Religions > Atheism > Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"L. Raymond" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2007 08:02:33 PM |
| Object: |
Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/cens-a20.shtml
Support from new Christian parties and formations such as Family First,
Hillsong Church, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), Assembly of God
and other right-wing groups, has therefore become a key electoral
consideration. Howard has assiduously cultivated support from these
layers over several years, and Labor leader Kevin Rudd is desperately
trying to catch up. Since assuming the Labor leadership late last year,
he has been widely promoted for his so-called "Christian values".
During the web cast, both politicians proclaimed their Christian
sensibilities, mouthing platitudes about family, helping the poor, and
so on. Howard said his politics were guided by the parable of the Good
Samaritan, who had stopped to help a suffering neighbour, and of the
Talents, which he described as a "free-enterprise parable", an appeal to
any small business owners who might be watching. He was applauded after
pledging to maintain the Lord˘s Prayer at each day˘s parliamentary
sittings and again when he reminded viewers about his government˘s laws
banning gay marriage.
Rudd said that his religious faith provided a "compass point" for his
personal and political life. Asked about his attitude to gay marriage,
the Labor leader endorsed Howard˘s legally discriminatory and
undemocratic laws, declaring: "I have a pretty basic view on this, as
reflected in the position adopted by our party and that is, that
marriage is between a man and a woman."
[End excerpt]
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
20 Aug 2007 10:20:56 PM |
|
|
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1ker0lc6p3ypc.1b23k3x9it1p1.dlg@40tude.net:
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
Worried!? Not half.
Australia's governments have always paid lip service to religion. I find
it astounding that, before question time, every member of the House of
Reps. stands to recite "The Lord's Prayer" before sitting down to the task
of flinging hate filled invective at one another.
Things seem to have taken a more serious turn lately. The rise of right-
wing groups mentioned in the article you cited, and the willingness of our
politicians to sell their legislative influence to them is an altogether
unwelcome developement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
21 Aug 2007 07:16:34 PM |
|
|
Kenneth Doyle wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
Worried!? Not half.
Australia's governments have always paid lip service to religion. I find
it astounding that, before question time, every member of the House of
Reps. stands to recite "The Lord's Prayer" before sitting down to the task
of flinging hate filled invective at one another.
Things seem to have taken a more serious turn lately. The rise of right-
wing groups mentioned in the article you cited, and the willingness of our
politicians to sell their legislative influence to them is an altogether
unwelcome developement.
At least your sensible people can point to the US as a practical example
of what would happen if they did come to power. If Bush's eight years
of putting us through hell can be used to stop others, it would almost
have been worth it.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Skinner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
21 Aug 2007 05:54:08 AM |
|
|
L. Raymond <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/cens-a20.shtml
Nahhh. Bollocks.
The evangelicals produce a lot of ***** and wind but they're not half as
influential as they like to think. They're mostly preaching to their own
choirs.
The politicians will pander to them if they think there's some votes in
it of course, but we don't see the sort of "praise the lord" born-again
nonsense that seems to be the norm in America.
Our last census showed increasing numbers of people identifying
themselves as "not religious". Here in my local council district 24% of
people ticked the "no religion" box on their census form - overtaking
the Catholics and putting themselves in the majority for the first time.
I'm sure the pollsters for the various partys are aware of this trend.
They'd be starting to worry that their candidate's religion was more a
hinderence than a help.
Also, I think our compulsory voting system means the influence of
religious groups is kept in proportion to their actual numbers. Unlike
America where they can mobilise huge numbers of people who may not have
otherwise voted, here everyone has to vote anyway, so who cares how much
noise they make?
Just an aside: I watched Alexandra Pelosi's "Friends of God" documentary
last night (on 4 corners - repeated tonight in case you missed it) Yes,
it made my skin crawl, but I had to thank The IPU (pbuhh) that we don't
have anything like that here. And I was soooo glad to see that
*****-eatin' Ted Haggard bloke got busted for using male prostitutes. HA!
What a twot. I can still hear him telling Richard Dawkins not be so
"arrogant".
