God at the ballot box: how your faith affects your vote

trigger says:

06:27am | 15/09/09

Doesn’t T look thrilled to be there.

Old Clive says:

07:26am | 15/09/09

God will not be pleased you back slider you. If you can be conned by God you can be conned by the Labor Party, is that what you are saying.

Eric says:

07:34am | 15/09/09

I don’t know about my faith affecting my vote—but Labor Party fundamentalism sure affects Peter Lewis’ articles.

G says:

07:42am | 15/09/09

Yep…

The punch has finally come “out of the pew”. 

It appears they are now officially endorsing religion on some level in politics through the selection and angle of its writers and the types of opinion pieces it is publishing.

I am now Initiating a * slow clap * sequence in congratulations for the punch…

No just joking, I had my suspicions, but this is just really really bad.

You guys wanna balance it up a little?

John A Neve says:

07:44am | 15/09/09

Religion, politics and nationalism have all killed more people than they have ever saved. It has been said before “religion is the opiate of the masses”

James says:

08:08am | 15/09/09

If you are Kevin Rudd you try and use religion to your political advantage. Firstly you need to change from one Christian denomination to another then say your a Christian with no fixed abode. Then, after the left attack you for bringing religion into politicis you say there is no place for it. Finally and now that you are walking both sides of the street you hold a press conference outside your local church (whichever denomination it may be) every Sunday!

Margaret Gray says:

08:26am | 15/09/09

“...You guys wanna balance it up a little?...”

Endless articles about the virtues of gay ‘marriage’ provides more than enough balance to the occasional article on religion.

Why did you read it?  Whay are you even here?

You seem to forget this is a FREE service put up by a publicly-listed company.

You have two choices:
A.  Leave.
B.  Get your ‘balanced’ propaganda from New Matilda, LP or Aunty.

The rest of us are smart enough to make up our own minds and aren’t so easily influenced as you clearly are.

Jan Ziska says:

09:06am | 15/09/09

Eric Abetz goes to a Dutch Reformed Church. He was never a Catholic.

Peter Lewis says:

09:13am | 15/09/09

Enough already ... I thought the whole point of opinion was to have one ... call me whatever you like, but, please, never call me balanced!

Ben says:

09:15am | 15/09/09

I know that conspiracy theories and rational arguement are mutually exclusive but still but come on G you can do better!!
Peter Lewis, whatever his other virtues, is hardly a devout adherent to any Faith.
His contentions that while the congregations of mainstream Christian denominations continue to decline their values continue to influence society and that a person or family’s historic denominational affiliation can influence their voting intention is hardly controversial or evangelical.

Naturally, everything Peter says about WorkChoices should be taken with a crate full of salt as should his assertions about Danny Mannix. The Archbishop was heroic for playing a major role in defeating conscription not sabotaging the war effort which Australians by and large supported during the war effort. No force was necessary.

But the gong for the greatest clanger must go the intellectually sloth-like J A Neve for trotting out the most hackneyed piece of sloganeering used by critics of religious Faith. Prove it James!!

Steve says:

09:16am | 15/09/09

Wow, if that’s not overwhelming proof of the stupidity of people I don’t know what is.

And note how the “no religion” crowd is the most evenly divided between all 6 categories.

G says:

09:27am | 15/09/09

Margaret,

Why did I read it, why wouldn’t I read it?

I am reading by choice to learn about other people’s opinions on things that challenge my belief systems.  If I kept reading information within my ethical boundaries then I would just be reaffirming would I already believe, what’s the point in that.

The fact is the punch does publish more articles right leaning, especially from politicians, you don’t see Nick Minchin, Simon Birmingham or Cory Bernardi writing articles here, and surely I am allowed to express that without being asked to leave, right?

delperro says:

09:37am | 15/09/09

Peter,
The ol’ rule never a discussion of politics and religion has been comprehensively kazzumpt here.
This is pretty much what you would expect though isn’t it.

What I would be interested in seeing, is the breakdown on those other religions, sporting codes, and their impact on the voting distributions.

