Coup - Atheist Prime Minister in Australia
Offline I certainly didn't see this coming, so probably best to take the following political analysis with a shaker of salt, but I'll have a go anyway.
Yes, Australia now has an atheist Prime Minister.
The mechanics of it are rather Byzantine, but from what I can gather, the government has decided that it wouldn't be able to win the forthcoming election with the leader they had (Kevin Rudd). The popular deputy Julia Gillard has been chosen instead.
As it turns out, the right wing faction ensured that this would happen, even though Gillard is nominally soft left.
http://www.mamamia.com.au/weblog/2010/06/julia-gillard-australias-first-female-pm.html gives some more detail.
What this means for theocracy and censorship is anyone's guess. It shows that being an atheist is not a problem, but it also shows that all that does matter is getting enough votes. If that means an atheist PM courting the religious, then so be it. We will see.
- Login to post comments
I remember Julia Gillard being asked whether she would she would be consulting god for help in running the country when she became deputy PM. Her reply was telling.
"Who?"
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Not that anyone really cares about my opinion, but I think I would like this person.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
She made the comment on live TV, with a glimmery little quirk in her eyes...
Signature ? How ?
With Obama possibly being a closeted atheist (well, one can hope), and now Gillard, things must be better than they were on the English speaking political front.
I'm a bit out of touch with UK politics. Cameron describes himself as having 'a sort of fairly classic Church of England faith', which could mean a lot of things, but the Lib Dems aren't usually rabidly religious.
I have to say; one of the more... uncommon uses of that word.
I guess it depends where you live, Kap. I have used it this way many times - and so does my family. A reference to the supposed extreme bureaucratic complexity to be found during their heyday. I have no idea how it compares to getting a building permit now a days.
I can tell you the difference in bureaucratic procedures between the US and South Korea. I have mentioned my son married a South Korean. He says for the paperwork, they had one form to fill out and submit to his chain of command. He had an inches high stack of paper for the South Korean government, who lost it three times. Fortunately, he had submitted copies not the originals, so he only had to burn off a new copy each time and send it on.
People who think the US is terrible, have never lived anywhere where bureaucracy is really terrible.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I don't know if I would equate atheism directly with reason and logic
I think that might be likely too. That comment about people clinging to guns and religion always strikes me as something a theist wouldn't say.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I think that Australia doesn't deserve the moniker "Land down under". If any country deserves it it would be America because we are certainly "down under" the curve compared to the rest of most of civilized societies.
Bob, I envy you. Why cant our politicians say, "look, I don't mind kissing your ass for votes, but I won't kiss your god's ass".
It reminds me of Marge in a old early Simpson's cartoon where the family goes to a party and everyone embarrasses her. I love my country, I do, but when I think of what Jefferson would think of our current state of religion in politics, he would be rolling in his grave.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Like with the RRS thread on religion and misogyny/abuse of women, Atheistnexus also had a thread about atheists considering themselves intellectually superior to theists. The overwhelming majority of the respondents replied in words to the effect of "no, I don't".
Atheism is hardly mutually inclusive to rationality. It's productive in the sense that we have one less (gargantuan) obstacle in the way between our thoughts and an unhindered ability to reason, but other than that, it's almost entirely a matter of preference.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Politicians all use religion to gain power. The woman clearly supports the Islamicization of Australia:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0vuTb9Qph4
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-407851.html
Being anti-Christian does not mean rational atheist.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
She's an atheist? Thank God! (Oops...)
Atheists can have a very wide variety of education, just as any other label. But once you learn and accept an indisputable fact, it is no longer "a matter of preference". Now that I know that Santa isn't real I have no choice but to reject that claim. When I was a kid it was understandable, but I know better now.
I agree however that the majority of atheists do not see themselves as intellectually superior. I cant do a fraction to save my life. I see it not so much as "intellect" being attributed to a label, but more along the lines all humans are capable of the same range of human emotions and actions, good and bad, whatever their label is.
Atheism is not the inventor of morality anymore than Islam and Christianity are. We are all capable of learning new things. I would say that many atheists value the challenge of self introspection in being unafraid to test a claim to insure quality control. In that sense I do see atheists not having that extra baggage. But all humans, outside of labels are a RANGE, and labels do not describe individuals. They are horrible short cut descriptions that do not explain the complexity of that particular individual's thoughts or actions.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Right.
How did "education" get involved in this conversation again? (other than the fact that leftists often enjoy flaunting their level of education...)
See... there you go getting confused about completely different, yet related concepts. Most atheists (as I understand them) lost their unquestioning belief in Big G entirely because of choice, not because of some overwhelmingly convincing study/research project which has "indisputably" disproven the existence of some... 'Universal Creator Entity'.
In some cases, (like my own personal decision to become atheist at age 10) the choice is based on the (informed) understanding that the information lying inside their cranium greatly supports the nonexistence of a God, as opposed to any suggestion or understanding that a God exists, and observes humanity in it's entirety.
So yeah, I would say that (without a sliver of doubt) atheism is a matter of personal choice - we choose to be skeptics of religious concepts, we don't necessarily accept it as a granted "fact", one way or the other.
Self-introspection? Nah, not really. You're making quite a few poorly introspected claims in this very thread.
I'll refer you to Hammy's brilliant "Humans are creatures of comfort" statement, because it easily applies to atheists as well. We choose atheism, because maintaining belief in that which is VERY difficult to believe, makes us uncomfortable. It also puts artificial limits on our personal lives that... quite frankly... we're better off without.
"Nature abhors a vacuum" "We all lie on a continuum" blablablablabla more dogmatic, pseudophilosophical garbage attempting to discover some sort of 'idyllic medium' for conscious existence. It's your opinion; fine, so be it. It's not an opinion I'm going to share any time soon.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
For a start, she is a pragmatic politician and represents her party.
She'd never have become PM otherwise.
Also, I cannot see how she is supporting Islamisation. Creating dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims is basic diplomacy. She cannot simply abolish Islam. Better to work towards fewer extremists.
As regards the Islamic schools, she makes no claim to want more of them. She is stating that they are a reality, as are Christian schools. The best that can be done for now is to set standards for them.
Nor does she claim to be anti-Christian.
And finally, bigfooty isn't a great source of reliable information, even in regard to whether the Pies can win the Flag.