Australian Conservative leader Tony Abbott

TONY ABBOTT, Australia’s Conservative Opposition leader who will be running against Prime Minister Julia Gillard in an upcoming election, stated today that it was unfair for voters to consider Gillard’s atheism on election day. “[Faith] is a personal thing,” Abbott said in an ABC Radio interview. “Just as my Catholicism should not be held against me, her views or lack of views on the subject should not be held against her.”

Did you ever read a more stunningly oblivious statement by a politican before? Why, even atheists believe their faith matters.

Christianity and atheism. These are two different faiths, that’s all, sort of like whether you drink Coke or iced tea.

“I have never ever let religion dictate politics because decisions that are made by politicians in a secular, pluralist democracy like Australia have got to be driven by what are objective, standard, ordinary commonsense considerations,” Abbott said. Objective, standard, ordinary, commonsense: these are pre-existent and unquestioned, matters of faith we will not call matters of faith. 

Whether life has meaning, God exists or our actions have any consequences, these have no bearing on what is objective, standard and ordinary. Abbott deserves to lose against his radical socialist opponent. At least she is faithful to her beliefs, changing what she believes to suit the moment, believing in expedience and will.

In polls, women voters in Australia favor Gillard by a wide margin. Three weeks ago,Abbott had 23 percent of the female vote, as opposed to 53 percent by Gillard.

Earlier this year, Abbott made an informal statement in an interview about premarital sex. When asked what he would tell his three daughters, he said, “It (sex before marriage) happens … I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question … it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving, and don’t give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say.”

This is hardly a condemnation of promiscuity. In fact, it seems a half-hearted endorsement of it. However, Gillard responded: “These comments will confirm the worst fears of Australian women about Tony Abbott. Australian women don’t want to be told what to do by Tony Abbott.”

“Australian women want to make their own choices and they don’t want to be lectured to by Mr Abbott.”

                                       — Comments —

John E. writes:

Abbott said:

I have never ever let religion dictate politics because decisions that are made by politicians in a secular, pluralist democracy like Australia have got to be driven by what are objective, standard, ordinary commonsense considerations. 

I guess this goes to show that belittling one’s faith and lying to oneself in the name of political fair play are not exclusively American phenomena.

Laura writes:

 I suppose if Gillard wins, people will see this as a great victory for socialism, atheism and feminism, ignoring the fact that Abbott seems to be actively campaigning for his opponent .  

Lucy Zubova writes:

I read with interest your article about the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott. I was a little taken aback at your criticism of his stand regarding his Catholic faith. I think some further background is required.

As a Catholic, Tony Abbott has been subjected to the foulest and most vindictive treatment by the Australian mainstreadm media. Editors and journalists think nothing of labelling him ‘the Mad Monk’, his opposition to abortion led one Greens senator to wear a T-shirt demanding that Mr Abbott ‘keep (his) rosaries off (her) ovaries” , and in response to an article in which he said he would counsel his daughters to delay their sexual activity until they were mature and in a stable relationship, our now PM, Julia Gillard, proclaimed that Tony Abbott was trying to tell all Australian women what they could and could not do with their bodies (!).

I believe that Mr Abbott is simply trying to defuse criticism of himself because of his religious views. Australia is not like America where a politician has to make the right religious ‘mouth-noises’ to get elected. Australians, by and large, are not churchgoers and they don’t like people making a big deal about their religious views while occupying political positions.

We will have an general election here quite soon, although the date has not yet been announced. Tony Abbott is facing an insanely hostile media and, from my perspective, is trying to remove one of their favourites tools for attacking him. He cannot in all honesty ask for his own convictions to be spared criticism but not Ms Gillard’s.

Laura writes:

Thank you for the background. I realize he faces a hostile, anti-Christian climate. However, I don’t think he should ask for his own convictions to be spared criticism, but rather defend them and argue that they can only enhance his ability to represent the interests of people of all faiths. He might point to the bitter legacy of atheists in office and that everybody believes in something. With atheists, that something is often centralized government, which often brings the denial of individual freedom.

Did he respond to Gillard’s statement that he was telling Australian women what to do with their bodies and explain just how destructive sexual freedom has been to women? Did he point out the sexual diseases, the infertility, the single mothers? He should have said, I do care about women’s physical well-being, much more than my opponent, and I care about it precisely because I believe in objective morality. Julia Gillard, my opponent, could care less about the casualties of  modern life because she has no higher standards. I am a defender of women; she is not. However, I am hardly telling women what to do. In fact, she seems to be telling women what to do, and it won’t bring women happiness. You might say he would never get elected if he spoke this way. But if he has certain convictions, then getting elected isn’t the most important thing and anyway it is not true that these convictions make no difference to his decisions in office.  He went too far in his statement today.

Kilroy writes:

 The role played by organised religion in Australian society cannot in any way shape or form be compared to its counterpart in North America. There are historical reasons for this I am sure, but I don’t know your history enough to make an in-depth assessment and comparison for the purposes of this brief blog entry. However, I can offer the following for the benefit of foreign readers who may be baffled by Abbott’s comments: 

There was a time, not too long ago, where sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants was quite ugly in this country. This was mostly because the convict, convict-descendant and proletarian underclass was mostly Irish Catholic. It had understandably hostile attitudes to the “WASP” governing elite, and that governing elite was hostile towards Catholics for various reasons which I presume would be similar to those of your “Know Nothing” movement. There was a lot of genuine bigotry and prejudice. For example, the story/myth of Ned Kelly ties into this, but I digress. 

Interestingly, this is why Catholicism and revolutionary politics converged in the early days and played an important role in the formation of the Australian Labor Party. With the Cold War, a seismic shift occurred when the more faithful elements of the ALP split and formed the “Democratic Labor Party” under Bob Santamaria. They were strongly anti-Communist and socially conservative, whereas the ALP was not. The split in the ALP was largely the cause of a near hegemonic rule for the Coalition Liberal and Country (now National) Parties. In any case, this seemed to have solidified the stranglehold of the atheist left in the ALP and lead to a situation where the party now has a crypto-communist atheist as its head. 

Because religious institutions, and more obviously the Catholic Church appear to be the last bulwark of traditional conservatism (even if in theory), the nominally conservative Coalition has in the last decade undergone a process of “Catholicisation.” Abbott is possibly the best example of this: a Catholic conservative leading a formerly WASP political establishment, competing against an atheist feminist corporate lawyer who is leading a party formerly associated with Irish working class Catholicism. As you can see, conservative politics and religion have been in flux between the various elite institutions over the decades since the end of the Second World War. 

Moreover, our society professes an egalitarian ethic which is also drawn from early colonial days: a certain “brotherhood of man” evolved as everyone was struggling to make a life for themselves in a barren land with an often unforgiving climate. To my knowledge, there was never an indigenous aristocracy in Australia, nothing like the great families one sees represented in Gone With the Wind for example. There was a privileged class, but somehow this did not create a rigidly stratified society like you see in traditional Europe. In any case, this translated into what we describe as a near universal culture of “mateship”, “fair go” and a general live-and-let-live philosophy of life. Coupled with the legacy of sectarian turbulence referred to above, many religious conservatives take the “religion is personal” attitude, not because they think there is no public role for religion, but because people generally prefer to avoid potential conflict and just “let it be”. This is why we don’t have a “Moral Majority” or “Christian Coalition” type organisation here, we are a far more secular society in that respect. 

Under liberalism, this will of course corrupt into a tolerance for the sake of tolerance, and you are right to criticise Abbott for belittling the faith by equivocating it with atheism. That will lead to nihilism in the long run, and the Western European experiment has largely failed in this. But if you understand where this attitude comes from, you will see that Abbott isn’t being callous or dishonest, he is simply the product of his time and culture, a culture that is obviously wounded. 

Lastly, this is probably the most obvious point: Abbott has not always shown such caution about religious and social matters. The hate he is treated with by media elites is breathtaking. Here are some events that come immediately to mind: he has disclosed that he has taught his daughters to stay chaste – this made him an object of ridicule for weeks; he has made remarks about “housewives” – I understand that the term is about as offensive to feminists as the “n word” is to some quarters of US society; he was once interrogated rudely for meeting with Cardinal Pell (shock horror!). Now that he has a chance of getting the “top job”, I believe he has moderated his language intentionally to court the middle ground. It’s politics, pure and simple. To be fair, all these things must be born in mind before judging him.

Laura writes:

Thank you for this. That’s fascinating and I realize that I can’t fully appreciate the mood in Australia. Abbott could have made it clear that religion and politics are separate spheres of life, without going so far as to state that a politican’s beliefs have no bearing on their judgment and values.

Jeni writes:

I realize that my comment is probably less important than the reason for the post, but couldn’t you have found a less immodest picture? It’s quite offensive, really.

I enjoy reading your posts and your reader’s comments a lot, but to be slammed with this photo first thing upon entering the site was awful.

Laura writes:

I agree it is offensive. But it’s the unvarnished truth and I thought it was germane to my point. I’ve just reduced the size of it to make it less overwhelming.

John E. writes:

Notwithstanding the apparently functional nature of Mr. Abbott’s small apparel, the picture you posted reminded me of a thought I’ve had at one time or another. If modest considerations in apparel are important for women so as to guard against inordinate desires from others, perhaps modesty in men is important so as to guard against inordinate revulsion.

Laura writes:

Fortunately, American men have, for the most part, resisted this trend toward the bikini suit. It is very unbecoming. It  makes a man look like he is wearing Pampers.

Please follow and like us: