The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The politics of religion > Comments

The politics of religion : Comments

By Max Wallace, published 4/6/2010

The politics of Senator Xenophon’s tax laws amendment (public benefit test) bill 2010 and the Church of Scientology.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
Religion is not a private matter if it is tax exempt
Posted by snake, Friday, 4 June 2010 9:44:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Religion is not a private matter if it is tax exempt'

tell that to the Greens. The global warming faith has cost taxpayers billions.
Posted by runner, Friday, 4 June 2010 10:03:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find myself at a loss. I like to pick holes in OLO essays and point out where there are errors in fact, unjustified leaps of logic, casuistry or prejudice. In this essay Max Wallace makes such good sense that I can only applaud his efforts.

Separation of religion and state is not a panacea for all ills, but I think it would make for a better Australia. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution which follows seems to call for it.

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth
Posted by david f, Friday, 4 June 2010 10:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very interesting essay. Thank's for pointing out,

"To “advance religion” has been deemed to be of public benefit since the 17th century."

Considering the environmental damage and human conflict that is justified on the basis of religious belief today it is obvious that religion is no longer a public benefit. I agree - remove the tax exempt status of all religions.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Friday, 4 June 2010 10:23:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, a very good article. I think that many of the issues sourrounding the tax-exempt status of religions would disappear if the ludicrous definition of "advancement of religion" as a defined public benefit was removed. As michael says, it can easily be argued that they are as much a cause of public harm as they are of benefit.

Memo to runner: the Greens are a secular political party, not a religion.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 4 June 2010 10:36:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, OLO experts, why is the advancement of religion detrimental to the public benefit? Because some religious organisations distort science? Because it promotes faith above reason?

Tell me, I'm genuinely curious. There are sociological studies which have shown the following:

- Religious people donate much more time and money to charity.
- Religious people live longer and happier lives.
- Religious people are more likely to be doctors, teachers or nurses- professions universally regarded as underpaid and underappreciated (at least the last two), and those which help others and provide crucial services to society.

Given the mountains of data from studies along these lines, I would've thought it would be beneficial to society if there were more religious people, rather than less?
Posted by Trav, Friday, 4 June 2010 10:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Wallace's reference to Australia being a soft theocracy is all too relevant given the disproportionate influence of religion on politics, and the disproportionate numbers of politicians of a particular faith.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 June 2010 10:55:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion should not have any tax concessions.
As a non believer, especially in the sort of rubbish that Runner and UOG supports and spouts, I do not want my taxes used by his ilk what a waste.
Posted by PeterA, Friday, 4 June 2010 11:29:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All it takes is belief in a supernatural entity? I can't wait to make my tax-deductible donation to Pastafarianism.
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 4 June 2010 11:33:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Assuming that the sociological studies mentioned by Trav are valid, are these reasons to give religious organizations tax-exempt status and not other organizations whose activities may have similar effects?

Do other advanced countries in Western Europe and Japan have tax-exempt status for religious organizations? These are countries where more people are not religious, where there are very high standards of living, where people live longer, where inequality is lower, where government-funded health, social services and education are morre highly developed.

Countries where religion is dominant - the Third World, most of the Middle East and the USA are marked by extremes of inequality, lower life expectancy, lower standards of living, poorer provision of health, education and social services by governments.
Posted by tonyf, Friday, 4 June 2010 11:36:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""Given the mountains of data from studies along the lines
"- Religious people donate much more time and money to charity.
"- Religious people live longer and happier lives.
"- Religious people are more likely to be doctors, teachers or nurses -""

More people define themselves - or have defined themselves - as religious, so is it just on that basis; or are there some objective, independent, well-designed studies with "mountains of data" you can share?

Or, do they donate to charities that evangelise and proselytise?
Is their perceived happiness a type of vaccuuity?
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 June 2010 11:58:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,
I'm fascinated by your 'mountains of data' How about some references
That verify your assertion?
Then we need to see if these mountains of data actually prove anything and are not over interpreted.

McReal makes some valid points except their last line.
If OLO is a litmus test I'd say those who are arguably 'christian one eyed' seem to be the most worried about assorted plots, conspiracies, politics, economics ad nauseum.Than the secular thinkers.
e.g. I'm not frightened by other races or religions or.....hell.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 4 June 2010 12:14:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav

Assuming your data are correct, doesn’t this make it even more important that we should pay taxes? I’m uncomfortable about churches claiming tax exempt status, especially as churches lecture the government so often on the need to spend more.

We should pay our way and contribute to society by paying taxes, the same as everyone else – and as the Bible says we should! (Matthew 17:24-27, 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25, Romans 13:7)
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 4 June 2010 3:42:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

I was in Apex for five years, where I came across hundreds, if not, thousands of people. I knew only one minister to be an Apex member and no priests. Apex tended to be interwined with Lions and Rotary. We knew each other. Same was true of these organisations. Clergy didn't seem to like operating, where they were not in the leadership role, I suspect.

Likewise, I can recall parishioners mowing our priest's lawn but I never saw him reciprocate or mow a pensioner's lawn. (He was in his forties, I guess).

I also have a mental image of Bob Dywer (or Jack Davies?) dressing up as a "bum" and soliciting money in Hyde Park Sydney. (The idea was give money/prizes to the charitable). On camera, he approached a priest several times and was shunned away.

p.s. Silly priest; He might have received a one thousand pound donation.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 4 June 2010 3:57:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly, there are both positive and negative effects of religion on society, and the modern debate on this has only just started. Here's my question: How would Xenophon give weighting to e.g. sex abuse scandals, or mass spiritual awakening? The idea is awesome, the logistics are imposing. So much subjective opinion is involved it would be impossible to be scientific, rigourous, or accountable in the law-making process. Even having a judge review tax-exempt stati is impractical - if Scientology can infiltrate and subvert an entire government department in a Western country - how many religious or atheist judges do you think are out there? And despite judges being trained to set aside personal prejudices - that is only partial effective in achieving objectivity in the court.

Btw, is Max Wallace related to Jim Wallace? That would be funny.

And climate change is not a faith. It is based on serverloads of evidence from a great number of scientists, many of whom are religious. In fact science and religion fit very well together in a lot of cases.
And, a lot of people believe science to be a faith (in which case anything is a faith), it's just one of the more methodical ones.

The positive effect of religion on individuals cannot be ignored. There are very many people who actually experience real spiritual experiences (real to them). Without communal institutional religion there would be a lot more money in tarot card readers, crystal-ball gazing, and many more pseudo-religions. In fact, given our human nature to congregate and socialise, it is clearly inevitable that we come together to share some of life's deepest meanings.
Posted by Shiztearer, Friday, 4 June 2010 6:04:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael in Adelaide.

You betray a teensy weensy bit of prejudice on your side there...

//Considering the environmental damage and human conflict that is justified on the basis of religious belief today it is obvious that religion is no longer a public benefit.//

If you were not prejudiced, you would have put it rather more broadly.

-Environmental damage. ?
-Human Conflict.

If you were balanced, you would have put that in a context which demonstrated that by far the body count is so uncountably HIGHer for the secular or atheist or communist or combinations of those, inspired human conflict that if you put all the religious conflicts together, they do not even rate when compared.

But as I said.. "IF" you were balanced :)

I guess its time to dispense with St Vinnies, Salvo's and the various others... yes.. let's get rid of them, but I've done rather well from the Salvo's as I prefer to pay $50 for my recliner chairs than $450 in some retail place. Specially when income is a bit dodgy.

I have no problems with Xenophons mention of Scientology as I see zero public benefit from their work.. however I do see massive INCOME benefit for their organization.

"Public Benefit" is a bit subjective, but scams are pretty clear, and in my view Scientology is one. (along with Climate Change/Global warming)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 4 June 2010 6:23:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The politics of religion.

Simple! Look after the poor!

Next?

TTM>
Posted by think than move, Friday, 4 June 2010 8:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David. Good to see you back. A story teller, like the never ending story, man or woman would not see such evil without the understandings of religions. Well p;layed/ Do one more thing for me.

Dont kill this world. Please. EVO.

TT
Posted by think than move, Friday, 4 June 2010 9:35:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aren't non-profit organisations exempt from tax, or at least eligible for tax benefits? I'm not an expert on taxation or law, but I had always assumed that was the case.

What makes religions tricky is that the larger religions own businesses whose profits are then redirected into the outreach sections of the institution. Are these businesses taxed, or are they exempt as part of their religious affiliation? Perhaps they need to be taxed and then receive rebates for their donations to charities.

As for the 'advancement of religion' being a charitable service, I'm not too keen on that. I'm a practising Catholic, but I am comfortable with the idea that non-Catholics can live as good and happy lives as I do. I do think, though, that the 'bread and butter' of the Church - the parishes themselves - should be treated in the same manner as clubs. I've yet to see a parish that runs at a profit, and what goes into the collection plate certainly doesn't pay the priest or maintain the property. There just isn't enough! But, just as the Lions and Rotary clubs collect funds to provide services to the community, so does the Church.

In short, what I think is needed is a clear organisational structure for religious groups. Those branches of churches (or mosques, or kingdom halls, or ...) that provide service without profit should be entitled to the same benefits as non-profit organisations. Those branches that generate profits - even if the profit is merely to fund other good works - should be taxed like other profit-driven businesses. It only seems fair.
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 5 June 2010 12:56:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Boaz,

Ignoring the fact that the atrocities of the 20th century were not done in the name of secularism or atheism as the slaughters of the religious were been done in the name of their religion, if you were balanced, then you would have taken into account the fact that not only was the world’s population many times more than it was in the centuries when most of the religious conflicts were going on, but the technology that they had in the 20th century allowed for far more killing in a far shorter amount of time.

But as I said.. "IF" you were balanced :)

The slaughters of the communist regimes of the 20th century look pretty ordinary when one takes the above into account.

In fact if it wasn’t for secularism dragging Christianity kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into Modernity, we’d still be burning heretics at the stake.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 5 June 2010 1:20:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia could do with a charity regulator and that would provide transparency.

Exemptions are fine for mainstream religions who in fact do a lot of good and more efficiently and better targeted than government. Hitting them with tax would create a bureaucratic paper-chase for them and for the ATO, with no benefits accruing for the taxpayer at all.

There has been a lot of publicity about certain sects and of course the commentators and shock jocks have been active, demanding action from government as per usual to protect gullible people from themselves. However politicians can only offer more laws and bureaucrats, but that rarely solves problems. How far do we want the Nanny State to take care of our lives anyhow?

The reasonable, moderate approach would be to have a charity regulator, but there is no rush because there are many other pressing problems for government to solve as a priority. In the interim maybe people could take heed of the negative publicity some of these sects have received and not get involved themselves.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 5 June 2010 3:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTOKONOKO

you said:

Are these businesses taxed, or are they exempt as part of their religious affiliation? Perhaps they need to be taxed and then receive rebates for their donations to charities.

It depends on how they are structured.

Sanitariam foods ? I don't know.. why not give them a ring :)

Camps..... such as at Cowes.. the subject of recent controversy re "gay discrimination" can be under a broader 'trust' and don't actually make a technical 'profit'.

I tend to agree in principle, that if such camps are open to the general public..such as schools etc... it rather blurrs the line between 'commercial' and 'Christian'.....

So..there might be a case for looking at their tax exempt status there. (Painful as it would be)

I think the usual rationalization from 'us' would be that we perform a useful service.. our work is not 'for profit'..but for ministry and some of the income is distributed among the needy which would include aboriginals and overseas.

Our fellowship has built (at our own expense..donations) school rooms and dormitories for orphans in Uganda.. would you want to tax tha
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 5 June 2010 7:42:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
could you imagine how much more in the red this country would be if many of the churches did not have to clean up the social messes caused by secular dogma.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 5 June 2010 10:45:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the logic explanation that there should not be tax exemption for religion at all. Same rules could apply for them as for non profit organisations like sports clubs and real expenses for public benefits are tax deductible.

Only ex-members of Scientology have the insight and real experience of proof that Scientology is a business and not a Church. I was for a short time inside this organisation and fortunately made an exit in time and before I was broke. Offers as described below are reality.

No real church will try to sell you courses for thousands (not hundreds) of dollars. No real benefit organisation will urge you to get a bank loan (and tell you to declare it for other purposes) if you do not have the money. No church will ask you not to tell your friends about what happens within Scientology and try to isolate you from your own family if they are critical about their organisation.

Scientology is selling products to their members for thousands of dollars. The programs and courses are completely overpriced. When members are finally financially broke then Scientology offers them a job in return of paying for their bank loans.

If this behaviour is called a benefit for the public then I rather eliminate the tax free status for all "religious" organisations.

And finally:
Religion is ONLY a private matter for citizens not a public matter for the Commonwealth as long as the so called "Scientology Religion" is not ruining people, breaks up families, ruins their mental health for which taxpayers pay via health institutions and CenterLink.

Chris
Posted by chris_ho, Saturday, 5 June 2010 11:51:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

In the fifteenth century, in Germany, when the Churches were held more charge the average life span of a male was 22 years. I saw that on a documentary yesterday, after my last post.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 5 June 2010 12:28:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael in Adelaide, Ben in Hobart here -

Firstly, we are all prejudiced, including those of us who try not to be. That's not a bad thing per se, it just embellishes our characters.
Not even judges are balanced, nor journalists. Everyone has an angle, Michael.

Yes, religion has been used as an excuse for human conflict. It's not the only excuse. I'm sick of militant/fundamentalist atheists (not that I'm calling you one) harping on about religion causing warfare. Almost all religions go on about peace between neighbours. Political/military leaders start wars, and often use religion, ethnicity, or some other point of difference as a xenophobic excuse for warfare, when in reality it is more often a question of ego. Napoleon? Hitler? Pol Pot? Mao Tse Tung? What are political boundaries if not a line of difference between peoples, enforced by armies led my global egos?

And I'd like to add that environmentalism is far from incompatible with religion. Although some church leaders rail against humanism (when that is clearly just philosophical love of fellow man), or environmentalism (which could be simplistically seen as love of the environment), and see them as competing priorities for passionate people, when a love of God is paramount in church leaders' priorities... Actually, environmentalism and humanism are completely compatible with religion. Both the environment and people were created by God(some believe), how could thinking religionists not care about God's creations? I personally do see a lot of religionists who are very active in lots of good causes, some of which have nothing to do with religious charities. While some religionists are mental retards, others are exceptionally responsible and socially active pillars of society. And there are also bad eggs like those responsible for sex abuse scandals. So how do we encourage people to be more responsible and try harder to play a beneficent part in the world's development? Organised religion plays no small part in this.

If you don't mind Salvo's and Vinnies sticking around, they will continue to feed and clothe you and me both. If you don't mind.
Posted by Shiztearer, Saturday, 5 June 2010 12:45:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snake, religion can be both tax exempt & a private matter.

The lines get blurred when the principle of, "separation of church & state" is messed with. As it was in the 4th century, when "Catholic" Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire as the official Religion.

That, lead to all the corruptions, that people like the article author, like to use, to attack "Christianity" &/or all religions.

Runner, Correct as usual.

BTW, which church are you with, i am looking for a new one? Mainstream Christianity, in my view has been dying for about 5 decades now.

Partly because of an assault by, all the new Religions like, "Climate Change" but mostly because i think they have also dropped the ball, on confronting evil.

Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses" all hail the new religion, 'ISM Schism. ALGOREisRICH's PC Video nails it in one.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

David f, i too found the article very thought provoking. I have been deeply concerned about the separation of church & state which our constitution has always, clearly called for.

The worst offenders are of course the red/green/getup/labour coalition who have been bribing the churches for decades with school funding, but over the last decade or so, in particular, have moved on to "Welfare".

Their loony, left Governments have been progressively outsourcing essential government services to churches &/or their NGOs. So, what bishop would now dare speak out against incompetence or corruption & risk the jobs of thousands of their employees?

Micheal in Adelaide, there is one problem that the author & you have missed. In the 17th century & until about 5 decades ago religion was extremely beneficial.

Namely all the benefits or improvements in modern western democracy, that we take for granted today, were introduced by "Good Men, of Faith" who wrote America's constitution &/or everything decent in Britain from "Industrial Revolution" reforms of the Victorian era going back to the "Magna Carta".

All of this Honest, Decent, work was done by Christians, mostly Protestants, protesting about religious, oppression, among other things.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 5 June 2010 1:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C J Morgan, Are you sure that your precious Red/greens are NOT a new religion, replacing "Christianity" etc?

If the world &/or this country ends up with an "ETS". Please Guarantee to us that, "International Banksters" making Squillions from, "Carbon Trading" will NOT make "Tax Deductible" donations, to Red/green NGOs, that will end up with people like "Honest, Bob Brown" on their boards, after they have collected their Super & Gold Pass?

Ditto, if we end up with a "Carbon Tax". Guarantee that future Red/green/getup/labour coalition governments will not "Grant" funds to Red/green NGOs, QUANGOs, etc, Please, C J, can you do that for us?

Please also comment, about my earlier comment, on "The New Religions" that have been around since the 1960's?

Also C J, Runner, myself, ALGOREisRICH & i am sure many others as well, would argue that any negatives you, the article author, or any others can point to, from over the last century or so, can be explained by the type of perversions of modern western democracy & religion, that we have been talking about on this & other threads. Try this one for size.

http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cs/perspective235.asp

Also if you are struggling with the difference between Marxism & all the other ISM, SCHISMs try these again, just to be sure.

http://www.whirlingdervishes.org/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml

Trav, Well said Buddy.

McReal, i agree, but read both of my comments on the perversion of religion by our politicians, try the links & then comment further.

PeterA, Church NGOs have been doing, outsourced essential government services, at radically lower costs, for ages now. Look at the difference in, "Bang for buck" that the Catholic Education system, has gotten for its BER funding for example.

I have concerns about the separation of church & state that may be different to yours, but we all must acknowledge that our Christian churches, have been doing some sterling government work for peanuts.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 5 June 2010 2:37:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey "David f" and "Snake"
I totally disagree with your opinions.

Calling an economical approach to energy consumption a green religion only because you do not agree with this point of view is too cheap an excuse for just opposing a topic or not understanding it.

John Howard was the guy who increased funding for Catholic schools not the Greens or Labor or the Reds. There is no real socialist or communist party in Australia. I wonder if the latter still is banned?

It is the neo-conservatism movement which is misusing orthodox christian beliefs for their purposes. GW Busch created the axis of evil and called the war against terror a crusade. J Howard followed in his footsteps repeating the slogans like a parrot and involved Australia in the Irak war based on blatant lies. Abbot seems to be on the same line. I rather would like to have any atheist PM than a politician who did not become a priest.

Downfall of Christianity during the last 5 decades as you say has nothing to do with not facing the evil or Darvin but with the fact that the Catholic church is the longest lasting "dictatorship" on earth, that it's leaders want to make rules for their members family and sex life without having any expertise and at the same time cover for guys in their ranks who molest minors.

That's why I left this club. There is no need to be member of a church to have Christian believes and to follow the basic rules of the ten amendments which are clearly a benefit for the public and living together in harmony.

Chris
Posted by chris_ho, Saturday, 5 June 2010 2:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish, but many people in the past have done, exactly that, made up a new religion or church, so as to, take advantage of their Sheeple & government incentives, like "Tax Advantages".

Magnificat Meal Movement anybody, or "The Bhagwan", maybe try watching the movie "Leap of Faith" with Steve Martin, not a huge fan of his, but that movie was brilliant.

tonyf, the studies Trav mentioned are true, but the Nirvana's you mentioned, are all going broke right now. Japan is quite religious, as are some of the countries you mentioned, like Switzerland.

The good things you mentioned, also applied, in spades, to Australia between 1945 & the 1960's? Since then, our society & governments have been, falling apart at the seams?