Does Kevin have a problem attracting AFL voters? Is this strong territory where he thinks he can easily kick a few goals…

He seems to be putting his eggs into two baskets, by recent media appearances, soccer and the AFL - leaving Rugby League (and more favourably for Kevin ‘elitist’ Rugby Union) to the Bull blocking the bills.

Who’s got Netball. Ellis? Name’s just too appropriate.

Can we have some data on this Mr Lewis? Plz?

RT says:

09:47am | 15/09/09

I’m not a Rudd admirer and his obviously pre-arranged church doorstops are something I like least about him.  I hope it costs him support in the increasingly atheist or agnostic Australian community.

I was no Howard fan either but although he was a regular churchgoer he didn’t flaunt it like Rudd shamelessly does. On the other hand, I hope Rudd doesn’t have private meetings with creepy religious cults like the Exclusive Brethren, as Howard did.

I don’t like politicians trying to gain credence with the public on the basis of their religious faith including the unofficial Australian religion, sport. Stick to government matters, you shallow lot.

Pete says:

09:52am | 15/09/09

I find it bizzare that a person of faith would vote purely for one of their own deonomination.  Perhaps it is those I am surrounded by in my life, but I find that our voting habits are as varied as our individual lives.  Personally I just don’t want to see majorities in the Senate.

Steven says:

09:52am | 15/09/09

The writer of this article lost me when he decided to disavow his religious upbringing. To deride Methodists as small-minded conservatives is a thoughtless and disgraceful insult. Also, why are there separate categories in the table for ‘Protestants’ and ‘Anglicans’, ‘Other Christians’, etc.? Anglicans, Methodists and non-Catholic Christians all go under the Protestant umbrella; there is no denomination called Protestant. As a Catholic who supports the Liberal Party, I like Blessed Mary Mackillop’s comment on the matter: “Catholics don’t necessarily make the best politicians”. To that I would add, they don’t necessarily make the best judges of politics either!

Kim says:

10:14am | 15/09/09

I don’t understand why people seem to think it’s a right of passage to the Prime Ministership if you are religious? People who want to believe in supernatural beings and praying on sundays in a church for guidence aren’t the sort of people who should be governing this country. They all seem a bit weird to me. But if thats what they need in their life to be a good person in society then keep it to themselves.

John A Neve says:

10:21am | 15/09/09

In response to Ben @ 0915.

I admitted it had been said before, but importantly it’s true.
Reading most of the posts here proves it. Religion is just a cop-out, it relies on some one/thing else saving us.

Peter says:

10:22am | 15/09/09

Interesting that Catholics support Rudd - who was born a Catholic but ratted on them to become an Anglican at the behest of his wife - as opposed to Turnbull who was and remains a Catholic.

Gibbot says:

10:25am | 15/09/09

Peter - You neglected to mention the precentage of respondents in each category, which is a telling figure. The break up is as follows:

Catholic - 20%
Anglican - 16%
Other Protestant - 15%
Other Christian - 7%
Non Christian - 6%
No Religion - 36%

So while Christians as a whole make up 58% of respondents, the single largest group is by far the non religious.

Compare this to the 2001 census data, when Christians made up 68% and no religion a mere 15.5% (with 11.7% non response), it is pretty clear that rationalism is by far and away the fastest growing mode of thought.

Another demonstration of evolution?

Jackson says:

10:41am | 15/09/09

Just have a look at their faces will you, off with the fairies. Rudd standiing there thinking this gives him respectability and credence.

Dani says:

10:52am | 15/09/09

was there some point in making reference to “world piece” rather than world peace? cos if there was, i so didn’t get the joke.

Barb says:

11:09am | 15/09/09

Funny how so many Catholics vote Labor, even though Labor supports feminism, gay rights, family destruction, divorce, abortion and atheism.

When the average Catholic wakes up and realises that Labor supports everything the Pope believes “comes from the devil” - Australia may become a proper country again.