--
Jon
aa#277
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
21 Aug 2007 07:14:51 PM |
|
|
Jon Skinner wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/cens-a20.shtml
Nahhh. Bollocks.
The evangelicals produce a lot of ***** and wind but they're not half as
influential as they like to think. They're mostly preaching to their own
choirs.
That's good to hear.
The politicians will pander to them if they think there's some votes in
it of course, but we don't see the sort of "praise the lord" born-again
nonsense that seems to be the norm in America.
Well, at least that part seems to be dying down. Between the various
scandals involving fundy ministers and Bush's demonstration of just how
hateful, callous and unthinking those people are, evangelicals are
starting to be seen in a whole new light. I just hope this new
perspective is permanent.
Our last census showed increasing numbers of people identifying
themselves as "not religious". Here in my local council district 24% of
people ticked the "no religion" box on their census form - overtaking
the Catholics and putting themselves in the majority for the first time.
I'm sure the pollsters for the various partys are aware of this trend.
They'd be starting to worry that their candidate's religion was more a
hinderence than a help.
In the US, the number of people who self-identify as atheist or no
particular religion is also growing, but the concept that religion=good
is so thoroughly embedded in the American psyche thanks to the various
myths about the Founders and the Pilgrims that people running after
office just can't accept that things have changed.
Also, I think our compulsory voting system means the influence of
religious groups is kept in proportion to their actual numbers. Unlike
America where they can mobilise huge numbers of people who may not have
otherwise voted, here everyone has to vote anyway, so who cares how much
noise they make?
I used to be very against compulsory voting, but now I'm more iffy about
it. Not being very cynical, I thought it would be better for people who
couldn't be bothered to learn about issues and candidates to stay home,
until I saw how these same ignorant people are only too happy to simply
be told what to do and for whom to vote.
What sort of penalties do you have for non-voters, and how is voting
tracked?
Just an aside: I watched Alexandra Pelosi's "Friends of God" documentary
last night
I hadn't heard about this. It sounds interesting, though, and I may
have to find a copy to watch.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Skinner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
22 Aug 2007 04:16:59 AM |
|
|
L. Raymond <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Jon Skinner wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/cens-a20.shtml
Nahhh. Bollocks.
The evangelicals produce a lot of ***** and wind but they're not half as
influential as they like to think. They're mostly preaching to their own
choirs.
That's good to hear.
I heard on the news today that the opposition leader - a moderate
Christian family man - has refused to meet with an evangelical group, so
maybe the message from that census is getting through.
The politicians will pander to them if they think there's some votes in
it of course, but we don't see the sort of "praise the lord" born-again
nonsense that seems to be the norm in America.
Well, at least that part seems to be dying down. Between the various
scandals involving fundy ministers and Bush's demonstration of just how
hateful, callous and unthinking those people are, evangelicals are
starting to be seen in a whole new light. I just hope this new
perspective is permanent.
Sounds good. Hopefully the recent excursion into fundy-ism will act as a
kind of inoculation for the future.
Our last census showed increasing numbers of people identifying
themselves as "not religious". Here in my local council district 24% of
people ticked the "no religion" box on their census form - overtaking
the Catholics and putting themselves in the majority for the first time.
I'm sure the pollsters for the various partys are aware of this trend.
They'd be starting to worry that their candidate's religion was more a
hinderence than a help.
In the US, the number of people who self-identify as atheist or no
particular religion is also growing, but the concept that religion=good
is so thoroughly embedded in the American psyche thanks to the various
myths about the Founders and the Pilgrims that people running after
office just can't accept that things have changed.
It was Robert Hughes, I think, who said "America was founded by the
God-fearing, and Australia by the God-forsaken".
Also, I think our compulsory voting system means the influence of
religious groups is kept in proportion to their actual numbers. Unlike
America where they can mobilise huge numbers of people who may not have
otherwise voted, here everyone has to vote anyway, so who cares how much
noise they make?
