From my point of view the recommendation about how and whether we should codify human rights in statute or other mechanism is by far the most important aspect of this review.

I think I disagree with Frank Brennan’s earlier expressed view that we don’t need a bill of rights to enshrine these, but have confidence in him and the committee that we will get a considered recommendation on this.

I was using allegory. Please read the last post by Kristy. It is self explanatory.

David

No. But your question is based on a false assumption that Frank Brennan is “arbiting” anything. He isn’t.

For the record though, having met him, I’d have to say I have enormous respect for his ability to hear a range of views and to let those voices be heard. Which is exactly the point that Andrew was originally making.

He also has worked more consistently for a wide range of human rights issues including the right to have basic needs such as shelter, income, civil and political rights than most people in Australia. I have no qualms about him being in that role.

Up until now, I have been patient with you as I have a great deal of respect for your contribution to Australian politics. I expected your momentary blasts to cease. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. So be it.

I am not totally sure of your whole point in this matter. Why do you need to use derogatory language, state inaccurately what I am actually saying, use innuendo expressing that my words are legally liable and contorting English to support your arguments. Whether this is intentional or not is still open to question. You certainly should lift your game if you wish to be taken seriously.

To top it off you class Atheism as an ideology. Not accepting a god exists is not an ideology it is a position held on one topic. This is like calling not stamp collecting an ideology. My suggestion is, if you are fairly to represent yourself as an Atheists to read up on what that means as you obviously haven’t a clue.

The rest of your post is rhetorical reproductions of previous comments and hardly worth a retort.

I am expressing the views of Atheists in the AFA and those whom I come in contact, which encompasses a wide range of people. You are mouthing off with your own personal opinion, which you are entitled to, but it is no more than that. And you are doing it in a way that shows desperation, otherwise your words would not have additional emotional baggage and obscuration to support them.

It seems to have escaped your notice that the recent spate of books re Atheism are because religion is making too many inroads into the political system. The AFA not only agrees with much of the content in those books, it has been saying the same thing for the 39 years of its existence.

The present complaint about the structure of the Consultation Committee is an ongoing part of that.

David

The view of the members of Atheist Nexus is perhaps a little more moderate than that taken by the AFA (and that is fine, we are allowed to have differences in opinion). We have not objected to Fr Brennan being ON the committee and having an input – our objection is to him chairing the Committee and, in that role, being the final arbiter of what does and doesn’t make it into the final report.

With Jim Wallace from the ACL campaigning to flood the inquiry with submissions from evangelical Christians, there is a real danger that the right wing Christian view could be argued to be the most ‘popular’, giving Brennan a ‘legitimate’ excuse to write the report in line with his Church’s views. Any inquiry that receives a large number of submissions cannot hope to represent them all. Ultimately, the wide range of views received must be evaluated using some kind of selection process. Our point is simply that the person in charge of this selection process should not be someone who answers to two masters.

the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology.

That seems to me to quite aptly fit the rigid and doctrinaire approach you are taking to your ideology.

And your subsequent comment is the same sort of anti-Catholic diatribe people tried to use against John F Kennedy when he was running for President of the USA in 1960. Your claim not to be vilifying Catholics gets more risible with every extra comment you make.

And Frank Brennan is not even a lawmaker in this instance, he is facilitating an inquiry. As I said, if you or anyone else has any evidence that he is distorting or cmopromising the inquiry process or its final report as a result of some alleged obedience to the Pope, you should point it out. Otherwise you are just using a fundamentalist (mis)interpretation of Catholicism to slur somebody on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Your analogy of equating Fr Brennan’s role on this Committee with you charing a “meeting where they are setting the curriculum for faith based schools” is laughable, (although frankly if someone is being a good Chair in the proper sense of the word it shouldn’t really matter). If your Athiest Foundation was making decisions about its actions or policies, you wouldn’t expect to have someone from outside being involved in that process.

But this is not an inquiry into internal matters of the Catholic church, or into that of the Athiest Foundation. It is an inquiry seeking the views of the entire community into cre issues which affect everyone of us. Excluding a group from eligibility to be involved in running that process solely on the of their religious belief would be religious discrimination – the last thing I think atheists should be advocating.

