Thursday, June 5, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

by SMH

Thanks to Joshua Watt for the link.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/a-moral-test-for-true-believers-rudd-style/2008/06/04/1212258910248.html

A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

Mark Davis Political Correspondent

KEVIN RUDD wears his Christianity on his sleeve more prominently than any Labor leader since the devout Catholic Arthur Calwell.

It is a stance that yielded political dividends at last year's election, when Labor achieved its highest level of support from regular churchgoers since 1993.

But now the Prime Minister faces a decision that may alienate socially conservative Catholics and born-again Protestants.

The Rudd Government is considering overturning the Howard government's ban on Australian overseas aid being used to fund abortions in poor countries.

This year the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, began a review of AusAID's family planning guidelines, establishing a subcommittee of Labor MPs to examine the issue.

Labor's Catholic Right opposes changes to the guidelines, which say government aid funds must not be used for abortions or contraceptives that are not registered in Australia.

But with a well-organised cross-party group of MPs pressing for the guidelines to be scrapped, anti-abortion Labor MPs fear they do not have the numbers in the caucus.

Some believe Mr Smith, arguably the most senior Catholic in the cabinet, is determined to change the guidelines. But he is insisting he will take the views of government MPs into account before reaching a decision.

One Labor MP who opposes any change reckons the final decision will be made by Mr Rudd.

"It will be a caucus decision on a major policy matter and the final call will be the way the Prime Minister wishes to resolve the matter," the Labor MP said.

Asked on ABC TV recently whether his religious views would influence how he ran the country, Mr Rudd said: "No. You are elected on the basis of the views you put to the Australian people; the policies you put to the Australian people."

Mr Rudd has a mixed record on the three socio-moral conscience votes since he entered Parliament in 1998.

In 2002 he voted for legislation allowing stem cell research. In 2006 he supported removing the health minister's power to bar the abortion drug RU486. In 2006 he voted against legislation allowing embryonic stem cell research.

The decision on using aid funds for abortion services will not go to Parliament, as AusAID's guidelines are a government policy.

The issue pits moral opposition to abortion against concerns about the health of women in poor countries. It divides MPs on both sides of politics.

The head of the Catholic aid agency Caritas, Jack de Groot, said if the Government was reviewing the guidelines it should acknowledge the church's role in providing primary health care in many poor countries. "Most Australians do not believe that our government's international aid program should be spent on procuring abortions," Mr de Groot said.

The head of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance, Jane Singleton, said more than 500,000women a year died from childbirth or related causes.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, June 5, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #189078 by mordacious1 on June 5, 2008 at 11:21 am

The more I read about Australia on this site, the more it sounds like the U.S. And that is not a good thing most of the time.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #189123 by Animavore on June 5, 2008 at 1:48 pm

AUS and USA are only different in the way they are arranged.

Other Comments by Animavore

3. Comment #189135 by Ubiquitous Che on June 5, 2008 at 2:07 pm

"The head of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance, Jane Singleton, said more than 500,000 women a year died from childbirth or related causes."

That should have been the first line in the article, not the last.

It's stuff like this that makes me seriously think about move back to Australia from New Zealand so I can re-register to vote against nonsense like revoking aid on grounds of religious pretensions.

Other Comments by Ubiquitous Che

4. Comment #189154 by ivellios on June 5, 2008 at 2:49 pm

But now the Prime Minister faces a decision that may alienate socially conservative Catholics and born-again Protestants.

The Rudd Government is considering overturning the Howard government's ban on Australian overseas aid being used to fund abortions in poor countries.

Regardless of his personal views, he is following the correct path by overturning this ban.

Other Comments by ivellios

5. Comment #189156 by mmurray on June 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm

The more I read about Australia on this site, the more it sounds like the U.S. And that is not a good thing most of the time.

Except that in cases like this our influence internationally is minor, thankfully.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

6. Comment #189171 by acs on June 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Australia, my home country, is one of the youngest countries on the planet. It only formed from the "colonies" in 1901. Our "founding fathers" (Griffith, Deakin, Barton) took principles from both the USA and Great Britain when they were writing the constitution.

Furthermore, our country experiences one of the highest leves of living standard and education around the world.

Nonetheless, our Prime Minister is a "self confessed God Botherer". This is a little disconcerting as he is the left wing candidate. He won great support from the churches during the Kevin07 campaign on this basis.

Now he is in control of the purse strings, he wants to do the right thing and give aid to abortion facilities in under developed countries (remember Australia is the major power in the South Pacific, so all those little island states like Fiji, Tahiti, New Caledonia, Samoa, Papua New Guinea - come under our care). That is sensible given the problems that expanding populations can have on small underdeveloped nations.

Again, we are seeing theists exercise a disproportionate amount of power in politics. It is not Rudd's fault, it is my fellow country men who let the theists get away with this.

Other Comments by acs

7. Comment #189180 by mmurray on June 5, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Further information on this can be found here

http://www.arha.org.au/index/AusAID_FP_Guides.pdf

In this case it wasn't so much theists exercising a disproportionate amount of power but one single theist who held the balance of power in the Senate -- Australia's upper house. I hope that in the future when historians look back on the ecological disasters that occurred in the early 21st century due to excessive population growth Senator Brian Harraddine gets a good billing along with George Bush and successive Popes. Assuming there are any historians of course.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

8. Comment #189189 by whupper on June 5, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Hell, I'm *from* Australia and you're mirroring my thoughts exactly. I've been gone about ten years. I don't remember any issues like I've seen on this site when I grew up there. So it makes me think it's trending to the U.S. as well.

Other Comments by whupper

9. Comment #189193 by dr joneZ on June 5, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Kevin Rudd is a very shrewd political chameleon. You will see him change the colour of his skin often as he listens to the polls, the media and the pundits. He suffers from the disease of political correctness just as much as Howard did and is a moral conservative to the hilt. Just the same, he knows that he must keep the left side of politics happy - his own people in other words - and will from time to time slip something through like this that appears to be progressive socialism. He will just as soon withdraw it if the Religious Right manage to embarrass him over it, so very little of Rudd's much-touted humanism is more than an elaborate window-dressing exercise.

Let's all please be clear on one thing: politics is "spirituality in action". What you BELIEVE is at the heart of everything you DO. The idea that in some societies religion and politics do not tango together is pure post-modernist balderdash. ALL human societies drag their belief systems around with their political process - indeed the very notion of "law" is a theological concept. Modern political "process" is merely an elaborate obfuscation of this fact, bolted down on top of quasi-biblical if not outright biblical morality. There is NEVER any separation of church and state where both exist side by side. The church needs the state to assure its continued existence and the state needs the church to mandate its law process by "approving" the moral basis of law.

It has always struck me as particularly illustrative of this that an atheist cannot, on the basis of his or her "non-belief in god or gods" refuse to swear on a bible to tell the truth in a court of law. As far as the judicial process is concerned, atheism does not even occupy a point on the moral map.

Other Comments by dr joneZ

10. Comment #189194 by secondsoprano on June 5, 2008 at 6:46 pm

dr joneZ , you are right about Rudd as a shrewd politican, but the rest of your post is, with the greatest of respect, b*llsh*t.

The separation of church and state mostly works pretty well in Australia. There is the occasional clever and nasty priest/politician like Abbott, Harradine & Niele, but in general it is simply not true that "the state needs the church to mandate its law process".

Your stated example re the oath is incorrect. The Oaths Acts of all Australian jurisdictions include provision for a witness to take an oath or an affirmation, at the witness' discretion. Case law makes it clear that in every case where an oath is required, a solemn declaration is also acceptable, and the only requirement is that the oath or declaration be binding upon the declarant's conscience. There is no requirement that a bible or any other religious text be used, unless the deponent requests it.

*edited for typos

Other Comments by secondsoprano

11. Comment #189195 by acs on June 5, 2008 at 6:54 pm

It has always struck me as particularly illustrative of this that an atheist cannot, on the basis of his or her "non-belief in god or gods" refuse to swear on a bible to tell the truth in a court of law. As far as the judicial process is concerned, atheism does not even occupy a point on the moral map.

You can now affirm - (non-religious oath).

EDIT - Damn, secondsoprano beat me to it.

