Thank you Julia

[CrazyAtheistFeminist]

Originally Posted by Seamus

As a former FOI action officer;Yes, in practice,although of course it isn't called that.As is usual in the Public Service,the Policy and Instructions Manual is thicker than the relevant Act.

We were only taught about FOI being to get information that is stored about yourself, who your parents are and/or your business... The LST curriculum is ripping me off!

What else can you get?

I knew she'd do something one day, not being sworn in on the Bible was a great start, it was just a matter of time

(Ok I admit it I lost hope after that instant I heard about the lack of Bible oath )

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by CrazyAtheistFeminist

We were only taught about FOI being to get information that is stored about yourself, who your parents are and/or your business... The LST curriculum is ripping me off!

What else can you get?

I knew she'd do something one day, not being sworn in on the Bible was a great start, it was just a matter of time

(Ok I admit it I lost hope after that instant I heard about the lack of Bible oath )

@CAF: for your info.

Originally Posted by FOI Guidelines - scope of application

2.1 Section 11(1) of the FOI Act gives every person a legally enforceable right to obtain access to a document of an agency or an official document of a minister, unless the document is exempt.

This appears to be a little wider than you've previously been advised.

[CrazyAtheistFeminist]

Originally Posted by Logic please

@CAF: for your info.

This appears to be a little wider than you've previously been advised.

Thanks, shall try and decipher the legislation when I am properly awake

[Crouton]

This is one of the things that has actually made me pay attention to Julia. By pulling out of the convention she earned my respect. At least for now.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Crouton

This is one of the things that has actually made me pay attention to Julia. By pulling out of the convention she earned my respect. At least for now.

Julia [like most politicians, even most people] do pay attention to evidence, but more often than not it will be anecdotal evidence, rather than some controlled studies. She even mentioned this, and her behaviour in general seems to indicate that she prefers the personal experience to disciplined research, and this is not just a "I am just another ordinary person" political ploy. The "Barry Jones" type of pollie is quite rare.
If anything, this may be a reflection on the education of the vocations [like law] which tend to be "over-focussed" for a university level degree.
Another symtom is that although Julia is an atheist, she does not seem to have realised the implications and remains a "Cultural Christian" with respect to many of the morals learned in her youth.

[Crouton]

What exactly do you mean by Cultural Christian. Could you define that more for me?

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Crouton

What exactly do you mean by Cultural Christian. Could you define that more for me?

If you believe in a god, or practice a religion, one tends to adopt the morals of that religion. The thing is, the dominant religion's morals get embedded into that society, so one can be an atheist, and yet still adopt the moral "norms" of that society/community wholesale. Richard Dawkins stated that he was a "Cultural Christian", meaning that some of the more sensible morals can be adopted if found to be sound. It is a matter of degree of course, as theists do not always adopt religious/cultural morals wholesale.
The important thing IMHO, is that such morals only be adopted for good reason, and not just a blind following of tradition, which causes most of the harm.
If a religion has a tradition of slavery, sexism, racism etc, should one adopt it wholesale?? Or do we use reason and evidence, as well as simple human compassion, to work out for ourselves what is appropriate behaviour in given situations? I think the last is the only way to go.

RD, although he is a cultural christian, does discriminate between obviously questionable moral rules, and the ones that have ethical utility. JG seems to be having some difficulty in discarding some of the things she was brought up to believe in, despite the prime cause [god] being no longer a factor.

I can think of a valid argument why gays can't marry, but apparently Julia has some concerns, and I will wager that these concerns are leftovers of what she was brought up to believe as a child.

[Xeno]

I am doubtful about your emphasis on morals in your definition, DB, or else you may be using that term very loosely. This definition seems reasonable:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A cultural Christian is a secular or irreligious individual who still significantly identifies with Christian culture. Deists of the 18th and early 19th centuries, such as Napoleon and various Founding Fathers of the United States, similarly considered themselves part of Christian culture, despite their doubts about the divinity of Jesus

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Xeno

I am doubtful about your emphasis on morals in your definition, DB, or else you may be using that term very loosely. This definition seems reasonable:

Fair enough.
But cultures often have some modes of behaviour that were obviously of functional significance. An atheist can work out why "thou shalt not kill" without referrring to religious laws, which in turn are based on the belief in a deity or supernatural force.

Or take clothes. They can have a obviously utilitarian function, for protection or to keep warm. Or they could be worn for decoration. Or to satisfy a religious instruction. Or all three.

It does not seem logical to wear clothes whilst bathing if you are an atheist. So an atheist may go skinny-dipping and then resume his/her clothes due to the risk of skin cancer. A theist whose religion forbids nakedness either defies the rule or conforms to it, but as my examples show, one can make reasonable guesses about which behaviours are driven mainly by reason and other by religious taboos.