Comments on: Australian Censorship http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/06/22/australian-censorship/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/06/22/australian-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-185 El Sordo Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:14 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/06/22/australian-censorship/#comment-185 Precisely, in another article a politician who supports the Cardinal states that there is an issue concerning politicians who publically proclaim their faith and yet consistently vote against it. Asides from hypocrisy, the criticism was, as you said, having ones cake and eating it, that it suited them at election time to declare their faith. Precisely, in another article a politician who supports the Cardinal states that there is an issue concerning politicians who publically proclaim their faith and yet consistently vote against it. Asides from hypocrisy, the criticism was, as you said, having ones cake and eating it, that it suited them at election time to declare their faith.

]]> By: Anti Citizen One http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/06/22/australian-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-184 Anti Citizen One Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:09:40 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/06/22/australian-censorship/#comment-184 I agree that we should listen to alternative views before coming to decisions. The cardinal is entitled to speak his mind and if this is an attempt to silence him, that is not consistent with an open society. The issue the green party is raising is slightly different than free speech. They triggered an investigation into "whether his warning to Catholic MPs that a vote for the bill would have consequences for their position in church life constituted contempt of Parliament." Should the cardinal use his religious "leverage" to try to influence policy? Although I disagree with the cardinal, I think this role is consistent with his actions and he is doing his duty. The Australian MPs have to chose between the moral leadership of the church and using their own judgment on matters. They can't have their cake and eat it. AC1 I agree that we should listen to alternative views before coming to decisions. The cardinal is entitled to speak his mind and if this is an attempt to silence him, that is not consistent with an open society.

The issue the green party is raising is slightly different than free speech. They triggered an investigation into “whether his warning to Catholic MPs that a vote for the bill would have consequences for their position in church life constituted contempt of Parliament.” Should the cardinal use his religious “leverage” to try to influence policy?

Although I disagree with the cardinal, I think this role is consistent with his actions and he is doing his duty. The Australian MPs have to chose between the moral leadership of the church and using their own judgment on matters. They can’t have their cake and eat it.

AC1

]]>