Other Comments by acs

12. Comment #189197 by Brian English on June 5, 2008 at 6:58 pm

While Aus does show some americanisation. I think it's wrong to say it's just like the states. Here, being openly religious is a bit of a politcal gamble. Sure Howard and Rudd used religion a bit. But if they come out and say the sort of shite that's considered normal in the US, they'd be in a right spot of bother.

Other Comments by Brian English

13. Comment #189208 by secondsoprano on June 5, 2008 at 8:00 pm

To acs -

EDIT - Damn, secondsoprano beat me to it.

... but you did it so much more succinctly :)

To Brian English -

Here, being openly religious is a bit of a politcal gamble. Sure Howard and Rudd used religion a bit. But if they come out and say the sort of shite that's considered normal in the US, they'd be in a right spot of bother.

I agree. Sure, there are still problems ($165 mill of my money to "world" youth day; tax ememptions to churches, no gay marriage etc), but in general it seems to me that Australians do not take kindly to overt religious involvement in politics. I'd say we're doing pretty well compared to the US, if what we see in the media/net can be believed.

Other Comments by secondsoprano

14. Comment #189215 by yyuryyub on June 5, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Don't forget this piece is about OVERTURNING a strange aid restriction on abortion education services. It will be overturned. Sure Rudd is a faith-head but he is definately SECULAR.

When the new parliament was sworn in a few months ago I saw Tanner(Atheist), Guillard(Agnostic) and I think Swan(Pathetic) all make an affirmation rather than swearing on a Bible. That's the three next highest ministers. Penny Wong, the minister for climate change and water is a gay atheist.

As for gay marriage, we will soon have gay marriage in all but name. Even though Rudd has said his personal views differ, he also repeatedly talks about the importance of secularism.

So those who think the religious in Aus. and U.S. are the same have either been gone too long, never been or think Steve Irwin was the president.

Other Comments by yyuryyub

15. Comment #189221 by acs on June 5, 2008 at 8:54 pm

I dont know, $165m on WYD from the public purse seems a bit excessive.

So those who think the religious in Aus. and U.S. are the same have either been gone too long, never been or think Steve Irwin was the president.

Lol - we all know our president was assassinated last year by a lone sting ray, or was he???

EDIT: I apologise if that is in bad taste.

Other Comments by acs

16. Comment #189229 by Laurie Fraser on June 5, 2008 at 9:43 pm

I heard this story on A.M. this morning. Thank dog Brian Harradine is not still holding the balance

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

17. Comment #189234 by Christopher Davis on June 5, 2008 at 10:12 pm

I'm an American, and on this topic we probably deserve the kicking.

However, I will say that it isn't so much the fact that religious types object to tax-dollars being used for abortions that irks me, it's the fact that these bans almost always include sanctions against using tax money for contraceptives as well.

What kind of sick, sadistic, SOB really thinks that it's "God's will" to overrun the globe with starving, bloated-bellied babies?

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

18. Comment #189298 by jaid on June 6, 2008 at 1:43 am

Rudd's global posturings might be more convincing if he obliterated Costello's retrograde and divisive Baby (Plasma) Bonus and invested some of the record surplus (our money, not his) on genuinely progressive social policy.

Thirty or 40% of the planet's population are living in poverty (unchanged since the 70's), thanks to the 'free' market.

Six billion citizens are more than sufficient if our planet is to prove sustainable - and, of course, there are no guarantees.

The production consumption mantra has done enough damage - here and elsewhere: it's time to focus on equity.

Other Comments by jaid

19. Comment #189306 by mmurray on June 6, 2008 at 2:23 am

Lol - we all know our president was assassinated last year by a lone sting ray, or was he???

Wasn't that Harold Holt ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

20. Comment #189307 by Ramases on June 6, 2008 at 2:24 am

I actually don't agree that Australia is as much like the US as some here think. Nor do I completely agree with the following statement from the article;

"KEVIN RUDD wears his Christianity on his sleeve more prominently than any Labor leader since the devout Catholic Arthur Calwell. It is a stance that yielded political dividends at last year's election, when Labor achieved its highest level of support from regular churchgoers since 1993."

I don't think his religion made any difference to his election.

Bob Hawke was a self declared non-believer, yet he was a popular PM for a decade. Jim Cairns was quite a militant atheist, yet he made it to Deputy PM in the 1970s.

Could this have happened in the US?