McReal, again, Those questions of yours could, equally apply to secular people, who proselytise about, "the greatest moral challenge of our time" &/or then, discover that their, "fearless leader" has, "feet of clay" or that the message was all "Spin Doctored" Lies. Deliberate, Premeditated, Lies.

examinator, i put some links in my comments today, i nearly always do. Have you ever tried any of them?

Have you never met a secular, paranoid, conspiracy theorist? I have met many, who are Atheists, you would be too if you had been abused by an allegedly, religious, person or government official.

I have always found their theories to be backed by at least SOME facts & like in the movie "Pelican Brief" with Julia Roberts & Mel Gibson, usually a lot of facts.

I am not frightened of other races or religions either, as a matter of principle, but like 80% to 90% of the population, i am concerned about racial & religious extremists, who are here in OZ, right now.

Thanks to the Extremist, Proselytising of Multicultural Immigration policies, by the Red/green/getup/labour coalition.

If you go to the World's Worst War zones & import an equal number of combatants from all sides of the conflict, you will get some damaged goods, together with plenty of crime, brawls, riots, racial tension & more pressure on our health/hospital system.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1063221/australian-woman-held-in-yemen

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1062780/officials-told-about-hiv-acrobat-in-2004

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1052753/asylum-seeker-riot-leaves-three-injured
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 5 June 2010 3:57:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, agree about taxes, the Major Mistakes are NOT advocating a simple increase in personal income tax rates for the Rich or very high income earners. Such a tax would mean that mining magnates like Twiggy Forest & Clive Palmer would be paying more tax, but also mean that other CEOs, Banksters, etc, would also be paying more tax.

The problem, however is that it might, also mean more taxes for Politicians, Bureaucrooks or even, Academics & University Vice Chancellor's. I hear the UQ boss is now on more than a million?

The Red/green/getup/labour coalition Government's have been encouraging Churches to lecture them about spending on education & charities.

Its a symbiotic relationship the loony, left, politicians, look good, in the, "Community" for encouraging, or funding, "good works" & the churches, get more funds for their NGOs. Its all extremely sick, corrupt, stuff, & Extremely, normal, for the Red/green/getup/labour coalition.

Oliver, 2 wrongs don't make a right. There are plenty of secular types in politics, bureaucrookracy, etc, who are corrupt, evil people. The "Catholic" church has avoided reporting abuse cases to Police, etc. Have they actively interfered in the justice system to cover up paedophilia? http://www.heineraffair.info/

There are plenty of religious people who have been involved in charitable work & realised that, they were only subsidising some poor, dysfunctional person's addiction, or enabling them to stay, "in the gutter".

All of the Welfare, Social Talk, Anti Family law, programs/policies of the Red/green/getup/labour coalition are designed to create & maintain Poverty, Loneliness, Hopelessness, Depression & Misery.

They are using your taxes to subsidise Tobacco, Alcohol, Drugs, Gambling. Together with Quit programs, Rehabilitation, Laurenorder, etc, etc, etc.

Shiztearer, An excellent comment, i only disagree about, "Climate Change" NOT being, a new pseudo Religion. See my earlier comments on that.

Experience has shown that religion & Science can co-exist. There are Churches like the Christadelphians for example. I also think a "Christian" Scientist, might be less likely to proselytise about Data.

While concerned about the environment i would not ruin the economy with an ETS or Carbon tax, in order to protect it.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 5 June 2010 6:28:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Formersnag
What's the opposite of your so called Red/green/getup/labour coalition?
By just juggling with words - I guess your favourite political movement must be called - the Black/brown/neocon/opposition coalition?
Your ideas seem not compatible with the so called "Australian fair go".
Fortunately the majority of Australians seem not share them.
That keeps me hoping for a better future.
Chris
Posted by chris_ho, Saturday, 5 June 2010 8:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag, thanks again for sharing with us your "moderate and mainstream" views about religion and politics. Yes, I'm quite certain that the Greens political party doesn't constitute a religion under any definition of the word of which I'm aware.

How unsurprising it is that you're attracted to runner's fundamentalist version of Christianity. It's people like you guys who give Christianity a bad name, and inspire otherwise indifferent atheists like me to call for an end to the special treatment that religions get under our laws.

Given your earlier characterisation of Left politics as "devil worship", I think I'll accord your political analyses the same intellectual status that I do with those of your buddies runner, Boazy et al. Keep them coming though - they're often quite entertaining.

I'm still chuckling over the "devil worship" lunacy.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 5 June 2010 8:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Formersnag - those ""who proselytise about 'the greatest moral challenge of our time'."" include the chief proponent who likes a regular media conference outside his church (Rudd), and one who likes to preach his Christianity regularly (Garrett). Both ironically contribute to global warming thru their contribution to pyrotechnics thru the home insulation program.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 5 June 2010 9:38:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal
That's what Tony Abbot wants us to believe - also kind of a religion: Whatever the government does is bad and he can do it better. I have another Philosophy: Don't believe any statements of politicians unless you have verified that the statement is correct.

The insulation scheme was botched by some incompetent companies.
Employers are responsible for OH&S of their employees at the work place and that they are educated to do the job safely and to the correct quality standard. The companies who executed the faulty installations should be prosecuted for endangering their workers, damage and death.

To blame the government for the complete mess is an easy diversion from the fact that trade education and quality standards in Australia are far behind central European countries. No wonder we have to import skilled workers with immigration schemes.

But I agree that the government should have made it mandatory all insulation to be checked by a licensed electrician and that foil insulation should not have been included in the scheme.

Blaming and believing does not help much.
Knowledge and education is better.
Acting on it helps.
If you do not it might be too late.
If it's too late you may go to church but not to Scientology.
Posted by chris_ho, Saturday, 5 June 2010 11:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course climate science is not a religion, ipso facto. Neither was Marxism, for instance. Yet, like Marxism in its time, "capital C" Climate Change (which I capitalize to distinguish reasoned climate science from "Alarmism"), and Environmentalism in general, have become an ersatz religion for many people in the secular West. Not all, but many.

Climate Change is a form of secular Millenarianism. Millenarianism, "the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming major transformation of society, after which all things will be changed ... based on a one-thousand-year cycle," first gripped the Western world during the 11th Century, in large part triggering the calamities of the Crusades. Similar hysteria could be seen in the immediate lead-up to the Year 2000, however in our largely secular society, it expressed itself through other channels than orthodox Christianity: first their was the brief mass hysteria of "the Millennium Bug", now it's transmuted to Climate Change.

This "faith-based" (if you will) belief in Climate Change and Environmentalism (which I personally call "Gaiaism", after its "Mother Earth" obsession) beautifully mirrors the structures of traditional Christianity for those Westerners too sophisticated to fall for the Church's line anymore.