I used to be very against compulsory voting, but now I'm more iffy about
it. Not being very cynical, I thought it would be better for people who
couldn't be bothered to learn about issues and candidates to stay home,
until I saw how these same ignorant people are only too happy to simply
be told what to do and for whom to vote.
What sort of penalties do you have for non-voters, and how is voting
tracked?
Officially, the fine for not voting is $20 - (A speeding ticket is $150)
- so it's really just a slap on the wrist. I've failed to vote on three
occasions, and never been fined for it. You just ring them up and give
them some excuse. Gastroenteritis is my favourite - "I couldn't leave
the toilet!" Provided you contact them, they don't persue it.
"Compulsory voting" is a bit of a misnomer. It would be better called
compulsory "participation" or "attendance". All you're legally required
to do is receive a ballot paper, return it, and get your name crossed
off the electoral roll. What you do with the ballot paper while its in
your hands is your own business. It's a secret ballot, so no-one is
allowed to know. It's a case of 'leading the horses to water' - whether
they drink or not is up to them. In fact, we usually get around 5% to
10% invalid votes, where people have either messed up their ballots, or
left them blank, etc. That's their problem. At the end of the process
no-one can claim to have been denied the right to vote (as in Florida,
2000).
I'm a fan of our system, though I can hear the howls of "civil liberties
violation!" from across the Pacific. I think that for the cost of a
minor inconvenience once every three years we get a truly representative
government. I should say; there's more to it than just the compulsory
aspect. We also use a preferential system that means all the primary and
run-off voting is done at the same time, so the winning candidate must
recieve at least 50%-plus-1 of the valid votes, and they can then
rightly claim to have a mandate.
Besides, if it wasn't compulsory, you'd never get the poulation out of
the pub on a Saturday afternoon. No-one would show up. And we'd have no
government. And George Bush would declare us a failed state and come
over here and take over the place and convert us all into born-again
Christians. And that would be bad.
Just an aside: I watched Alexandra Pelosi's "Friends of God" documentary
last night
I hadn't heard about this. It sounds interesting, though, and I may
have to find a copy to watch.
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/friends_of_god/
or, if you've got the stomach for it:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/meet-nancy-pelosis-christian-mocking-
daughter
--
Jon
aa#277
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
22 Aug 2007 10:30:16 PM |
|
|
Jon Skinner wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
It was Robert Hughes, I think, who said "America was founded by the
God-fearing, and Australia by the God-forsaken".
A common joke in the US is, "Why did we get the Pilgrims and Australia
get the criminals? Because Australia got first choice."
"Compulsory voting" is a bit of a misnomer. It would be better called
compulsory "participation" or "attendance". All you're legally required
to do is receive a ballot paper, return it, and get your name crossed
off the electoral roll.
Are they mailed or do people have to go get them? One of the problems
we've had involves Republicans putting up signs in strong Democratic
neighborhoods reminding people to vote but giving the wrong day, or
pasting up fliers telling them to pay up their outstanding fines because
the police hang around polling places to locate people with unpaid
traffic tickets or whatever. They don't really do that, but it's been a
successful tactic.
We also use a preferential system that means all the primary and
run-off voting is done at the same time, so the winning candidate must
recieve at least 50%-plus-1 of the valid votes, and they can then
rightly claim to have a mandate.
Now that is one thing I feel we *have* to implement. The very idea that
someone who receives only 40% of the vote can be declared the winner
irks me no end.
Besides, if it wasn't compulsory, you'd never get the poulation out of
the pub on a Saturday afternoon. No-one would show up. And we'd have no
government. And George Bush would declare us a failed state and come
over here and take over the place and convert us all into born-again
Christians. And that would be bad.
I love that logic. *grin*
Our elections tend to be on weekdays. The presidential election is held
on a Tuesday, and at least in Texas, state and local elections are also
generally on Tuesdays, although early voting allows people to show up
any day they to cast a vote before the official day.
Just an aside: I watched Alexandra Pelosi's "Friends of God" documentary
last night
I hadn't heard about this. It sounds interesting, though, and I may
have to find a copy to watch.