LukeRevolution – if the final report were to “heavily favour the position of a church” then your concern woudl be validated. I doubt very much that it will, and frankly if it did, the report would have no credibility. Given that there are 4 other people on the main committee, I would also doubt they would sign up to such a document (not that I think Frank Brennan would attempt to produce such a report anyway).

And the comment you linked to was from Evangelical Presbyterians, not a Catholic body. Whilst they have right to express their view, much of what they have said is at odds with Catholic (and other mainstream Christian) doctraine and belief. They exclusionary attitude, where one set of beliefs is seen as having greater merit – or reduced merit – than others is precisely the sort of fundamentalism that I am criticising.

Athiests will never have credibiilty arguing against Christianity having some sort of special status if they simulatenously argue that some people with Christian beliefs or positions should be excluded from equal particpation in civil society.

If your daughter or son were, same sex oriented, would you wish for a Catholic priest who is bound by the *Fourth vow, arbitrating on their behalf?

Likewise, if you, a dear friend or relative were in unremitting pain with a terminal illness would you wish their plaintive pleas for voluntary euthanasia went before someone bound by the same rules.

Similarly, if your daughter, mother, aunt or dear friend needed an abortion would you be satisfied with such an arbiter.

What about contraception, would you mind following the dictates of a Jesuit priest or would you prefer someone a little more independent, and who was likely to be in line with the majority on this matter.

These are some but not all the reasons as to why Frank Brennan in not a suitable to chair the Consultation Committee. They all have to do with Human Rights.

A Jesuit priest is welcome to believe the above, but not to be in a position in a secular society where they may be imposed upon others. There is a clear and present danger such biases could influence the outcome of government policy. They may not but doubt in the process adds nothing to transparency. That you are willing to take this risk shows a disregard for people who are in these positions.

(This is part of the Fourth vow) “…: unique to Jesuits, of special obedience to the pope in matters regarding mission, promising to undertake any mission laid out in the Formula of the Institute the pope may choose.”

That vow establishes that the Pope and not the Australian people is the lawmaker.

I feel you may not fully appreciate what bias means, especially when the bias is so profound.

David

I have no particular objection to a theist being the chairperson but Fr. Brennan is not just a theist, he’s not just a Catholic, he is employed by the Catholic Church. Now, if he starts drawing up documents that will establish as rights things like GLBT marriage, contraception and abortion does anyone imagine for a second that he will not get a call from his Catholic superiors? Has he recently denounced his position in the Catholic Church? Presumably he has not. Thus I think we can safely assume that he will not go in to bat for equal rights for people wanting rights not allowed under Catholicism.

I am uneasy about someone senior in any church from being involved in this process. I don’t care if the chair is a theist. That is none of my business as long as the document doesn’t come out heavily favouring the position of their church.

If you wonder why I am uneasy just read this:
http://www.openforum.com.au/NHROC#comment-1340
It sends a chill down my spine.

It seems to me that a more positive approach to achieving human rights with start with a view on what they should be and how we should be promoting them in Australia.

And it would appear to me that you can be an atheist and also an abuser of human rights. (not that I’m accusing anyone on this blog of that, might I hasten to add). But there’s nothing special about atheists that protects them from being a human rights abuser. Indeed, any of you may well work for a corporation that has systematically abused human rights. Or you might have regularly bought their products and therefore be tainted by their views. That wouldn’t necessarily disqualify someone from chairing or participating in that committee. In my book, I wouldn’t want someone chairing it who hadn’t spent a fair amount of time thinking about the issues and living them.

Andrew’s post was mostly about the ability to engage and consult in an open and constructive way. And that’s a good thing.

In any case, the whole point about Human Rights is that there exists different groups with different views on a range of issues in society, and as such common standards that are the minimum set things we can agree on. As such, any process around Human Rights must include as many different groups as possible. In the end, SOMEONE has to be the chair, and any group that the chair doesn’t come from could always point at them and say ‘bias’.

Sure I think Fr. Brennan’s primary employment revolves around perpuating medieval mythology and superstition, but while ever signifant portions of society still hold similiar views, he is approriate as anyone else, what really matters is his personal approach to the issue.

If I can put in another way, who would have been a suitable, unbiased, chair according to the dissenters above? Does it have to be an Atheist? Would a non-catholic christian suffice? Buddist? Agnostic?