Sunday, October 22, 2006

Breaking news

I just had to post this.

Natasha Stott-Despoja has just announced that she will quit politics at the end of her Senate term.

See The Advertiser's story here. I'm sure you'll see more in the coming hours and days.

14 comments:

LYL said...

Hurrah! Hurrah!

And she will have more time with her family too, so its win-win-win!

Anonymous said...

I think its a shame really. She is seen by so many Young women as a role model- that young women can actually be part of the parlimantary process. Its very sad and I doubt there will be anyone who comes as close to acheiving what she has for many years to come.

Acolytus said...

So the ‘Despot-destroyer’ is out of action. But who is going to keep the bastards honest. O that’s write, that was Meg Lees, say what ever happened to her?

Anonymous said...

Natasha is NOT a young woman and hasn't been for a long time - though she thought she was. I'm glad to see the back of the soul - destroyer.

Rebecca

Anonymous said...

In terms of the average age of women in Parliament she is a young woman (the second youngest after Kate Ellis in fact.) Not to mention that she was the youngest PERSON to ever lead a political party. I'm not entirely sure why you would refer to her as a 'soul - destroyer' I assume there is some actual reason???

LYL said...

I assume there is some actual reason???

Well, there's the approximation to her name (soul-destroyer, Stott-Despoja) and she has been very forward in coming forward about supporting virtually everything relating to The Culture of Death.

As Bishop Anthony Fisher recently said:
"…Surely in a land that prides itself on ‘mateship’ and ‘a fair go’ we can find more creative ways of demonstrating love and respect than by killing people."

Whether male or female, we could do with fewer pollies like this one.

Acolytus said...

Too true Lyl, and by such a high profile Politian supporting such things as abortion on demand it raises the social acceptance of such a sad and inhuman act that really does destroy souls. As Bishop Anthony Fisher oftern says ‘the mothers involved are the second victims of abortion’. Part of the responsibility for the misery of the culture of death must full upon those polies that support and promote it.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we should just be thankful that there is a politician who is willing to speak out about what most Australians think about abortion or as you call it 'the culture of death.'

I beleive that one of the best things about Natasha is that she is always willing to say what many people think but cannot publicly express.

She is one of the finest examples of a politician who actually does her job- to represent the people and not bring religion into secular government.

LYL said...

Apologies if two of my replies pop up here - I was posting one when it seemed to get swallowed by a dodgy connection.

"Religion has no place in politics" is a statement I have read far too often this last fortnight or so.

The separation of Church and State should mean that the State keeps out of the Church's business and gives its members the freedom of worship.

I agree that *clergy* should usually not act as politicians (a true theocracy) and and that Australians should have the freedom of worship.

But what most (or perhaps all) secularists mean when they say "keep religion out of politics" is that Christians (in particular) should not allow their religious beliefs to inform their actions in political life.

This, I catagorically reject as not merely idiotic, but also discriminatory. Any view point in politics is shaped by some value or other and - we hope - is arrived at by reason. But our reason does not necessarily operate in a vacuum. We listen to the opinions of others and we invite experts to speak to us. For a Catholic, one of those experts is the Church and while faith is a gift and beyond reason, it is not opposed to reason.

Anyone, of a religious belief, or of none, can reason to the conclusion that abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research is wrong. You don't have to be a Christian to believe those things and anyone can arrive to those conclusions.

Never-the-less, to say that someone must keep their religion out of politics is to ask them to act like one type of person "on their own time" and to act like another during work hours. This is manifestly absurd.

Finally, if the objection is that Christians cannot "force their views onto others" then the same objection can be made in reverse.

Why should Senator Stoot-Despoja and co be alowed to force their views onto *us*? (Particularly the unborn babies and their poor, deceived mothers).

Not one person has yet been able to tell me why secularist values are the only valid values.

LYL said...

Sorry. Obviously, "Stott-Despoja".

Acolytus said...

Too true Lyl, secularism is not religiously neutral nor can religiously minded people separate or compartmentalise their beliefs while still remaining true to themselves or to their god or their political beliefs.
Moreover, you are also to be celebrated for saying for pointing out that you don't have to be a Christian to conclusion that abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research is wrong. Most of the arguments against abortion and the harmfulness of a culture of death (that is a culture that does not respect and believe at every human being has an inherent dignity) are on completely non-religious and even empirical grounds.
As I tried to point out earlier, the things said by high profile and indeed popular Politians actually influence what others to believe to be socially acceptable, weather or not they think they are voicing the opinion of the populous.

Anonymous said...

I beleieve that you dont give women enough credit for their actions. The 'poor deceived mothers' that you refer to?? Well perhaps you may be *astonished* to discover that most actually know what they are doing when they are going to have an abortion. You may also be *shocked* to know that many people believe that it is acceptable for women to have abortions.

Its not about being pro- abortion (because I dont think you would find anyone who is actually 'pro- abortion) its about allowing women the choice so they have control over their own bodies. I am absolutely pro-choice but i dont think i would have an abortion. Does that give me the right to try and take away the right of another woman to have one?? I dont think so. I dont think it gives you or anyone else the right either.

Acolytus said...

Sadly, your pro-‘choice’ line is neither shocking nor astonishing any more but all too depressingly common.
We all know that many people believe that it is acceptable for women to have abortions hence our concern to have politians and responsible people in positions of authority that will help to curb this disastrous state of affairs.
Yes, many women, those second victims of abortion (weather feeling pressured into it by its availability or weather choosing it simply as an easy way out) do know that they are acting contrary to their nature as woman and life giver. But, deceived as they are, they too often don’t know what the future mental, psychological and even physical effects will be.
Should I be given the ‘choice’ to not buckle by seat belt when driving? Should a heroin user not be given the ‘choice’ to use? Should a human being, healthy or otherwise, adult or child, not be given the ‘choice’ to chose suicide? And what about those that want to choose, want to be give the ‘choice’, to harm others! Your cry for ‘choice’ is illogical and hypocritical.
I’m probably not going to win an argument with you, anonymous blogger, so I will just pray for you instead.
I just hope you think about it and one day you might come round, or at the very least see that we are reasoning.

LYL said...

Wow, Anonymous, astonished and shocked - all in one day. How am I *ever* likely to cope?