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/friends_of_god/
The DVD is slated for release around 15 October, so I'll try to take a
look at it then.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Skinner" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
23 Aug 2007 06:28:24 AM |
|
|
L. Raymond <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Jon Skinner wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
It was Robert Hughes, I think, who said "America was founded by the
God-fearing, and Australia by the God-forsaken".
A common joke in the US is, "Why did we get the Pilgrims and Australia
get the criminals? Because Australia got first choice."
Heh. Our version features Englishmen, flies, the rubbish dump, and a
certain migrant town. I like your version.
"Compulsory voting" is a bit of a misnomer. It would be better called
compulsory "participation" or "attendance". All you're legally required
to do is receive a ballot paper, return it, and get your name crossed
off the electoral roll.
Are they mailed or do people have to go get them?
There are polling booths everywhere on election day. Every school, town
hall, etc. There's usually one within walking distance. Or you can send
a postal vote. They go around the hostpitals & nursing homes too. I
think it's much the same as in the US. There's a flying polling booth
that visits remote communities in a helicopter. They don't do
joy-flights, though.
One of the problems
we've had involves Republicans putting up signs in strong Democratic
neighborhoods reminding people to vote but giving the wrong day, or
pasting up fliers telling them to pay up their outstanding fines because
the police hang around polling places to locate people with unpaid
traffic tickets or whatever. They don't really do that, but it's been a
successful tactic.
Nasty! I don't know for sure, but I think such practices would be
illegal here. I actually live right next door to a polling place, and
since Peter Garrett, the former frontman of Midnight Oil is now an
opposition party member, I'm tempted to put on some old 'Oils' records
for the benefit of the voters. Blast 'em with "US Forces" on full
volume. But in truth, I'd be worried about getting into trouble.
Probably best to behave myself.
We also use a preferential system that means all the primary and
run-off voting is done at the same time, so the winning candidate must
recieve at least 50%-plus-1 of the valid votes, and they can then
rightly claim to have a mandate.
Now that is one thing I feel we *have* to implement. The very idea that
someone who receives only 40% of the vote can be declared the winner
irks me no end.
Of course, the downside of this is if the 'other side' wins, you just
have to shut up and deal with it.
Besides, if it wasn't compulsory, you'd never get the poulation out of
the pub on a Saturday afternoon. No-one would show up. And we'd have no
government. And George Bush would declare us a failed state and come
over here and take over the place and convert us all into born-again
Christians. And that would be bad.
I love that logic. *grin*
Our elections tend to be on weekdays. The presidential election is held
on a Tuesday, and at least in Texas, state and local elections are also
generally on Tuesdays, although early voting allows people to show up
any day they to cast a vote before the official day.
I've heard the term "Super Tuesday", but I can't recall what it means.
Everything I know about US politics, I learned fom watching The West
Wing.
Just an aside: I watched Alexandra Pelosi's "Friends of God" documentary
last night
I hadn't heard about this. It sounds interesting, though, and I may
have to find a copy to watch.
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/friends_of_god/
The DVD is slated for release around 15 October, so I'll try to take a
look at it then.
--
Jon
aa#277
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
23 Aug 2007 02:34:24 PM |
|
|
Jon Skinner wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
Jon Skinner wrote:
Besides, if it wasn't compulsory, you'd never get the poulation out of
the pub on a Saturday afternoon. No-one would show up. And we'd have no
government. And George Bush would declare us a failed state and come
over here and take over the place and convert us all into born-again
Christians. And that would be bad.
I love that logic. *grin*
Our elections tend to be on weekdays. The presidential election is held
on a Tuesday, and at least in Texas, state and local elections are also
generally on Tuesdays, although early voting allows people to show up
any day they to cast a vote before the official day.
I've heard the term "Super Tuesday", but I can't recall what it means.
Everything I know about US politics, I learned fom watching The West
Wing.
The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries have traditionally been considered
the two most important tests of a candidate's viability. Anyone who
takes first or second place in both of those has generally been
considered the official front runner, with other primaries just
confirming that status, and that has lead to candidates dropping out if
they don't show well in one of those two states. The problem with this
is that New Hampshire is teeny weeny and Iowa as a state has a smaller
population than many cities, so allowing those two miniscule portions of
the general population choose the presidential candidates annoys a large
part of the country.
Super Tuesday was conceived in 1988 as the day all the southern states
would hold their primaries. By having so many primaries as such a large
block, it was intended to make sure no one would drop out after Iowa,
giving the rest of the nation, or at least the South, a chance to vote
for all the candidates.
These days, the concept of Super Tuesday has been dropped in favor of
just constantly moving up the dates for primaries, leading to a race to
see which state gets to be first.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
20 Aug 2007 08:49:09 PM |
|
|
L. Raymond:
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/cens-a20.shtml
Grrrrrreat. *cough cough*
Oh well, at least they don't have nukes (or is there something I
overlooked?).
Yet.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
21 Aug 2007 01:00:39 AM |
|
|
Last time that great scribe L. Raymond <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com>
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/cens-a20.shtml
Support from new Christian parties and formations such as Family First,
Hillsong Church, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), Assembly of God
and other right-wing groups, has therefore become a key electoral
consideration. Howard has assiduously cultivated support from these
layers over several years, and Labor leader Kevin Rudd is desperately
trying to catch up. Since assuming the Labor leadership late last year,
he has been widely promoted for his so-called "Christian values".
During the web cast, both politicians proclaimed their Christian
sensibilities, mouthing platitudes about family, helping the poor, and
so on. Howard said his politics were guided by the parable of the Good
Samaritan, who had stopped to help a suffering neighbour, and of the
Talents, which he described as a "free-enterprise parable", an appeal to
any small business owners who might be watching. He was applauded after
pledging to maintain the Lord=3Fs Prayer at each day=3Fs parliamentary
sittings and again when he reminded viewers about his government=3Fs laws
banning gay marriage.
Rudd said that his religious faith provided a "compass point" for his
personal and political life. Asked about his attitude to gay marriage,
the Labor leader endorsed Howard=3Fs legally discriminatory and
undemocratic laws, declaring: "I have a pretty basic view on this, as
reflected in the position adopted by our party and that is, that
marriage is between a man and a woman."
[End excerpt]
I think Australia has seen its last atheist Prime Minister in Bob Hawk.
Now they will now all be bod bots or hypocrites.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Australia going to join the US as a theocratic wannabe? |
21 Aug 2007 04:02:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:30:39 +0930, Meteorite Debris
<epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote:
Last time that great scribe L. Raymond <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com>
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
Are any of our friends from Australia worried about a Bush-like
government any time soon?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/cens-a20.shtml
Support from new Christian parties and formations such as Family First,
Hillsong Church, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), Assembly of God
and other right-wing groups, has therefore become a key electoral
consideration. Howard has assiduously cultivated support from these
layers over several years, and Labor leader Kevin Rudd is desperately
trying to catch up. Since assuming the Labor leadership late last year,
he has been widely promoted for his so-called "Christian values".
During the web cast, both politicians proclaimed their Christian
sensibilities, mouthing platitudes about family, helping the poor, and
so on. Howard said his politics were guided by the parable of the Good
Samaritan, who had stopped to help a suffering neighbour, and of the
Talents, which he described as a "free-enterprise parable", an appeal to
any small business owners who might be watching. He was applauded after
pledging to maintain the Lord=3Fs Prayer at each day=3Fs parliamentary
sittings and again when he reminded viewers about his government=3Fs laws
banning gay marriage.
Rudd said that his religious faith provided a "compass point" for his
personal and political life. Asked about his attitude to gay marriage,
the Labor leader endorsed Howard=3Fs legally discriminatory and
undemocratic laws, declaring: "I have a pretty basic view on this, as
reflected in the position adopted by our party and that is, that
marriage is between a man and a woman."
[End excerpt]
I think Australia has seen its last atheist Prime Minister in Bob Hawk.
Now they will now all be bod bots or hypocrites.
Wasn't Keating an atheist?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
