KRudd, Abbott & Costello, little JohnJohn, Malcolm Cock'n'Bull are all guilty!!

[gruber]

also "yes we can"

[David Nicholls]

Good People,

The mentioned article by Carmen Lawrence is today in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers. The AFA has responded with a letter to the editor of both papers. It will be included in this thread tomorrow if not published.

David

[David Nicholls]

Dear Editor,

Carmen Lawrence’s article is no news to Atheism. (Keep God out of our democracy – The Age 2/7) The encroachment of faith in politics is part responsible for the recent spate of books denouncing religion as having no substance and being a serious impediment to democratic process. Local and national parliaments see continual examples with numerous social issues.

Internationally, the power games religions play has taken on a nature threatening the breakout of uncontrollable hostilities. Nuclear weapons draw closer to entering this conflict of, ‘my god is better than your god’.

In Australia, under the guise of casting a conscience vote, pollies eschew rational and compassionate choices in favour of adhering to religious dogma. Of course, a ‘conscience vote’ is code for robotically following religious indoctrination.

What hope is there in accomplishing decreased instead of escalated horrors, seen on nightly news, if the root of much of it goes unrecognised in our own country? This growing advancement of piety in the sky sentiment by our leaders needs greater scrutiny by the media, thus allowing the public to vote irrationality into obscurity.

Yours Sincerely,

[TimB]

Nice one David.

If only the non-religious MPs in our state and federal parliaments would standup and be counted. What place do prayers have in the parliaments our supposedly secular country?

Seperation of church and state is so important in a multicultural democracy - I sometimes wonder if the religious in this country actually realise that it is secular principles that guarantee their religious freedoms.

[David Nicholls]

TimB,

The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald published one reply in each paper in relation to the article by Carmen Lawrence. Both were very poor comment of the subject matter in the article. I am not crying poor neglected Atheism because of this one occasion of non publication of an AFA letter. Expressing our views in public is never smooth sailing. The rejection of the bus advertisement campaign is a good example.

Many Atheists do not realise the impediments placed in our path by the establishment and society as a whole, which preclude us from participating in public comment. Even so, this unfair restraint is not containing Atheism. To quote Catherine Deveny, “Atheism is going off like a frog in a sock.”

Religion is embedded deeply in society and of course, it is going to be hard to expose its fundamental weaknesses. Individual Atheists recognising the difficulties in delivering a message of rationality is the first step in eliciting a more vibrant response. One of the limiting factors in the struggle for reason prevailing is the natural inclination of Atheists to do nothing. This is understandable as confrontation is not always easy for many reasons. Some of those are not wishing to upset family, friends and workmate associations, feelings of inadequacy in expressing ideas coupled with the fear of getting it wrong, not wanting to stand out from the crowd, not desiring to upset others, its more comfortable to do nothing etc.

The Simpson’s episode about garbage collection and other odd jobs that no one wanted to do sums this up nicely. The catch cry was, “Can’t someone else do it!”

These reactions by Atheists or rather non-reactions are natural responses embedded by a long evolutionary history that has favoured cooperation and not confrontation as the easier path to take. The objection to making a visible contribution are often rationalised with thoughts of being too busy or what can one person achieve or suchlike. Evolution has made dissention a difficult process as a safety measure; otherwise, every wild idea would soon overtake and destroy the tribe.

None of this is meant as any kind of condemnation whatsoever, it is just the way it is. It is pointless in engaging in the blame game. But what has to be remembered is that the secular organisations that have sprung up as a response to religious intrusion are somewhat hampered by the inaction of those they represent and can only do so much without the vocal and financial support that religions have by the bucket full.

What I am saying is that the road is going to be slower than it could be but it is still going OK but not to expect ‘miracles’ in regard to the instant expansion of reason in civilisation. As the last president of the AFA, Keith Cornish, now dead, oft said about this very topic. “It’s par for the course.”

David

[eccles]

Im sorry Kevin747 is doing that. A Abbot, the "Mad Monk" former student in a Roman Catholic Seminary and a representative of "Opus Dei" does not surprise me.

Well Little Johnny was Dubya's little Lap Dog and "God" told Dubya to attack Saddam Who Is Insane. Johnny and Costello are customers of the "Happy Clappers", the Hillsong Church.

If all the "Hon." members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party used their "brains", insufficient heat would be generated to warm one of the fleas that gather on Little Johnny's bald head for a good scratch.

[kencooke]

Phillip Jensen's response (brother of Peter, Archbishop of Sydney.

Quiet Please: politicians are present

This incessant contrast of faith and reason displays the unreasonable passion of secularists. Knowing very little of religious understanding or reasoning they attribute different opinions to their own as “irrational beliefs”.

[Mister Pervert]

This incessant contrast of faith and reason displays the unreasonable passion of secularists.

He mistakes "incessant" for insouciant.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by LapsedAtheist

He mistakes "incessant" for insouciant.

hehehe


Isn't religious reasoning an oxymoron? Not that I give a fuck. Perhaps I'm just insouciant about what the dripping-with-irony- statement of the brother of some dopey cleric..

[BrendonW]

Does anyone know how close this increasing religiosity comes to breaching section 116 of our constitution: "...and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."?

Surely parliamentary ministers should NOT be allowed to swear on the bible when they're inducted into parliament (as far as I'm aware, they do).