![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been getting a bit depressed about Australian politics lately, but ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
17catherines just posted a speech (from Amanda Vanstone, of all people) reminding me of one of the things that's still good about it:
"I understand that there are very different views here. I say this to everybody: whatever their beliefs about the existence of a god or their particular religion, they are entitled to keep their views to themselves and make them private. My personal view is that religion is debased when it is cast around and used as a political football. My strong belief is that any god that I have ever heard about or read about is looking for converts, not conscripts. No god that I have read about or heard about needs this place to do his or her work. Any omnipotent being must be more powerful and stronger than the Senate - shattering though that may be to some. If you have a belief in a more powerful being, you will understand the point I am making. It is not for us to legislate.
Which is pretty much how Australian politics works. There are a couple of overtly religious parties, Fred Nile's CDP and Family First (yeah, I know they claim not to be, but they're not fooling anybody). But it's self-limiting; running on religion will get you a few votes, maybe enough for a Senate seat or two, but it will also alienate enough people to ensure that you'll never rise above 'minor party'; the only way for such folk to have a serious influence is if the majors are tied, and then maybe they can do some horse-trading a la Brian Harradine.
Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of religious people in Parliament. But for the most part, they don't use religion as a political club because it just isn't an effective tactic here. As Vanstone says, that's as good a thing for religion as it is for politics.
The other warm fuzzy from this particular vote, besides getting the right outcome, is that it was decided as a conscience vote and reminded us that behind those party lines, there still are individuals with individual consciences in all the major parties. Since17catherines has done all the hard work, I'm just going to point at her recent posts here, here, here and here for some fascinating quotes.
(One of the bad points of Australian politics, BTW, is that conscience votes are so uncommon - ordinarily, there's far more pressure on Australian politicians to vote with their party than there is for their US counterparts.)
17catherines just posted a speech (from Amanda Vanstone, of all people) reminding me of one of the things that's still good about it:"I understand that there are very different views here. I say this to everybody: whatever their beliefs about the existence of a god or their particular religion, they are entitled to keep their views to themselves and make them private. My personal view is that religion is debased when it is cast around and used as a political football. My strong belief is that any god that I have ever heard about or read about is looking for converts, not conscripts. No god that I have read about or heard about needs this place to do his or her work. Any omnipotent being must be more powerful and stronger than the Senate - shattering though that may be to some. If you have a belief in a more powerful being, you will understand the point I am making. It is not for us to legislate.
Which is pretty much how Australian politics works. There are a couple of overtly religious parties, Fred Nile's CDP and Family First (yeah, I know they claim not to be, but they're not fooling anybody). But it's self-limiting; running on religion will get you a few votes, maybe enough for a Senate seat or two, but it will also alienate enough people to ensure that you'll never rise above 'minor party'; the only way for such folk to have a serious influence is if the majors are tied, and then maybe they can do some horse-trading a la Brian Harradine.
Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of religious people in Parliament. But for the most part, they don't use religion as a political club because it just isn't an effective tactic here. As Vanstone says, that's as good a thing for religion as it is for politics.
The other warm fuzzy from this particular vote, besides getting the right outcome, is that it was decided as a conscience vote and reminded us that behind those party lines, there still are individuals with individual consciences in all the major parties. Since
17catherines has done all the hard work, I'm just going to point at her recent posts here, here, here and here for some fascinating quotes.(One of the bad points of Australian politics, BTW, is that conscience votes are so uncommon - ordinarily, there's far more pressure on Australian politicians to vote with their party than there is for their US counterparts.)
