Religion ex-pell-ed from public discussion
October 30, 2007
Good old George Pell. What’s the point of being the Archbishop of Sydney if you can’t take a swipe at those nasty secularists?
RELIGION was not only refusing to die out in modern Australian life but there was “some real danger” of its revival and growth, says the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell.
He accused the Greens, some Democrats and “silent minorities” in the Coalition and Labor parties, as well as large sections of the media, of wanting to exclude the church from legitimate public discussion.
I’d be interested to hear just what “legitimate public discussion” he thinks that the church as a group is being excluded from, and just what value he thinks is added by their input. (As an aside, if you are both silent and a minority, how are you threatening?)
Dr Pell was speaking at the launch last night of his first academic title, God and Caesar, which revisits his themes of rampant liberal secularism and defends the right of the church to champion pro-life causes.
Pell went on to say:
“A bit more religion here and there is something most will easily take in their stride, and probably nearly as many would be uneasy if religious voices were completely silent.
Au contraire Blackadder, religious voices certainly add no value to my life. And as far as arguments go, I suspect that people would probably take an increased incidence of Spanish Game Hen in their lives “in their stride” as well, but I think that says more about people than it does about the value of latin poultry in public discourse.
“The separation of church and state is sometimes invoked as a principle when politicians or others disagree with what church leaders or agencies have said on social justice, government policy, or moral issues, but when they agree with church statements this principle is not mentioned.”
True, but once again this is indicative of the behavior of stupid popularist politicians, not an invalidation of the concept of church-state separation. The very problem here is that separation is not being adhered to.
Dr Pell said a “false analogy” between alleged discrimination against homosexuals and racial discrimination was beginning to appear in Australia. He cited English newspaper reports of two foster parents to 28 children being forced to give up their work because authorities wanted them to teach that homosexual relationships were as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.
It’s a shame he didn’t elaborate on that, but I think we can probably infer that he doesn’t consider “alleged” discrimination against homosexuals to be a civil rights issue, because he believes that homosexuality is wrong. And why does he think it is wrong? Because of logic, science or philosophy? Or because someone claiming to be a conduit for the inerrant word of his god says so?
Oh sure – this is exactly the kind of people we want involved in legitimate public discussion [slaps head].