Arbitrary discrimination

Health Minister Nicola Roxon attacks Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on abortion issue
FEDERAL Health Minister Nicola Roxon has launched an attack on Tony Abbott and his religion, accusing the opposition leader of letting his "personal beliefs" in Catholicism affect policy formulation...

"We want to provide help and information and choice to women, not give them a lecture," the health minister told parliament...

Opponents argued the groups selected to formulate the advice to be provided on the helpline were biased because they followed Catholic teaching and were openly pro-life.
Ms Roxon said Mr Abbott allowed his "personal beliefs to interfere and get in the way of providing completely accessible and non-judgmental public services".

"Mr Abbott doesn't live in the real world," she said.

We often hear such criticisms leveled against not simply Tony Abbott, but generally against those whose outlook is shaped by 'religion'. And as the federal election comes nearer, we will continue to hear this line of criticism. But what logical value does it have? Absolutely none. Moreover, it is self-refuting to those who try and press the point.

Now to briefly analyze. Certainly, in Abbott's case, his Catholicism helps "affect policy formation''. This is an obvious observation; for in firmly holding to a religion, his ideas will be profoundly shaped by it, and since politicians' ideas have impact on their politics, it follows that Abbott's politics is shaped by his religion. Likewise, for someone irreligious like Roxon, she also will have her own ''ideas'' which shape her politics, and such ideas obviously come from 'somewhere' (just not religion). So the bottom line is, all politicians will receive ideological inspiration from a variety of sources, and will project such ideas in their political outlook and vision for society.

However, this where Roxon emerges as the blatant hypocrite that she is. She says that because Abbott receives ideological inspiration from his religion, it follows he should not 'impose' this on his politics. However, she too receives ideological inspiration from her own sources, and for some arbitrary reason (in fact, she does not give a reason), it is perfectly okay in her case, but unacceptable in Abbott's case. It is a case of arbitrary discrimination. However, is not democracy meant to be about different politicians putting different ideas on the table? And since Catholicism is (statistically, at least) the majority religion in Australia, is it that inconceivable that Catholic ideas can help shape the political realm (meant to be representative of the people)? Roxon even is at odds with Rudd in some ways, who once said:

A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed [not arbitrarily discounted], together with other arguments...^1

Her attempt to arbitrarily silence an opposing position is ironic for someone against ''lecturing''. She does that very thing to Abbott, and what is worse, she gives no reasons to back her lecturing. Additionally, she criticises the pregnancy helpline for being "pro-life'' and ''Catholic'' in its approach. Whereas, she claims her alternative involves "provid[ing]" impartial "non-judgmental" "help and information" to women. Inevitably, her alternative is not impartial, but is based on her ideology on the issue (that abortion is a right and is a morally acceptable option). Even on her supposedly impartial alternative, women will be ''lectured'' by being counseled in terms of her "pro-choice'' ideological framework. So once again, she is a hypocrite for criticising Abbott's approach on the grounds it is not impartial.

I'm not sure what world Abbott is in, but I doubt it can be a more illogical world than Roxon's.

^1 ^{a b} Rudd, Kevin (October 2006). "Faith in Politics". The Monthly: pp. 22–30 --- as cited on wikipedia