Tony Abbott and the right to dissent from the new morality


Ironically, the reaction to Tony Abbott's decision to speak to the Alliance Defending Freedom proves that group right when it claims that our religious freedoms are under threat as never before, writes Michael Jensen.

Freedom of religion?

It has to be written with a question mark these days, because there is no guarantee that in a Western democracy in the 21st century you will be able to exercise it.

A new censorship has arisen which threatens the right of individuals and groups to dissent from the new morality. Oppose abortion? Unthinkable. Suggest that people who aren't born with wombs but who want to call themselves 'women' aren't actually women? Disgusting. Argue dispassionately that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman? You should be ashamed of yourself.

And so we have former PM Tony Abbott being invited to speak to America's Alliance Defending Freedom, which is, to describe it in its own terms, "an alliance-building legal ministry that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith", or, to describe it in the terms of the Australian media, a "gay-hate group" - and copping a barrage of outrage.

I have found nothing in the ADF literature which could be fairly characterised as "gay hate". What you have to remember is that the American habit of fighting ideological battles through the courts isn't what we do here in Australia. The ADF is (as I understand it) about fighting legal battles in which claims for religious rights and freedoms are pitted against other claims for rights. For example, it defends the right of private groups and societies to decide what their criteria for membership are, over against the claim that such groups should not be allowed to discriminate - and defends it doughtily. Or, it defends the right of students to express their faith on university campuses.

It stands against the encroachment of a secularising liberalism in the USA, a form of liberalism which is anything but liberal, since it actively seeks to eradicate religion from public life entirely.

That ideology is becoming more and more active in Australia, it has to be said, particularly in Victoria. It uses political, legal, and bureaucratic instruments, such as the heavy-handed new guidelines for Special Religious Instruction introduced by the Andrews Government in Victoria.

The castigation of Mr Abbott for accepting the invitation to speak at an ADF dinner is telling. Most of all, it reveals that Australian media pundits hold their ethical positions on matters such as abortion and same-sex marriage as self-evidently true - which is to say, abortion (for example) is held to be beyond argument, and a person or group who opposes it beyond the pale.

And so, the only possible response to Abbot's move is sneering derision. If the ADF opposes abortion rights, or takes a different view of the family, it must be a 'far-right' group - that is, not worth taking seriously at the level of argument.

Now, as it happens, I don't agree with everything that the ADF says, or with its approach to church-state relations. But these are serious people who make sustained legal and intellectual arguments for their positions, and use legitimate tactics to pursue them. Even a passionate pro-choice advocate should surely recognise that the issue of abortion is extremely morally complex. It deserves argument, whatever your position. The place and shape of the family is likewise a matter for serious debate, whatever one's views.

We seem to have lost the vision of a genuine pluralism, in which competing points of view on serious moral issues are both allowed to coexist so that the arguments for each may be put. Rather, we resort to tweeting and shouting. Thankfully, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has injected a sensible note in the discussion, noting that people in his own party hold different views and that it is actually unsurprising. It may even be a good thing.

Ironically, the treatment of Mr Abbott rather proves the ADF right when it claims that our religious freedoms are under threat as never before. The ADF website states that "we will prayerfully enter every battle expecting to win while always demonstrating respect toward those who oppose us".

That respect seems to be in short supply.

Dr Michael Jensen is the rector at St Mark's Anglican Church, Darling Point, NSW.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/jensen-freedom-of-religion/7123204


Thoughts?

It is a superb article and very powerfully makes the point about the growing inflexibility of society to accept diverging views.

It is a characteristic of 'internet debate' that if you oppose gay marriage then you are apparently 'homophobic' ie afraid of gays. The mere suggestion that you may oppose it on moral, religious or other grounds never seems to occur. I doubt very much that this article will get much discussion here. It is a tad too complex for most and introduces concepts such as the right to validly hold an opposing position without being a bigot, phobic or a retard.

The internet has given everyone a voice. The trouble is, it allowed us to discover that the majority of voices belong to the ignorant, the uninformed and ironically, the bigot.

Enquiring on the topic of Abortion.

Do conservative religionists see death as a punishment, rather than a returning back to God. At the core of the abortion debate, are religionists really atheists?

