Coonan and Amanda Vandstone have been pushing seriously to stop the whole abortion issue being a Liberal party issue. Despite what you may think of them in other contexts suposedly they are working hard behind the scenes.

Unlikely "heroes" by all means, but it is comforting to know they are women first!

 

[neo o]

Well do you think that "separation of church and state" means that for example, chirstmas tree's, shouldn't be displayed on public property?

In Clover Moore's perfect world, YES. From what I've seen, she is quite the New Years Eve fan.

 

[ohne]

Like everything of the Howard government much of this occurs without media releases. For example the reorganisation of and renaming of the office of the status of women occured over christmas. It was moved to the family affairs departament and 'status' was removed from the name. Seems to prescribe the role of women quite nicely. This also meat womens issues were not in cabinet for the first time in 30 or so years.

Also the womens groups which would criticise and create media attention have not been funded since 1998. For example the Womens eletoral Lobby is dead.

Those womens groups that do recieve funding from the government do so on the basis that they do not criticise the government on their policy. Which I found pretty scary today. They have been gagged.

Anne Summers, who spoke today, did note Helen Coonan and Amanda Vandstone have been pushing seriously to stop the whole abortion issue being a Liberal party issue. Despite what you may think of them in other contexts suposedly they are working hard behind the scenes.

There is still a Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on women's issues (Kay Patterson) in cabinet is there not?

On a side note it is interesting that all of the leading women in the Howard government are in the senate, eg. Vanstone, Coonan, Paterson. I can't understand why there are no senior female ministers in the House. Julie Bishop is a good performer but is outside cabinet and then you have got people like Sharman Stone who are only parliamentary secretaries. I can't understand why she was overlooked for a ministerial post after the last election.