Christ says:

11:12am | 15/09/09

This might be a little ‘religionist’ but I’m actually always a little disappointed when I found out the guy I voted for is a regular church goer.

Oh well, seems like standard procedure for politicians these days.

Heléna says:

11:12am | 15/09/09

seeing Kevin Rudd at his regular church doorstop makes me almost physically ill - it seems so overtly calculated

I often wonder, perhaps unfairly, how often he actually went to church before he was campaigning/elected?

Formersnag says:

11:15am | 15/09/09

I don’t know how any christian, could vote for the loony, left, lesbian, feminist, pro child abuse, anti family, agenda, of the labour/green coalition.

Sam Wright says:

11:40am | 15/09/09

Rudd should not promote himself as a Christian if he is the leader of a party that supports infanticide. He is such a hypocrite it isn’t even the least bit funny. This is just another avenue that Kevin Rudd takes in changing himself to give himself false credibility in the polls. On the one hand the coalition of the Right sticks to their principals, and if voters do not like them they will not be in government. In stark contrast you have the coalition of the Left who constantly change their principles to suit the polls and for power. Once the Australian public wake up to the fact that Kevin Rudd & Co have absolutely no morals or even steadfast beliefs, then they will thrown out of government and this country will be a better place.

pc says:

11:52am | 15/09/09

Hi Ben and Jon Neve - Religion is the opiate of the masses - Marx said it. And as for politics, religion, nationalism killing people, its certainly true. But it is only one half of the truth -nationalism for example has also been a powerful constructive force eg. decolonisation of most of the world because of national movements that then build constructive governments. (Yes sometimes that didnt happen, and of course the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century were characterised by ultra nationalism.) Historians like Hobsbawn and Gellner are probably closer to your position but there is a lot to be said for Benedict Anderson - that is, he’s a little more ambivalent in his attitude, like pc, in recognition that people often get along with each other and obey laws because they feel it is their law and their community. Sorry I just wanted to be a smart arse and I enjoyed your argument.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

12:14pm | 15/09/09

I’m an anglican and I cannot stomach Malcolm Turnbull as Leader of the Opposition.

Ben says:

12:23pm | 15/09/09

How does reading the posts here prove that assertion one way or the other JA Neve except that there are a variety of opinions some of which are more foolishly communicated than others.
If by religion, you mean the institutions such as churches, mosques, synagogues etc which have evolved to organise adherents of religious faith you’d be right about the killing and mayhem some of the time.
If by religion you mean the actual Faiths then your are woefully mistaken.
Religious institutions are housed by people, who as we know, have an unhappy tendency to do regrettable as well as admirable things regardless of their beliefs. Therefore it should be of no surprise that very bad things have been perpetrated by members of religious institutions. It is also undoubtedly true that awful things have been done in the name of religion again by human beings.
But so what? The Christian, Islamic or any other Faith is not inherently evil because their adherents behave appallingly. People act for their own motives and we know that the crusades for example were driven by geopolitics and a lust for power and glory that had nothing to do with the teachings of Christ or Mohammad.
That is why your argument is not only hackneyed but specious.
Nor, properly understood is it a cop out. Anyone who thinks that the existence of God is an excuse to abdicate personal and collective responsibility is a nuff nuff.

Phil says:

12:37pm | 15/09/09

The Catholic church, like all Christian churches, is a business. And a very profitable one.

Any business that does not have to pay tax should be very profitable… right? And they are.

They showed their “Christianity” this week in they way they are treating Fr. Bob Maguire.

Bloody hypocrites… All of you.

Susan says:

12:45pm | 15/09/09

Causation and causality, Peter. While there are interesting correlations between Labor and Catholic, Coalition and Protestant etc, I think you are trying too hard to draw the two together and produce reasons why the religion “causes” people to support a particular political party.

In reality, I suspect you may find that both are correlated to a third factor, socioeconomic status. For example, wealthier individuals are more likely to vote Coalition, and more likely to be Protestant/Anglican (for various demographic reasons of who migrated etc). This is, of course, not to say that socioeconomic status determines these either.