It has a Holy Writ, the IPCC report (which, incidentally, is almost as much an admixture of truth and falsehood as the Bible itself); dogmas that fly in the face of all evidence, including the unshakeable belief such things as "organics", "natural is best", and the irrevocable mendacity of genetically modified organisms, and humans themselves; it has its High Priests, such infallible authorities as Al Gore and James Hansen, and its heretics, such as Bjorn Lomborg, Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson and Anthony Watts; and, like the Catholic Church of old, it even sells Indulgences in the form of Carbon Credits and Offsets.

cont ...
Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 6 June 2010 9:23:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont ...

The very worldview of Gaiaism mirrors the Christian worldview: that the Earth and humans once existed in a state of grace (pre-industrial society), but through the acquisition of forbidden knowledge (science), underwent a Fall from grace (the Industrial Revolution). Humans now live in a state of misery and sin, although they may strive to do penance ("going Green").

But all is not lost! The millenarians of the Gaia faith ardently await the imminent Armageddon of "tipping points" and "environmental collapse" (as demonstrated by the various signs and wonders, from Antarctica to the Himalayas), following which a new Earth will arise, cleansed of the sins of industrial society (and, it would appear, largely of humans as well).
Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 6 June 2010 9:23:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love the way that climate change denialists and others who are inimical to environmental sustainability are always trying to reduce those who they see as their opponents to the status of dumb religionists.

If OLO is anything to go by, it is the anti-environmentalists who tend very often to be both dumb and religious.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 6 June 2010 9:36:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ you write

'It's people like you guys who give Christianity a bad name, and inspire otherwise indifferent atheists like me to call for an end to the special treatment that religions get under our laws.'

Don't blame me for your corruption and sin. No doubt you have chosen to be blind long before I came on the OLO scene.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 6 June 2010 10:04:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
QED. Good timing, runner :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 6 June 2010 10:08:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, CJ, you fail on so many levels.

Denialist? No, I absolutely accept the reality of climate change; one would have to be a dolt not to. I'm just a mite skeptical about some of the wilder claims of the Climate Change (note the Capital-C difference) dogmatists. Vanishing Himalayan glaciers, for instance.

Inimical to environmental sustainability? Not at all. I'm just inimical to useless, dogmatic nonsense. Banning plastic bags, for instance: stupid, unscientific and counter-productive. The whole farrago is based on a willful distortion of science.

Likewise, opposition to Genetically Modified Organisms. Absolutely no scientific basis, and in fact, an explicitly dogmatic and unshakable belief, as clearly enunciated by Friends of the Earth.

Dumb? Open to debate of course, but I like to think not. Religious? Not in the least. In fact, very much not so.

Although I *am* slightly amenable to the idea of a deity made of delicious, delicious pasta, who offers me the solace of a beer volcano and a stripper factory in the afterlife ;)
Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 6 June 2010 10:14:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough, Clownfish. So what's with all the Gaia crap then?

It looks to me like a clumsy effort to reduce those who are legitimately concerned about the negative effects of climate change and environmental degradation to the intellectual status of dumb religionists like runner, who never fails to disappoint.

Yes, there are environmentalist nutters who probably do subscribe to something like you describe, but your inference that they are anything like a majority is patently false, as you well know.

Indeed, you claim to accept the reality of climate change and environmental degradation - are you a follower of the Gaia 'religion' or merely a Pastafarian, as you imply?

Ramen.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 6 June 2010 10:35:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, CJ, there is a difference between "those who are legitimately concerned about the negative effects of climate change and environmental degradation" and "environmentalist nutters"; that was my point.

But, as someone like Bjorn Lomborg has found out, you can be legitimately concerned about climate change and the environment, but the moment you contradict the received dogma of the Environmental religion and start arguing from evidence and reason, you are damned to the fire as an unforgivable heretic.

You want to know where I stand on climate change and environmental degradation? Yes, they're real, but they're not as bad as the dogma would have them to be, and they can and will be dealt with. Humans will not become extinct. In fact, I strongly suspect the species will continue to thrive over the next century.

Sorry if that doesn't jibe with the scary, ooga-booga, repent-and-be-saved dogma of the Gaiaists, but that's where the evidence leads me.
Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 6 June 2010 12:16:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CLOWNFISH..

I really didn't think there was much hope of us agreeing about much BUT....

when you said :

//Of course climate science is not a religion, ipso facto. Neither was Marxism, for instance. Yet, like Marxism in its time, "capital C" Climate Change (which I capitalize to distinguish reasoned climate science from "Alarmism"), and Environmentalism in general, have become an ersatz religion for many people in the secular West.//

and our resident CLIMATE ALARM LEMMING CJ said:

//I love the way that climate change denialists and others who are inimical to environmental sustainability are always trying to reduce those who they see as their opponents to the status of dumb religionists.//

Dumb Religionists :) CJ.. you took the words right out of my mouth.

CLOWNY.. for some further AMMO on your skepticism of the 'alarmists' like CJ and his Green Religious cult.. see the thread on GREEN VOTES please.. I'm sure you have some useful input.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3701

Please read my last couple of posts about 'The Network' :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 6 June 2010 4:16:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's my idea, for what it's worth;
any organisation which can show the majority of funds raised (at least 50%) actually get to the disadvantaged people who need it, should be declared tax exempt; regardless of whether they are religious or secular organisations.
I'm talkin' genuinely disadvantaged here; I know our noble representatives -among others- would claim to be disadvantaged if they had to work for less than 3 times the median wage...
Imagine churches spending their money on their poor parishioners, instead of stained glass windows, and being the only brick or stone building in western shanty towns and slum (church owned) suburbs.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 6 June 2010 4:17:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish, you know as well as I do that the "Gaia religion" discourse is a trope that's routinely trotted out by denialist hacks like Bolt, Blair etc. I'm aware from your contributions here that you're somewhat better educated, which is why I was surprised that you posted the nonsense that you did before.

It seems to me that our positions aren't all that far apart with respect to climate change. I lean towards the view that what we're collectively doing now is contributing to it, and also stuffing up virtually every other aspect of the environment upon which we all ultimately depend.

You seem to agree, except that you have what seems to me to be a groundless faith that we can carry on as usual and sort out the problems later.

That's all fine and good, but I'm a little perplexed as to why you want to push the extreme denialist spin that environmentalists are somehow necessarily "religious".

I can assure you that I, for one, am not. I just see the planet going to hell in a handbasket due to human activities, and I really want us all to work out a better way of subsisting.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 6 June 2010 8:52:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well! Isn't this just wonderful. The entire brains trust of olo can't come to terms with today's responsibilities of a world that's such in short demand of time to think.
You all know my thoughts on religion, "and what a 19th century thinking base that's serve's no-one! ( at this point in time ) but in the short time of the day of nothing,( the smart seem to be the ill-informed ) one must think, what is next.