PS: I see most of you know how to put your quotes in cool little boxes, while I have to use quotes. How do you do it?

Other Comments by Ramases

21. Comment #189312 by mmurray on June 6, 2008 at 2:32 am

Ramases -- click here

http://richarddawkins.net/commentNotes.html

It is the link above the comment box called
[Comment Posting Guidelines] where all will be revealed.

--------------------

Wikipedia has some projections of future global population numbers from the US Census Bureau:

Year Population
(in billions)
2010 6.8
2020 7.6
2030 8.3
2040 8.9
2050 9.4

Jarrod Diamond in his book Collapse estimates that giving all the current world population a first world lifestyle would require 12 earths.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

22. Comment #189315 by Greyman on June 6, 2008 at 2:39 am

Ramases, blockquotes are simply blockquotes. Cut and paste the text you wish into the comment textbox, and suround it with <blockquote> </blockquote> tags.

Click on the [Comment Posting Guidelines] link for more information.

Other Comments by Greyman

23. Comment #189317 by Brian English on June 6, 2008 at 2:45 am

It's really quite simple. People living a western lifestyle create waste and use resources in profligate fashion. Recycling and cutting down on energy wastage creates smug (a smug sense of self-congratulation that we've done our bit, but really, we've not stopped the problem only slowed down the inevitable). The plain fact is, if all the Chinese and Indians, let along all the long suffering Africans, were to attempt to achieve our lifestyle (which they do want and I can't begrudge them this, they deserve it as much as we do), there will be no resources left. But even if they didn't, we'd use up those resources in a short time (100 years or so).

It simply isn't possible for this planet to provide the resources for all the gizmos (products and energy usage like cars) we have and the land for all the food we enjoy for every person. Until this point is grasped, we're all just fiddler's on the Titanic. Sadly, if we grasp it, and humanity doesn't agree to feed all best as possible (which will require us to stop prospering and will seem like communism which many here will hate) and restrict birth rates, then we'll just knowingly drown instead of unsuspectingly go under.....

Global warming is just a symptom....

Does any of this sound bleak? :P

Other Comments by Brian English

24. Comment #189318 by mmurray on June 6, 2008 at 2:54 am

Hi Brian

Wikipedia suggests a sustainable world population means a reduction of 2/3's so around 2 billion.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

25. Comment #189320 by Brian English on June 6, 2008 at 2:58 am

Well, at the moment there's only a Billion (1000 million) or so, and it's not sustainable with current usage.

If we improve a bit, who knows....But 6 billion at first world status (and we're already past 6 billion in population) won't happen. Unless we mine the other planets.

It really doesn't matter to me so much. I'm in my mid 30's and I'll die soon enough. But when I think of all those to whom it will or does matter... Sort of makes you feel useless. But we must go on....

Other Comments by Brian English

26. Comment #189322 by Brian English on June 6, 2008 at 3:11 am

I'd imagine 2 billion at a 1950's lifestyle would be sustainable. But who wants to give up their plasmas and such?

Perhaps if we pray to God and he'll replenish the limited resources or bring on Armageddon.... :D

Other Comments by Brian English

27. Comment #189334 by yyuryyub on June 6, 2008 at 4:16 am

Laurie Frazer

Thank dog Brian Harradine is not still holding the balance

Couldn't agree more! He'd sell Qld to the Dutch to stop both the abortion aid and gay rights.

Other Comments by yyuryyub

28. Comment #189607 by AtheistAspy on June 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Asked on ABC TV recently whether his religious views would influence how he ran the country, Mr Rudd said: "No. You are elected on the basis of the views you put to the Australian people; the policies you put to the Australian people."

So what would he do if Australian voters had his views for religious reasons?

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

29. Comment #189758 by Laurie Fraser on June 7, 2008 at 7:28 am

I'm kind of ambivalent about this subject. On the one hand, Australians tend to be sceptical of the insanely religious. Rudd is, though, a forceful speaker - generally rational and controlled. I actually believe him when he says that government is, and should be, secular. However, when he weighs into arguments like the Bill Henson charade he is sending rather subtle, populist messages that countermand proper reflection. And THAT could be problematic. The subtext seems to be "I'm an inherently rational person, but my faith supports a 'moral' rationality." Dunno - need to give it more thought.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser