Tony Abbott: A Man With No Shame Part II
November 15th 2006 04:59
Greetings Earthlings,
Well, well, well, they say a week is a long time in politics, but it's time to prove that a day can sometimes be just as long. Following Tony Abbott's rather thin piece in last Wednesday's Sydney Morning Herald, Kevin Rudd stepped up to the plate with a rich article full of substance and good sense and provided a brilliant riposte. In the Rudd Contra Abbott tussle, it's a decisive victory to Mr. Rudd. Before we hand out the laurel wreaths though, lets get into Rudd's head and see what emerged from a healthy connection between his brain and fingers. His article appeared in last Thursday's SMH, November 9, 2006.
This whole thorny issue of the influence of religious movements in politics is nothing new, but Rudd bolts straight out of the gate affirming that the separation between Church and State is A GOOD THING. He also states that conscience is not something endemic amongst all persons of a religious disposition; secular people, athiests, even Satanists have standards. Believe it or not. Yet, politicians aren't always so immune to a little selective cross-breeding. In fact Liberal bread and butter has been made out of obvious associations with religious groups. Often and almost exclusively Christian in flavour. But recently, they've shown a distinct bias in one direction.
John Howard and Peter Costello are clearly welcome to turn up to a Hillsong gig and be welcomed with open arms, but their attendance at your local mosque seems a little, well, non-existant. You see the vast majority of Muslims in Australia are generally migrants or refugees, so they're not gonna be so flush as the folks from the North West or North Shore or any wealthy region of Sydney. You go where your votes and alleigiances lie, not with t'others. So it appears. So straight off the bat Rudd has drawn the boundaries and from this vantage point, the Liberals have blurred them significantly.
He then goes on to explain the connection between social justice, religion and politics, that may have a religious base, but is not specifically tied to it. You can have a heart for the environment or the Third World say, yet have no spiritual inclinations at all. It's called Secular Humanism. Rudd is right to assert that one does feed into the other, but he also shows us a religious standpoint (one commensurate with Liberal policies and ethics) that disowns social justice. He uses the example of a divide within Christianity, which was Abbott's chosen field to plough.
"Broadly there are two traditions", says Rudd, "a privatised Christianity which holds that personal faith is all sufficient and that beyond questions of personal morality there are no particularly Christian demands on the public polity and politics of the country". This reeks of Liberal Party attitudes, while the more benevolent Social Justice position is often associated with Labor, Democrat and Green policies. Rudd continues: "The other ... says that personal faith is incomplete unless translated into concrete action on behalf of the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed, both through individual effort and the agency of society through the state". Nothing wrong with this. People first, dollars second. Sounds sane.
Abbott declared that basically, all anyone needs is a job, the rest will work itself out. This is quite obviously not the case, because you need to educate, train and motivate people so they can work. You just can't give a homeless person a Management role at Deloittes. It just don't work that way Tony. Rudd takes it one step further to refer to papal encyclicals (which present the Popes standpoints on particular issues - this being relevant to Abbott's public status as a card-carrying, devout Catholic) that state that workers shouldn't be shafted (not the Pope's exact words) which seems to run contrary to Liberal Party policies. Plucking an example out of the air, perhaps we can look at Work Choices, a euphemism for IR Reform, which is a euphemism for stripping away rights from workers.
Abbott can't win because he is his own worst enemy. It's painfully clear the Libs put themselves first, the economy second, employers third, the workers fourth and the tired, poor and huddled masses a distant fifth. See you in Part III.
Cheers
Michael.
Well, well, well, they say a week is a long time in politics, but it's time to prove that a day can sometimes be just as long. Following Tony Abbott's rather thin piece in last Wednesday's Sydney Morning Herald, Kevin Rudd stepped up to the plate with a rich article full of substance and good sense and provided a brilliant riposte. In the Rudd Contra Abbott tussle, it's a decisive victory to Mr. Rudd. Before we hand out the laurel wreaths though, lets get into Rudd's head and see what emerged from a healthy connection between his brain and fingers. His article appeared in last Thursday's SMH, November 9, 2006.
This whole thorny issue of the influence of religious movements in politics is nothing new, but Rudd bolts straight out of the gate affirming that the separation between Church and State is A GOOD THING. He also states that conscience is not something endemic amongst all persons of a religious disposition; secular people, athiests, even Satanists have standards. Believe it or not. Yet, politicians aren't always so immune to a little selective cross-breeding. In fact Liberal bread and butter has been made out of obvious associations with religious groups. Often and almost exclusively Christian in flavour. But recently, they've shown a distinct bias in one direction.
John Howard and Peter Costello are clearly welcome to turn up to a Hillsong gig and be welcomed with open arms, but their attendance at your local mosque seems a little, well, non-existant. You see the vast majority of Muslims in Australia are generally migrants or refugees, so they're not gonna be so flush as the folks from the North West or North Shore or any wealthy region of Sydney. You go where your votes and alleigiances lie, not with t'others. So it appears. So straight off the bat Rudd has drawn the boundaries and from this vantage point, the Liberals have blurred them significantly.
He then goes on to explain the connection between social justice, religion and politics, that may have a religious base, but is not specifically tied to it. You can have a heart for the environment or the Third World say, yet have no spiritual inclinations at all. It's called Secular Humanism. Rudd is right to assert that one does feed into the other, but he also shows us a religious standpoint (one commensurate with Liberal policies and ethics) that disowns social justice. He uses the example of a divide within Christianity, which was Abbott's chosen field to plough.
"Broadly there are two traditions", says Rudd, "a privatised Christianity which holds that personal faith is all sufficient and that beyond questions of personal morality there are no particularly Christian demands on the public polity and politics of the country". This reeks of Liberal Party attitudes, while the more benevolent Social Justice position is often associated with Labor, Democrat and Green policies. Rudd continues: "The other ... says that personal faith is incomplete unless translated into concrete action on behalf of the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed, both through individual effort and the agency of society through the state". Nothing wrong with this. People first, dollars second. Sounds sane.
Abbott declared that basically, all anyone needs is a job, the rest will work itself out. This is quite obviously not the case, because you need to educate, train and motivate people so they can work. You just can't give a homeless person a Management role at Deloittes. It just don't work that way Tony. Rudd takes it one step further to refer to papal encyclicals (which present the Popes standpoints on particular issues - this being relevant to Abbott's public status as a card-carrying, devout Catholic) that state that workers shouldn't be shafted (not the Pope's exact words) which seems to run contrary to Liberal Party policies. Plucking an example out of the air, perhaps we can look at Work Choices, a euphemism for IR Reform, which is a euphemism for stripping away rights from workers.
Abbott can't win because he is his own worst enemy. It's painfully clear the Libs put themselves first, the economy second, employers third, the workers fourth and the tired, poor and huddled masses a distant fifth. See you in Part III.
Cheers
Michael.
| 76 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
