Democracy and Dr PellBy phill PARSONS
In answer to Cardinal George Pell, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney and the former Archbishop of Melbourne’s address to the annual dinner of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Cleverly, Pell has attempted to disarm critics of his comments on democracy by categorising them as he has done with democracy. He is familiar with a qualified democracy being the product of a limited franchise electorate voting, something gone from democracy in Australia. Further, his organization denies positions and thus votes to females, not a feature of our current democracy. Still as one of the voters Pell has the right to comment and from the moralists of churches we will be hearing a lot about the moral values they wish to bind society with. Pell wishes us to measure democracy against its ability to maintain the transcendent dignity of the human person. Several measures are placed before us that reflect on this dignity, can democracy survive without pornography, or an abortion rate, stable marriages, functional families, euthanasia, asssited reproductive technology or embryonic stem cell research. Except for the the technologically dependent items, pornography, marriage breakdown, family dusfunction and probably euthanasia has been with societies before democracy, I doubt if democracy offered their end. It did and does offer a route to a better life because you have a choice over your government and thus the laws. Pell would restrict such choice, the base of liberal democracy. Remember when people were forced to remain married regardless, when abortion was underground and women suffered when access to contraception was restricted , medical care was limited by the technology available and pornography the playground of the rich and powerful. What else will be dredged up from the past as solutions to supposed problems caused by the same structures that cry out for a great leap back to satisfy their own views and values. To respect the dignity of the person is as much the basis of humanitarian philosophy as it now a central element in the Christian lexicon. It is a pity that it has not been central to the management of international relations and in particular to the disarmament of Iraq now, actions led by a government who trusts in God [ it's on their money] and whose modern leaders have professed Christian values. Perhaps here lies the problem, unable to be honest governments and organizations have raised and continue to fly the double standard. Let us take the example of parishoner Abbott, a visitor to Pell in his position as the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney. As Health Minister this Abbott recently declared that abortions on Medicare were at 100,000, implying many were late term, only to admit later he did not know if the numbers were correct. He did not tell us that abortion rates have fallen over the years or that late term abortions are about 1% [1,000] of the total. Nor did he tell us if any of this number were essential medical interventions to maintain the health of the mother or if the number also reflects the number of women undertaking this procedure. Not strictly lies Tony and all told in the interest of your particular beliefs. As though Medicare is on the financial ropes for funding these procedures. Perhaps a ban on smoking would be more efficacious in cutting Medicare costs. It is all well and good for the Cardinal to call upon us to respect the greater human dignity, the example given by our leaders need to be consistent with that. In calling up the past of democracy Pell draws on the last 100 years to claim that a secular democracy has a darkness that has been filled by political substitutes for religion. Was that the United States or the United Kingdom, states with long standing democratic experience. No it must have been the isms, neither of them arising in democracies, but from the autocracies of the Kaiser, the Czar, the Emporer and Il Papa. In attempting to garner allies Pell tells supporters of democracy they can only resolve intolerant fundamentalisms by giving up secularism, apparetly a democracy without a religion cannot survive. Government having coexisted with religion since systems of governanace began it is difficult to find an example of any successful secular system, or indeed of any successful system. Not that people should cease trying, that is what improves the system. However appealing limiting peoples choice may be to those used to edicts and bulls, it has not proved itself succesful in answering the need to ensure human dignity is respected or ensured the development of a lasting morality. They are elements with which we must struggle, not slip into the comforts of the past, that leads to ossification, somnolence and irrelevance.
phill Parsons could not help a little pontificating on the family friendly agenda.
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Saturday, November 13, 2004 |