Tony Abbott has right to address Alliance Defending Freedom in US on same-sex marriage, Michaelia Cash says


Cabinet Minister Michaelia Cash has defended Tony Abbott's right to address a conservative Christian lobby group on marriage ahead of a proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/cash-defends-abbott's-right-to-address-christian-lobby-group/7124362

I believe he also has a responsibility to be in australia carrying out the duties he was elected to do, represent his electorate in federal parliament. If he finds addressing RWNJ's in the USA more appealing, well resign and f&*k off over there full time. Very few will miss you.

Is it satire?

You are free to practice your religion, just as people should be free to marry who they want.

Ironic you are complaining about not being able to limit others freedom as oppression.

Don't agree with abortion - Don't have one

Don't agree with gay marriage - Don't marry someone of your same gender

macman wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 12:14pm:

I believe he also has a responsibility to be in australia carrying out the duties he was elected to do, represent his electorate in federal parliament. If he finds addressing RWNJ's in the USA more appealing, well resign and f&*k off over there full time. Very few will miss you.

Good to see Tony is still causing you to have hissy fit's

;) ;D

If he doesn't love Australia he should bugger off - isn't that what we all get told???

macman wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 12:14pm:

I believe he also has a responsibility to be in australia carrying out the duties he was elected to do, represent his electorate in federal parliament. If he finds addressing RWNJ's in the USA more appealing, well resign and f&*k off over there full time. Very few will miss you.

Parliament isn't sitting...

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

Parliament isn't sitting...

Don't bring logic into it.  ;)

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 5:00pm: Parliament isn't sitting... Don't bring logic into it.  ;)

Or difficult concepts like the right to free speech and to hold a particular opinion. If it were a government minister speaking at a gay marriage convention, they would applaud it.

Was Abbott's assassination by the Liberal Party because of his anti choice for women concerning abortion and his negative stance towards marriage equality?

Are the Liberal Party against conservative christian values?

Is Greens_Win for real? Tune in next time to another fabulous instalment.

____ wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

Was Abbott's assassination by the Liberal Party because of his anti choice for women concerning abortion and his negative stance towards marriage equality? Are the Liberal Party against conservative christian values?

Was the former Green leader assassinated because she was a closet STRAIGHT?

Personal attack rather than replying ... interesting behaviour.

repeat of my question.
Abbott was assassinated by the Liberal Party.
Was this assassination because of Abbott's conservative christian values?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:33pm:

____ wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:15pm: Was Abbott's assassination by the Liberal Party because of his anti choice for women concerning abortion and his negative stance towards marriage equality? Are the Liberal Party against conservative christian values? Was the former Green leader assassinated because she was a closet STRAIGHT?

And another.
And this poster stated


Quote:

It is a superb article and very powerfully makes the point about the growing inflexibility of society to accept diverging views. It is a characteristic of 'internet debate' that if you oppose gay marriage then you are apparently 'homophobic' ie afraid of gays. The mere suggestion that you may oppose it on moral, religious or other grounds never seems to occur. I doubt very much that this article will get much discussion here. It is a tad too complex for most and introduces concepts such as the right to validly hold an opposing position without being a bigot, phobic or a retard. The internet has given everyone a voice. The trouble is, it allowed us to discover that the majority of voices belong to the ignorant, the uninformed and ironically, the bigot.

Seems Maria is exploring hypocrisy.


I repeat.
The Liberal Party Assassinated Abbott.
Due to the Liberal Party's anti conservative christian agenda?

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

macman wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 12:14pm: I believe he also has a responsibility to be in australia carrying out the duties he was elected to do, represent his electorate in federal parliament. If he finds addressing RWNJ's in the USA more appealing, well resign and f&*k off over there full time. Very few will miss you. Parliament isn't sitting... So Tones will not be missing when they do sit?

____ wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

Personal attack rather than replying ... interesting behaviour. repeat of my question. Abbott was assassinated by the Liberal Party. Was this assassination because of Abbott's conservative christian values?

So that WAS why she was assassinated? Or was she *shock horror* developing conservative thoughts and had to be expelled?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:51pm:

____ wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:34pm: Personal attack rather than replying ... interesting behaviour. repeat of my question. Abbott was assassinated by the Liberal Party. Was this assassination because of Abbott's conservative christian values? So that WAS why she was assassinated? Or was she *shock horror* developing conservative thoughts and had to be expelled?

Tony Abbott is a woman ?
Perhaps she attended the same christian conversion workshop as longweekend.


So why did the Liberal Party assassinate Abbott. Because the liberal party is anti conservative christian values?