Look people! The world as one must happen! I do care how you do it. But the growth of humans is not the answer. I watch how you all conduct yourselves in a some-what (with your human thoughts) way of no-brained thinking's.

I am neutral in all of thinking. Just step out and have a good look at whats happening with a planet you say you all love. You all know me.......so cut the sh@t.

Answer me this Question
Posted by think than move, Sunday, 6 June 2010 9:48:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued.

If we all kill this planet, where are we going to spend our money?

Does the truth hurt that much! And the youth have to wear the filth of a planet that the 19th century retards have no idea of the consequences of their actions.( big plus for mining tax ) When you uni students pass and get your degrees, will these children that you will bear and love have a place in today's world which has no place for the current count of the ridiculous masses in which you have no problems with your child being on centrelink benefits or worse. Let me tell you something about the human species. The mindset of all humans fall upon the time of birth to the time of death. Thats 80 years at best. In that time all humans with all their flaws are unfortunately confined to that time frame of each humans existence. This means you will take what you can get in your short ridiculous life spans and the world you need to live upon you cant see it dieing beneath your feet.

Oh how smart you are when it comes to saving your own species. Religion is just a fundamental mindset carried out by the evolving species we are and we have viewed in all human history of how the religious cultures have not served humanity with the current dignity that mankind deserves in the 21st century. (Iraq war and more!)
Posted by think than move, Sunday, 6 June 2010 9:50:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued.

The current state of development where humans are concerned (and I am one by the way) is that your general forecasts for prosperity hold nothing but delusions and with that reality, it escapes you all. I watch this blue green planet disintegrate right before my eyes, but i guess all things must become extinct sooner or later. It's such a shame to see a world that you young will inherit and that the old and greedy time frame from birth to 80 don't give a sh@t about you.

My words and thoughts are for the care of all humans and nature. If you see this as no value and of no advantage to you and your children, I will not post another word.

TTM
Posted by think than move, Sunday, 6 June 2010 9:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I totally agree with Wallace.

Otokonoko, so true, that "larger religions own businesses whose profits are then redirected into the outreach sections of the institution."
As far as I know they are tax exempt as long as the profits are entirely used for the charity and to advance religion.

I believe that these businesses harm other businesses by being unfair competition.

I vaguely remember that over a year ago, there was a discussion about a particular church's Holiday Resort business, which wouldn't allow a gay couple to share a room there.
Well, why would tax payers have to support an organisation that discriminates against a certain group of people?

If they behave like a private club, then they should be treated as such, and pay taxes.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 6 June 2010 10:55:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If they behave like a private club, then they should be treated as such, and pay taxes."
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 6 June 2010 10:55:34 PM.

Here, here and a world of balance for all,( if I read you correctly ) is just a joke when it comes to club members only. Looks like when you sell hope, your a winner.( bad luck for the rest I guess )

Religion in a whole. Play my game or your not allowed to play. I wonder if non-player's can have a slice of the god pie? ( with other terms and conditions )

You religious people are full of crap!

TTm.
Posted by think than move, Sunday, 6 June 2010 11:19:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TTM.. "you religious people are full of crap" is getting very close to illegal in Victoria. RRT2001 so.. watch your back :) there is one person living in fear over my mention of this (things said here).. who I now know how to find.

Feel free to disagree with our ideas..and discuss them.. but what you said there was outright abuse and vilification.

On a more positive note....you also said:

Look people! The world as one must happen!

Do you support Global Governance?

The Lima Declaration ?

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/lima/

do you vote 'Green' ? :)

Would you like a Marxist state?

-No religion
-Redistribute wealth
-No private property
-Abandon the idea of nuclear family.

Let's have your colors nailed to the mast ok
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 7 June 2010 8:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10518#172651, Gday ALGOREisRICH, we are sort of wasting our time "Preaching" to any of these CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists because they are more "Dogmatic" about their "False Prophets" than any of us "Christians" will ever be.

But we are also not wasting our time at all, because we have been awakening some of the more moderate political conservatives to the stone, cold, evil, that has been going on around them.

Your comments & mine have really hurt them, when you can see the hatred & anguish in some of their angry, emotional responses, but the way to tell when they are truly without an answer is when you don't get one, at all, when they totally ignore your comments, are replying to others & ignoring yours. That's when you know that they have no answer because there just isn't one.

BTW, which church are you with? I am looking to network with some like minded Christians to do some of "Gods" work, like we are doing here, exposing the evil doers & false prophets. Maybe open some local branches of "The Promise Keepers", etc.

Like yourself, i started working some of this stuff out for myself just by recognising the patterns, but then i came across this gem & it all clicked into place.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/nonedarecallit_conspiracy.pdf

I had heard about "The Frankfurt School" from a German friend who was a Communist himself when he was "Young & Stupid" as the old proverb goes. He had told me a little about how criminally, insane the whole evil scheme was, but i did not know the completeness of it until seeing your video, thanks for that.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Travelling the countryside with this information, together with the Complete "Yes Minister" & "Yes Prime Minister" series, would do a lot more, enlightening than any Hymn singing.

Stopping ethical people like you & i, is the real reason behind "Comrade Conroy's" Internet filter.

I wish to gather a library of all this stuff to spread knowledge of the "False Prophets" among all Christian churches, "Its Time" to wake up Australia.
Posted by Formersnag, Monday, 7 June 2010 8:59:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TTM and AiR,
Although I hate the idea that there are religions that exclude people with a different sexual orientation, in general I am not against private clubs. It's their business what kind of behaviour they allow/not allow.
As long as they don't interfere with the freedom of those who have chosen NOT to join their religion/club, or the ones that they are excluding.
But then religions must accept that they pay taxes, like any other business or club or organisation.

I respect other people's private properties and would, for example, therefore also leave it up to private pub owners to decide whether they allow smoking on their property, as long as the owners of the pub run that pub themselves so that they don't force employees to passively smoke.

But if a religion excludes people, don't expect these excluded taxpayers to contribute to your exempt tax status!
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 7 June 2010 9:29:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The high court of Australia ruling, found that charlatanism is the price we pay for religious belief and if any religion was asked to prove their supernatural beliefs, all would fail.
All religious beliefs are Charlatanism and it's tax free and tax deductible charlatanism. If you want to stop religious charlatanisms, like the 18 billion dollars of taxes allocated to the multi national corporate religious indoctrination private cult schools, Vote for the secular party or the Greens because the major parties, Family first and others are funding the religious charlatans.
Posted by HFR, Monday, 7 June 2010 1:33:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I take it, HFR, that your post was ironic. After all, you throw the word 'charlatanism' around and, in doing so, prove yourself to be a charlatan. After all, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect that, if you were asked to prove that all religious beliefs are charlatanism (why the capital C?), you would fail.