The numbers are all a bit of fund, but there isn’t much that can be drawn from them.

Don Clark says:

12:58pm | 15/09/09

As for Mr Rudd’s attendance, think we’d find he’s been a regular church-goer at Bulimba for many years, and long before that. Hardly a matter for comment in his own electorate in lower profile days, but in Canberra at St John’s if the media are so impatient as to doorstep ...err gate-stop our PM on a Sunday, its hard to see how its his fault, like him or loathe him. He should be free to go to Church if, when and where he pleases - like anyone else.

I’m not about to condemn anyone out of hand: for their religion or lack of, or for their attendance or absence. Your choice. Whichever, behave like a dill, or try rubbing my nose in your choice, and I’ll give you short shrift.

John A Neve says:

01:04pm | 15/09/09

Ben @ 1223.
While I agree with your last sentence, I have trouble wih the rest of your post.
Faith is a very fluid and individual thing, so to debate it is stupid, to say the least. Religion on the other hand, is a man made creation and has little if any thing to do with an omnipotent presence.
I’ll put my head on the block here and state, based on most of these posts, few know the difference between faith and religion. Do you?

Ben says:

01:19pm | 15/09/09

Phil,
Under the Catholic Churches rules priests are required to retire at 75. Maguire was one of a group of priests sent the same letter.
Maguire also knew the letter was coming because the Church would have been canvassing the issue with the priests and discussing with them their post retirement lives.
He has personally the organised the media to champion his cause. This takes advantage of a public profile that he has assiduously built when there are plenty of priests who work as effectively to assist the poor.
Maguire is self promoter.

Ben says:

01:25pm | 15/09/09

J A Neve
I do know the difference. You?
It is exactly my point that regligion is man made. It is hardly stupid to make the point when the majority of readers would interpret your post to mean the Faith itself.

John A Neve says:

01:51pm | 15/09/09

Ben @ 1325.

You must be omnipotent ! How would you know how “the majority of readers would interpret your (my) post”? Maybe it’s you who have misinterpreted?
You see, religion clouds you mind, my very point.

Tracey says:

01:58pm | 15/09/09

Love the article Peter. We need to have a more open, honest dialogue about how religion shapes our nation.

dude says:

02:13pm | 15/09/09

It will be a great day when our pollies don’t need to adorn church steps to gain some misguided kudos in the eyes of the biind. As knowledge expands, religion is being confined to the bottom of the garden with the fairies, ‘sorry fairies’. The less religion has anything to do with governments the sooner we’ll get to civil societies. There is a reason why democracies need separation of powers between church and state, if you don’t know why, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote, period. Great to see the mumbers are heading in the progressive direction. Another generation or three should do it.

Pete says:

02:33pm | 15/09/09

Interesting article Peter!

I was making maps of Melbourne recently, based on the 2006 census data, and I’ve noticed a very similar pattern. You can just about pick the safe Liberal seats by making a map of the concentration of Anglicans. You can also pick out the electorates that tend to have a high Green vote simply by mapping out those who responded as ‘No Religion’ on the census. The correlation between Catholics and the ALP vote is less strong but it is still there.

I think it is useless to speculate on the reasons for this correlation in the absence of additional evidence, but it is fascinating all the same.

Nicholas James says:

09:38pm | 15/09/09

@dude

I am just wondering, if you actually read through your comments do you see the blatant contradiction?

Just wondering…

jose says:

08:51am | 16/09/09

One cross-tab does not an analysis make.

There is no information in that table about how many Australians affiliate with any of the categories, and there is no information about how many people were surveyed. As such you cannot say that any of the “analysis” above means anything.

Phil says:

10:08pm | 17/09/09

Ben…
The fact that you defend them just proves my point. No Charity, No compassion. Only in the words, not the deeds.

As for Fr. Bob, it’s about time someone in the Christian Church became media savvy and showed a human face. Your Archbishops certainly don’t.