Is the question too difficult?

macman wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 5:00pm: macman wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 12:14pm: I believe he also has a responsibility to be in australia carrying out the duties he was elected to do, represent his electorate in federal parliament. If he finds addressing RWNJ's in the USA more appealing, well resign and f&*k off over there full time. Very few will miss you. Parliament isn't sitting... So Tones will not be missing when they do sit?

He'll be there when the whips're crackin'. Parliamentary whips, that is...

No, he won't be. He and margie will be flying out tuesday for USA to address the RWNJ's, your US counterparts. So woody, lee and felon , would you like to explain why your idol isn't doing the job he is paid to do?

macman wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 6:42am:

No, he won't be. He and margie will be flying out tuesday for USA to address the RWNJ's, your US counterparts. So woody, lee and felon , would you like to explain why your idol isn't doing the job he is paid to do?

And labor front-benchers never travel overseas, right?

Deflection is not an answer Longie!Hightail it and join the other rightards.

macman wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 12:14pm:

I believe he also has a responsibility to be in australia carrying out the duties he was elected to do, represent his electorate in federal parliament. If he finds addressing RWNJ's in the USA more appealing, well resign and f&*k off over there full time. Very few will miss you.

Parliament is in recess, so he can do whatever he likes and I'm sure your opinion of him is an issue he couldn't care less about if he tried.

I know it is hard for you but we will try again

'No, he won't be. He and margie will be flying out tuesday for USA to address the RWNJ's, your US counterparts. So woody, lee and felon , would you like to explain why your idol isn't doing the job he is paid to do?'

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

Or difficult concepts like the right to free speech and to hold a particular opinion.

So longweekend departs and Maria comes back......has anyone ever seen them in the same thread together?


It is laughable how the right wing misrepresent the concept of "freedom of speech"

Freedom of speech is in fact the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. It does not give a person the right to not be criticized.

The article in the OP falsely implies that criticism is censorship.   Freedom of speech means that we have every right to criticize Abbotts addressing of a conservative right wing lobby group. It also protects our right to call right wingers the small minded bigots that they are.

To put it simply, if it is libs it's gospel and if it isn't it's witchery.  Time to stake and burn.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 8:07am:

It is a superb article and very powerfully makes the point about the growing inflexibility of society to accept diverging views. It is a characteristic of 'internet debate' that if you oppose gay marriage then you are apparently 'homophobic' ie afraid of gays. The mere suggestion that you may oppose it on moral, religious or other grounds never seems to occur. I doubt very much that this article will get much discussion here. It is a tad too complex for most and introduces concepts such as the right to validly hold an opposing position without being a bigot, phobic or a retard. The internet has given everyone a voice. The trouble is, it allowed us to discover that the majority of voices belong to the ignorant, the uninformed and ironically, the bigot.

If you oppose gay marriage, you are a bigot and you are refusing rights to a segment of the population.

If someone was against interracial marriage on "moral" grounds, they are a bigot.

Deal with it, your "morals" are about not allowing equal basic rights to a segment of the population, that is bigotry.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 11:12am:

[quote author=mariacostel link=1454017787/10#10 date=1454054635] It is laughable how the right wing misrepresent the concept of "freedom of speech" Freedom of speech is in fact the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. It does not give a person the right to not be criticized. The article in the OP falsely implies that criticism is censorship.

it actually amazes me how much the conservative right simply can't get this, I get into this argument almost on a daily basis with conservatives, who see criticism against them as censorship, but then actually want to censor people who disagree with them, which is why you have huge reactionary hate campaigns online largely targeting women/feminists often involving real life abuse and stalking.

macman wrote on Jan 31^st, 2016 at 7:08am:

I know it is hard for you but we will try again 'No, he won't be. He and margie will be flying out tuesday for USA to address the RWNJ's, your US counterparts. So woody, lee and felon , would you like to explain why your idol isn't doing the job he is paid to do?'

Hey macman, I just watched QT and guess who was there?

Yup, your BFF, Tones...

The Heartless Felon wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 3:07pm:

Hey macman, I just watched QT and guess who was there?

Yeh, he actually gave the talk last Friday. Don't they teach calendars in school any more?

Wonder if Abbott was aware of who party room leaked for him this morning.

____ wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Wonder if Abbott was aware of who party room leaked for him this morning.

Someone in the party room went for a leak for him? Plastic pockets?