I'm also interested to know which multinational corporate blah blah blah cult schools you're talking about. I work at a 'religious cult school' and it is by no means multinational. Yes, it is a subsidiary of the Catholic Church, but it is governed entirely locally. And, if it was to close down because the Greens decided not to fund it, that would require a lot more places - not subsidised by parents - at the already overcrowded state schools in the area. In turn, this would require either a tax hike (to fully fund these places) or further watering down of the pathetic funding allocated to the poor sods at those schools.

Yep. Voting Green is the way to go.
Posted by Otokonoko, Monday, 7 June 2010 5:27:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, CJ, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...

No, Gaiaism isn't *quite* an organised religion (yet), but it has become (or is fast becoming) an ersatz belief system for many in the environmental movement. Since the systematic casting-aside of Christianity through the 20th Century, the sheeple have needed something to fill the God-shaped hole in their heads that typically displaces Reason. As Penn & Teller so ably demonstrated, many in the environmental movement are just *followers* - they *need* to have faith, to be told what to think, especially in these decades of the Millenarian zeitgeist. They needed a crusade, and Al Gore handed them one.

(I use 'Gaia', btw, because the idea that a thinly disguised version of nature worship was displacing traditional religion first occurred to me when I used to listen to Tim Flannery wittering on about Gaia in the late 70s.)

I think our positions differ quite markedly: I think, by and large, humans (*especially* in developed nations) are actually doing pretty well with the environment. Much better, certainly, than we did even 50 years ago. Not everything is perfect, sure, but it's way better than it was.

'Groundless faith'? Nope, just looked at the evidence and realised that the Green movement is selling us the same guilt-laden crock the Catholics peddled so successfully for so long. 'We are all sinners! Go Green and be saved!'

We don't need to sort out the problems later, we're sorting them out now, and have been for decades. Don't believe me? Look at the evidence (from a source other than Greenpeace or FOE).

Still, you can lead a man to evidence, but you can't make him think.
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 7 June 2010 9:56:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Still, you can lead a man to evidence, but you can't make him think." - Too true! I see it all the time on this website. I see the same old reactionaries spouting the same old discredited denialist rubbish and, to quote Curmudgeon "adding nothing to the debate".

By the way, I notice the Pope is being called the "Green" Pope and I understand that in some people's eyes he is infallible, so I expect some revisionism soon.
Posted by Loxton, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 12:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting prospective my David in arms. But doesn't quite cut the grade. In times gone by the humans, is that we all are must define ourselves and be more equal in our doings for all the best for humanity and every living-creatures,.......... on this planet. If you or we give up this right, a poor species we will become.
] You white people aren't worth a fuc@k! You have had your time/4/? So the world as one must be right?

You white people are going to be extinct! Your time is now.

Think, or cant you do it?

TTm
Posted by think than move, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 4:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis was an observation that the Earth's atmosphere is kept in a permanent state of disequilibrium by the interaction of living creatures.
He suggested that taken in toto, this effect (of living creatures affecting their environment) was AS IF all life acted as a single organism.
Once again, denialists confuse a falsifiable hypothesis with religious faith.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 7:27:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Once again, denialists confuse a falsifiable hypothesis with religious faith

Actually, I think the person confusing a hypothesis with nutty nature worship was the one saying things like, 'so, Gaia's, like, one giant, living organism, man!'
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 4:13:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, I'd agree with that; but that's not what Lovelock said (or how he said it).
The irony here, Clownfish, is that you and Lovelock probably have a lot in common.
Lovelock's a scientist. He seems to feel the green movement has been taken over by a bunch of latte sipping w(expletive deleted)kers.
Lovelock believes the bestest greenest energy is nuclear, and the only (short term) hope we have.
Lovelock hates the idea of covering beautiful countryside with wind generators.
Lovelock points out that carbon sequestration would involve a volume of co2 -yearly- if solidified- about a mile high, and (I think from memory) about 12 miles around. Compared to nuclear waste taking a volume of about 16 square metres.
If you want to attack the latte sipping greenies, be my guest.
Just don't describe them as 'Gaiaists', -at least until you have read
"the revenge of Gaia".
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 6:57:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim

You are right, Lovelock is a respectable mainstream scientist. However, many groups have taken his metaphor of the planet as a living organism and literalised it, spiritualised it, or both.

In WA there is a “Gaia Foundation” whose mission statement is:

"Our intention is to lovingly empower ourselves and others to know oneness with Gaia, the living Earth, through taking courageous and joyous action, now"

Its website claims that “the earth itself is alive” and the biosphere a self-regulating metabolism, and that “human activity in a cancerous fashion is currently dismantling and destroying ... Gaian creation.

This movement looks a lot like a religion in many respects. It has apocalyptic fears of future disaster because of human sinfulness; a path to salvation based on repentance and changed modes of living; deference to a higher being as a source of authority and moral guidance; and appeals to spiritual awareness and insight.

Check out this website – Lovelock’s theory has spawned some adherents who are a long way removed from mainstream science.

http://www.gaia.iinet.net.au/background.htm
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 10 June 2010 4:53:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, you are right.

Lovelock may not have intended it so, but the Gaia hypothesis has been confabulated with the Classical personification of 'Mother Earth' that was its namesake.

One also only has to listen to the childish twitterings of an activist like Julia Butterfly Hill to realise how far the Environmental movement is skipping (widdershins and sky-clad, it goes without saying) over the edge of primitive nature-worship.

Grim, to paraphrase Ghandi: I like your environment, I do not like your Environmentalists.
Posted by Clownfish, Thursday, 10 June 2010 10:41:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Feel free to disagree with "our ideas"..and discuss them.. but what you said there was outright abuse and vilification."

I only hope you can eat your own words:) LAW

Back to the topic. Gays are not in your mind/set or anything else that plays with your own words, with-in your contradictions as in terms which all must agree in the case of law. Life is not a game which you can say( with facts ) is an absolute non custodial terms when it comes to the 21st century. The constitution gives all humans the right to live as they please in concordance with all human law regardless of how futile it may seem.

I thank the above and without great thought you would not be the poster you are today, a great many thanks to the fantastic minds we have here on olo. Gay people are just like you, and your discrimination against them I loath. I am not a gay person myself, but I give mighty praise to the work they do and the love they bring to all our communities. When will you humans ever wake up! You all waste so much time when you can be doing so much better than thinking with your discriminative minds and how damned you are for thinking so shallow.

We as humans have only one chance and if you blow it, there is nothing I can do for you. Treat each other with respect and go forward with science and religion and in the end the world will become one Mr David.

Any Questions?

Thank you Celivia for not putting yourself in the firing lines you must be a conservative. I will think upon your thoughts more discretely in the future.

