[Ocker]

IN a pre-emptive strike this election year, Prime Minister John Howard has asked church leaders not to favour political parties.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper said today Mr Howard had accused some church leaders of indulging in "partisan" politics which was offending and dividing congregations.

"I think church leaders should speak out

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 21,00.html

[Maxim Litvinov]

That's right, the churches are 'playing politics' when they say that the Children Overboard incident was unnecessary, or that locking up children is unethical, or that Australian policies should be more compassionate

MORE Church leaders should speak out about the abuses of the Howard government. More should protest our approach to refugees and Aborigines. This IS their job, they are supposed to reflect the ethics of a large number of our population.

Our politicians should never be able to act like they live in a moral vacuum.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Yeah, its a fine line maxim, I would tend to agree with you that church leaders have a moral obligation to speak out against such clear ethical issues as the ones you mentioned. But they also must ensure that politics and the church do not go hand in hand. Imagine if each church group started endorsing one candidate or the other - that would be a disaster.

However, it is true that Howard's attacks (of which this is not the first), is only in response to legitimate criticisms against him. I wonder if he would be so critical of the church for playing "partisan" politics if they were praising Howard. Methinks not.

And just on that children overboard fiasco - that was an absolutely disgusting piece of lying by the government. If the church did indeed speak out against that (I was in the UK at the time), well I would expect nothing less.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I don't actually believe it's a fine line at all.

Church leaders represent a significant number of Australians. They are supposed to provide guidance on moral issues. This guidance should come irrespective of political beliefs, but this doesn't mean the guidance shouldn't say - on this position X Party is wrong, and Y Party is right. If churches couldn't do that, then they wouldn't be making moral judgments at all, simply motherhood statements.

Church activism has a long history, from Archbishop Mannix's protest against conscription, to the Catholic schools controversy and onwards.

It is the job of church leaders to speak out against perceived injustice. They should not shamelessly promote one party over another, but where one party supports an 'immoral' policy, they should speak up. Their followers and the rest of the community can judge the merits of the case, but there is no reason for churches to stay silent.

[GandalfTheGrey]

They should not shamelessly promote one party over another.

But this is my point: Its not a very big step to go from speaking out against issues and doing exactly this. Thats why I said its a fine line. Surely, if the church is speaking out against the treatment of refugees, then this is tantamount to saying "you shouldn't vote for Howard" - because this IS Howard's policy. By using their high position in society and the respect that they command, they are in effect saying to Howard "if you don't change, my followers will vote against you". Not that I'm saying they shouldn't be doing this, but I'm just saying that by doing so, they commit themselves to partisan politics. And this is a road that they must tread carefully. But I think we both agree that they have an obligation to speak out on issues of moral principle.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I don't see the point. Speaking out against refugee policy (for instance) is not tantamount to saying "don't vote for Howard".

1] Refugee policy is very similar between the parties.
2] The churches clearly aren't upset at the refugee policy *because* it's Coalition policy, they are upset at the moral implications - so it's not any form of shameless promotion of a 'Labor agenda', for instance.
3] The churches aren't saying "don't vote for Howard" even when they speak out against some policies. They don't come close to saying this. What they generally say is 'we would really like all parties to take account of x and y when developing their policies' or something similarly innocuous.
4] Even if a church says "this policy is bad", there is no real 'blackmail weight' behind such statements. Governments and churches realise that just because a church makes such a statement, this does not 'direct' people to vote in a certain way - especially in this day and age. A church leader can no more influence a vote than a community leader or activist. Furthermore, church leaders are generally more guarded in their opinions than the latter two.
5] Historically, church leaders *have* spoken out - and rightfully so - over issues important to the nation. And their dialogue has been helpful, and represented a lot of people -- that's what democracy is about.

So, I agree if you take an extreme theoretical example --- for instance, George Pell tells everyone it would be a sin not to vote Liberal in the next election --- then this would be unhelpful (and also a misuse of his power). But seeing as churches can't direct people's votes, they don't try to direct votes on party political lines, and they generally represent the opinions of their membership, I cannot see the problem.