TTM
Posted by think than move, Thursday, 10 June 2010 11:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not my environmentalists, clownfish; although I have to concede your (and Rhian's) points. I'm a country boy.
True story; the last time I went to the big smoke, I tried to get a cup of coffee. All I got was confused. I felt like the bloke in the old milk ad. We sat at a table for fifteen minutes before a kindly passerby informed us they don't do table service any more; first you have to get a ticket, when your number's called, put in your order, get another ticket...
There goes the rainforest.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 11 June 2010 6:53:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still, at least it was Rainforest Alliance coffee!

Actually, you touch on an interesting point: how many people in the Environmental movement are urban dwellers with minimal experience of the natural world? Certainly the Green's vote seems to be strongest in the inner cities of the largest metropolises. This may account for the overly romanticised notion of the natural world that permeates so much Environmental rhetoric.

As an article I read some time back said, 'Environmentalists should be called "sentimentalists", for it would be a much more accurate concept'.

Speaking of coffee and religious nutbags - which is the original topic that we've kind of wandered off of, sorry - you do realise that a certain well-known coffee franchise is owned by a nutbag Christian cult that goes in for holding young women prisoner and 'exorcising' them of 'lesbian tendencies'?

It beggars belief that these freaks actually got away with that kind of whackery, in this day and age.

I suppose that's what happens when you have to 'respect' religious beliefs, no matter how stump-dumb crazy they are.
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 11 June 2010 8:53:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gosh...how to avoid a discussion of religion - just keep mentioning climate change.

Some religious groups do a lot of good in the community and like any other charitable organisation are tax exempt. While as an atheist I have some discomfort in the proselytizing motives of many of these groups, one cannot deny they do feed and clothe the hungry. Personally I think these charitable functions could be done without any ulterior agenda, however there can be some middle ground here.

As Cornflower mentioned, perhaps there is a need for an oversight body to ensure that tax exemptions are not being misused and are based on need. Part of the problem with religious business ventures is they often compete with the private sector who are at an unfair disadvantage.

There was a case here some time ago where one charitable group went into laying turf to raise money for charity but it got very sticky when they could undercut the private players because of the use of some volunteer labour and tax exemptions.

Religion should not be the basis for exemption it should rest solely on the charitable component.

Government funding to charitable groups should also rest on need. If a religious group is making inordinate amounts of money via fundraising and other ventures then funding would be best left to those groups whose work largely relies on government support.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 11 June 2010 9:11:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fascinating. I see Clownfish is still banging on about the so-called 'Gaia' religion, despite being corrected by several posters.

Clownfish, I know lots of environmentalists, and not a single one subscribes to the nonsense that you disingenuously ascribe to them. However, more than a few are biologists who take Lovelock's analogy seriously, but who are more than capable of distinguishing it from the sort of of religious thinking with which you attempt to smear them.

Also, many of the environmentalists I know live in the bush, as I do.

I agree with you about the coffee though. I've boycotted Gloria Jean's when visiting the city ever since I heard about the cult connection.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 11 June 2010 9:24:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, right. So the nutty, nature-worshipping Environmentalists are kind of like the 'not-real-Christians' that other Christians try and distance themselves from?

'Oh, no, no - those guys who hate homosexuals/believe in Creation/molest altar boys/practice exorcisms - they're not REAL Christians. They just, um, read the same holy book, and um ..."

Trouble is, as Richard Dawkins points out, the religious nutbags aren't so distant from the 'mainstream' as the 'mainstream' likes to try and pretend.

Remind me how all Environmentalists aren't nature-worshipping loonies the next time Julia Butterfly Hill is a keynote speaker at an Environmental rally.
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 11 June 2010 5:55:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, don't take my word for it, nor Andrew Bolt's (who I don't read, btw): just take a look at what some of your Environmentalist friends are saying:

"there are several overarching principles to spirituality and sustainability that share very similar traits": 'World as one! Logic suggests a more spiritual mindset could enrich the planet too', futureplanet.org

"GreenSpirit (formally the Association for Creation Spirituality) stands in a long tradition of 'green spirituality' ": greenspirit.org.uk (it would be interesting to get a copy of their journal, and read such articles as "Global Green Spirituality").

The Gaia Partnership site is particularly interesting. It starts off simply reiterating Lovelock's theory, then spins off into such territory as: "we may have discovered a living being bigger, more ancient, and more complex than anything from our wildest dreams. That being, called Gaia, is the Earth ... is there a planetary being, whose life cycle must be counted in the billions of years, which spawns these evolving life forms to suit the purpose of its being ... is Gaia herself somehow part of a larger living being, perhaps on a galactic scale?" (Note the constant references to 'Gaia' as a personified "she").

Visit the website of Great Turning Times; it's a mirror image of any number of Rapture-obsessed Christian websites. Just substitute 'Earth' for 'God', and 'the great turning' for 'End Times', and I'm hard pressed to spot the difference.

Even religious journalists ("We're doomed without a green religion" - Andrew Brown, the Guardian), and professors of religion and ethnography ("Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future", Bron Taylor) and even judges ("Judge rules activist's beliefs on climate change akin to religion", the Guardian - oh, that right-wing rag, the Guardian!) can see it.
Posted by Clownfish, Saturday, 12 June 2010 12:10:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish
So you can't be an environmentalist without being a looney. I am glad your mindset is not the norm. That sort of thinking is the same as those who would use Hitler or Marxism as the icons of atheism, to demonise the idea without the need for rational debate.

What is lunacy is the continual degradation of the environemnt to the detriment of man and other living organisms. We cannot avoid the science, plants return oxygen to the environment - we need forests. We need fresh clean water - we all know what happens to human societies when there is no potable water.

It is about balancing human economic needs (however defined) with the essential human need to care for the planet that sustains them.

Plain and simple - no looney thinking there - only science.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 12 June 2010 10:06:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, pelican, I'm not saying all environmentalists are loonies.

What I *am* saying is that there is a substantial, and growing, subset of Environmentalists (note the deliberate use of the capital-E) who are fusing environmentalism and nature-worshipping spiritualism into a new 'Green Religion'. And religion is, by its nature, irrational and thus anti-science. Oh, they use (or abuse) science when it suits them, but they're really no different to the Intelligent Design mob.

Witness FOE's statement of utter, unequivocal opposition to GMOs, no matter what the evidence. That's not science, that's dogma.

Still, I understand your resistance to what is becoming increasingly obvious; after all, the Green Religionists are kind of like Catch The Fire or the Mormons: while the rest of their Christian fellows are embarrassed and would like to pretend they're not there, they are there, and they're getting stronger.
Posted by Clownfish, Saturday, 12 June 2010 10:32:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny old world. SMILE.

TTm
Posted by think than move, Sunday, 13 June 2010 2:05:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy