THE AUSTRALIAN BOOK OF ATHEISM - COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS

"The Australian Book of Atheism", edited by Warren Bonett - also a contributor - was published by Scribe in 2010.

The essays cover a wide spectrum of thoughts and comments about what atheism is in Australia and what its impact is on our societies which are god-driven.

For instance, there is a contribution by Dr Philip Nitschke on atheism and euthanasia, and we all know that the outcome of the Northern Territory's introduction of a euthanasia bill was overturned by the federal parliament with god-lovers such as Kevin Andrews driving the debate and ensuring that euthanasia was not to be allowed for Australians demanding it as their right!

The contents are divided into sections illuminating the different perspectives on what should be a very simple topic:

OVERVIEW
PERSONAL
EDUCATION
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
POLITICS
PHILOSOPHY
RELIGION AND THE BRAIN

The essays are thoughtful and educational and show a wide range of responses to the god-driven world around us. At over 400 pages, most of which are very readable - and entertaining - one is left pondering why, with so many of us atheists, so many of the non-atheists require the support of some mythical, invisible, incomprehensibly cruel and murderous "male" construct, who unleashes wars and famines and cruelty by some few on the many who have no defences and who are left dead and dying by those who also claim to have their god on their side!

I have one serious criticism of the book - there is no index!

For a volume with so much in it, and with information provided by so many with so many references to others, an index is a vital part of such a volume.

I also have one comment which, to my way of thinking, is a serious omission.

At a time when homosexuality has become much more accepted by the heterosexual world and there is ongoing discussion about equal rights for all humans, gay and straight, there is no chapter on homosexuality and religion and atheism.

Many gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV (GLTH) members of the community were brought up in families where religion was the be-all and end-all of their lives - and god said homosexuality was evil because it was written in the bible, and we were all going to rot in hell if we didn't change our ways and our lifestyles. Many were brought up in Catholic households where hell ruled, and many were brought up in other religions where religion was not as rabid but where poofters were the bottom of the food chain!

Why is there no essay about why so many of those GLTH people who were brought up in religious households are now amongst the most avid of atheists, and why is there no assessment of this development in our atheist history?

Other than these comments, the book is a must for those trying to get to grips with what religion has done to them and why they should drop it immediately and develop into happy, productive and normal members of our society.

GILLARD, SWAN, DROP GOD AND CONCENTRATE!

In 2011 in Australia the prime minister and the treasurer are telling the population that the May 2011 budget is going to be a tough one!

Gillard and the federal opposition's Tony Abbott are calling for those unfortunate people who receive benefits because of unemployment, disability, old age and various other reasons, to look to their laurels and are being told "we are going to be tough on you because you must get jobs and lose your benefits.

Now, as ever in Australian society, it is those who are most disadvantaged and struggling to put a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs who are told to suffer more.

Those who are rich will be looked after and will be able to get richer at the expense of the poor who will get poorer. By these means the budget will be able to keep Australia afloat.

However, the major organisations which would make Australia prosperous for years to come by being taxed,continue to be tax exempt because they have rich and powerful lobbies. These are the religious institutions in Australia who continue to be treated as gods and royalty because our atheist prime minister has suddenly found god in her middle years - she has had a "Damascus" moment.

In 1994 a group in the USA was pushing for that country's government to consider taxing religious organisations who had been tax-exempt in that country.

Guess what??!! Here we are 17 years later and what has changed?

But the world is changing. There is turmoil in the middle east and the rich countries are literally shitting themselves because it has all come as a surprise and they don't know how to handle it all. Added to which the USA is so bankrupt because of its wars, its bankers and its support for Israel that they too are looking for cuts to budgets to make the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

The item below therefore makes very interesting reading!

2 February 2009

I came across this 1994 press release while researching further atheist sites relating to gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS communities (GLTH), and as I am trying to list as many atheist organisations as possible, this is next on the list!:
PRESS RELEASE AMERICAN GAY AND LESBIAN ATHEISTS, INC.
P O Box 66711 Houston,

PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE *****************************************************************

AMERICAN GAY AND LESBIAN ATHEISTS, INC.

P O Box 66711
Houston, TX 77266-6711
Dial-A-Gay-Atheist: 713-880-4242

AGLA CALLS UPON IRS TO MONITOR CHURCHES FOR POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT

For Immediate Release
Saturday, October 29, 1994
Contact: Don Sanders, National Director

Houston, TX -- As the political season reaches "high gear," the national office of American Gay and Lesbian Atheist is busily watching the degree to which churches and religious organizations in the Houston area are involving themselves in partisan politics. American Gay Atheists, Inc. is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) educational foundation which does not violate the tenets of the IRS codes which prohibit direct involvement in partisan politics by non-profit groups.

American Gay and Lesbian Atheists (AGLA) has been instrumental in having the Dallas office of the Internal Revenue Service maintain an open file (File 4940 Dal) on Houston area churches and religious groups which involve themselves in the political process, such as endorsing candidates for public office. During the 1993 elections, AGLA documented numerous cases of direct political involvement by Houston churches, particularly in the races of Sheila Jackson Lee, who was backed heavily by numerous Black ministerial alliances. In some cases, the political involvement of churches was so blatant that some churches placed campaign signs on their properties.

"Such political involvement by churches is harmful to basic freedoms and civil rights of many, particularly gays and lesbians," says Don Sanders, national director. "The strongest opposition to equality of rights for gays and lesbians comes from the churches and the Christian scriptures. Many ministers bastardize the non-profit status accorded them under the rules of the Internal Revenue Service by directly instructing their congregations for whom to vote and how to vote on key issues, such as abortion rights, women's rights, and rights for gays and lesbians." Sanders points out that efforts to stop churches from influencing politics have proven ineffective. "However," Sanders says, "if the politically-meddling churches suddenly were threatened with loss of their privileged tax status accorded them under the directives of the Internal Revenue Service, much direct partisan political involvement on the part of churches would cease."

During this political season, AGLA is carefully monitoring the antics of the so-called Religious Right and the support of their candidates by churches. "If the churches will not abide by the law which prohibits them from endorsing candidates, instructing their congregants for whom to vote, or funding political campaigns, we hope that our efforts to encourage the IRS to look into these matters by giving them documentation on this obvious abuse and illegal activity will help prove to the churches, once and for all, they should get out of the political game, or lose their tax exemption," says Sanders.

For further comments or questions, contact Don Sanders.

American Gay and Lesbian Atheists promotes Thomas Jefferson's constitutional premise of separation between state and church, and works to protect and promote the civil and human rights of persons who are Atheists and gay.

*********************************************************************** * * *

American Atheists website:

http://www.atheists.org

* * PO Box 140195 FTP: ftp://ftp.atheists.org * * Austin, TX 78714-0195 * * Voice: (512) 458-1244 Dial-THE-ATHEIST: * * FAX: (512) 467-9525 (512) 458-5731 * * * * Atheist Viewpoint TV: avtv@atheists.org * * Info on American Atheists: info@atheists.org, * * & American Atheist Press include your name and mailing address * * AANEWS -Free subscription: aanews-request@listserv.atheists.org * * and put "info aanews" in message body *
* * *

This text may be freely downloaded, reprinted, and/other * * otherwise redistributed, provided appropriate point of * * origin credit is given to American Atheists.
* * * *********************************************************************** E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank

GILLARD GETS GOD!!!!! - THE ATHEIST PRIME MINISTER OF HYPOCRISY

GILLARD GETS GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! – Southern Star Observer 240311

Julia Gillard is a self-confessed atheist - when it suits her! Her hypocrisy over certain issues is breathtaking - how can she possibly expect to be taken seriously after the utterances below, reported in the Southern Star Observer on 24 March 2011.

I am against marriage - it is an institution that has failed, was introduced as a capitalist concept to ensure the man owns the woman and she must stay at home and make babies as the next labour force.

I support marriage for the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS communities only on the basis of equality for all, otherwise who needs it?

When legislation providing equality in every aspect of the law is achieved, we will have won the fight.

Until then homophobia will continue unabated, bashings, assaults and murders will continue, suicides amongst members of our communities will continue to be several times higher than the heterosexual equivalent, and the governments of the day will continue to get the support of the religious right voters.

Until governments tax religious institutions we will continue to be discriminated against by official government sanction and the government's amending of 85 pieces of legislation in 2008/2009 will have no meaning whatsoever!!

Julia is a disaster, the ALP is a disaster, the Coalition is a disaster and more and more voters ought to be turning their votes away from the major parties.

Only then will we even begin to approach some modicum of democracy for all our citizens!

Marriage equality un-Australian: Gillard

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has declared that marriage rights for same-sex couples are incompatible with Australian culture and heritage one day after hundreds demanded their rights in Sydney and Brisbane.

“I do find myself on the conservative side in this question … because of the way our society is and how we got here,” Gillard told Sky News on Sunday.

“There are some important things from our past that need to continue to be part of our present and part of our future.”

When asked if she was expressing a personal view or what she thought Australians wanted to hear, Gillard said she would have said the same thing had she never entered politics, pitching herself as a social conservative.

“I had a pro-union pro-Labor upbringing in a quite conservative family in the sense of personal values,” Gillard said.

“If I was in a different walk of life, if I’d continued in the law and was a partner of a law firm now, I would express the same view.

“I think for our culture, for our heritage, the Marriage Act and marriage being between a man and a woman has a special status … I know that people might look at me and think that’s something that they wouldn’t necessarily expect me to say but that is what I believe.

“I’m on the record as saying things like I think it’s important that people understand their Bible stories. Not because I’m an advocate of religion — clearly I’m not — but once again, what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture.”

Only the day before crowds of around 400 gathered at the Sydney Town Hall before marching to Taylor Square and in Brisbane’s Queen Park.

In Sydney, speakers from New Mardi Gras, Australian Marriage Equality urged people to contact their MPs and lobby them directly, while Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann warned of the danger of a conservative-controlled Upper House after the NSW state election.
“The influence of people like Fred Nile and the Christian Democratic party may only get stronger after this election,” Faehrmann said.

“What we’re hearing is that not only will the Coalition probably win government but they may also win control of the Upper House with the support of the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers. The only way to stop that is to make sure that everyone you know votes progressive in the Upper House. That’s probably more important than what you do with your Lower House vote.”

Faehrmann and Sydney MP Clover Moore both pledged to introduce legislation to create marriage equality at a state level if the federal Government failed to act.
Tags: Australian Marriage Equality, featured, Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann, marriage equality, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, same-sex marriage

This post was written by: Andrew M Potts

Julia the Christian

Let me understand this. Here we have a prime minister who doesn’t believe in God telling us to read the Bible because it’s the basis of our tradition, society and culture, opposing marriage equality because it’s not part of that tradition (Sky TV interview last Sunday).

A prime minister who employs gay staff but doesn’t consider them her equals. A woman extolling the virtues of one man one woman marriage refusing to marry her long-time live-in lover.

When asked to explain on Sky TV, Gillard hauled out her Bible and pitched for the Christian vote. Cynical or what?

Describing herself as a traditionalist and a conservative, she praised the virtues of the ‘strong Welsh Labor working-class household’ in which she was brought up: politeness, thrift, fortitude, discipline conveniently omitting the narrow-minded prudishness and prejudice equally typical of that era.

Where the hell did all that come from? It came from Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party, the Australian Christian Lobby and the Australian Christian Values Institute, whose website features Peter and Jenny Stokes (the Salt Shakers), Bill Muehlenberg, and Warwick Marsh, among others.

“Australian values are Christian values. These are the values that made Australia great,” it says, “… reaffirm Australia’s commitment to Judeo-Christian values as the cornerstone of our nation’s prosperity for the common good.”

Compare that with Gillard’s more subtle evocation of Christian heritage: “what comes from the Bible forms an important part of our culture”, we have to pay respect to “the way our society is and the way we got here”, “important things from the past should continue into the present and the future”, “for our culture and heritage marriage has a special status,” and so on, and on.

I wonder what else she has been reading lately.

Could it be the latest report from the Australian Human Rights Commission, which says “hostility towards homosexuals …. remains widespread” and that there is “great wariness about rights legislation”? (The Age) If so, then how perfectly she dog-whistled for the prejudiced vote.

Imagine for a moment if she had spoken honestly. “It’s not me, reverend,” she pants, tugging her crimson forelock. “Honest, I get the Christian values thing. It’s the Greens who made me do it, with their euthanasia and gay marriage. Vote for me and I’ll save you from them. Don’t worry about the poofs and dykes — they don’t count.”
Maybe not, Julia, but we — and our families and friends and their families and friends — do vote. But not for you and your party while you continue this grovelling to the God squad.

Oh, and Tim? I’d order the top hat and tails now if I were you. She’s obviously decided there are votes in straight weddings.

This post was written by: Doug Pollard

CATHOLIC CHURCH'S LATEST ATTACK ON EUTHANASIA

1 FEBRUARY 2011

Article in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper:

Euthanasia a bad law by bad people, says bishop

By Leesha McKenny


Start of the legal year ... the Red Mass yesterday. Photo: Dean Sewell

EUTHANASIA was contrary to the ideals of justice and charity and would corrupt society, a Catholic bishop has warned the legal fraternity.

The Bishop of Parramatta, Anthony Fisher, used a service at St Mary's Cathedral yesterday attended by the NSW Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, the shadow attorney-general, Greg Smith, and leading judges and barristers, to warn that ''state-sanctioned killing'' undermined the legitimacy of the state and its criminal law.

''Even were such a proposal to gain a parliamentary majority this would not make it right,'' he said.

Illustration: Cathy Wilcox

''Bad laws are mostly made by bad people and in turn make people bad.''

Bishop Fisher called on those gathered for the 81st annual Red Mass, which marks the start of the legal year, to resist efforts to legalise voluntary euthanasia.

The Greens leader, Bob Brown, has vowed to reintroduce a bill to overturn federal legislation that prevents its legalisation in the ACT and Northern Territory.

In NSW the Greens intend to introduce a private member's bill in support of legalising euthanasia after the election in March.

A NSW Greens MP, Cate Faehrmann, said the bishop's comments were an example of an ''out-of-touch commentator driven by out-of-touch ideology''. ''The vast majority of people support voluntary euthanasia as long as it's with appropriate safeguards, which is what the legislation I am proposing is about.''

Bishop Fisher, a former lawyer, said the proposed legislation was ''the killing of those who suffer by those who are comfortable, of the vulnerable by the powerful, of the sick by those professed to heal them''.

''Pope John Paul II went so far as to deem such laws 'lacking authentic juridical validity' and requiring lawyers and health professionals to refuse conscientiously to follow them,'' he said.

That remark echoed comments of Cardinal George Pell in a newspaper interview last month, where he denounced Catholic politicians who defied the church's teachings when considering controversial issues such as euthanasia or same-sex adoption.

The Premier, Kristina Keneally, a devout Catholic, told News Ltd at the time that the cardinal's comments risked being ''interpreted as condemnatory and threatening''.

But she said yesterday she did not personally support the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia.

''As I have said previously, a politician's faith and how they reconcile their beliefs in their public decision-making is a matter for each individual MP.

"The NSW government is yet to see the Greens' proposed legislation and will give it due consideration when it is forthcoming."

When asked if the bishop's comments on euthanasia were appropriate, Richard Perrignon, president of the St Thomas More Society (which sponsors the Red Mass), said the bishop was well-known for his views on euthanasia.

''It's a democracy we live in and people are entitled to their views - even prelates,'' he said.

A spokesman for Mr Hatzistergos, who is Greek Orthodox, referred to comments made in 2002 when he spoke against the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. The bill introduced by a Greens MP, Ian Cohen, was defeated.

2 FEBRUARY 2011

Letters in response to above article in SMH:

Dignity, morality and democracy in death

Shakespeare letters illo


Photo: John Shakespeare

I take great exception to Bishop Anthony Fisher's comments on euthanasia and his pejorative remarks towards those who are in favour of it (''Euthanasia a bad law by bad people, says bishop'', February 1). Legally and medically supervised euthanasia is not ''killing of those who suffer by those who are comfortable''. Any doctor, lawyer and especially family member of a patient undergoing euthanasia will feel the opposite of comfortable and will be acutely aware that a person's death is being caused. But they will be satisfied they are doing something that allows the patient to die without pain and in dignity.

It is not the ''killing of those vulnerable by the powerful''. In fact the process will empower a person dying from an illness over which they no longer have any control, and allow them to have control over the manner in which they die. The ultimate decision will be theirs alone.

It is not the ''killing of the sick by those who profess to heal them''. As doctors we should be there for a patient as much to help them die in peace and comfort when we can no longer do anything for them, as to help them with sickness.

Dr John Frith Paddington

The NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann suggests Bishop Fisher's comments rejecting euthanasia legislation represent ''out-of-touch ideology''. Yet her own stance, that such legislation is proper because ''the vast majority of people support voluntary euthanasia as long as it's with appropriate safeguards'', seems to suggest that moral issues be decided by popular opinion. So if the vast majority of people think it is OK to diddle their taxes, it is OK to do so. Try that on the Tax Office.

Perhaps Ms Faehrmann could undertake some of the ethics classes being promoted by the Greens. There she might learn that morality is not a matter of majority opinion.

She also might learn to share Bishop Fisher's concerns that euthanasia involves ''the killing of those who suffer by those who are comfortable, of the vulnerable by the powerful, of the sick by those professed to heal them''' and that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable.

Neil Ormerod Professor of Theology, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield

How on earth can the Bishop of Parramatta argue that even a parliamentary majority ''would not make [euthanasia] right''? Clearly, such a majority would indicate that the moral convictions of Australian society have changed and that morality and law are in opposition to each other.

In Dishonest to God, Mary Warnock says ''a democratically elected parliament is the best interpreter of where the consensus lies''. If not here, where else could it possibly be found?

In the 21st century, the quiet majority of Australians neither expect nor approve of the church leading moral opinion.

Matthew Endacott Brandy Hill

Purple prose such as ''state-sanctioned killing''' does not embellish Bishop Anthony Fisher's argument against the right of suffering individuals to have their wishes respected. The bishop's lack of reflection on his pronouncement that ''bad laws are mostly made by bad people and in turn make people bad'' is striking, especially given his audience, and the worldwide challenge to the church to properly address the deficiencies of canon law in light of its treatment of young people.

It is here, not in acceding to requests by competent adults, that the suffering of the vulnerable at the hands of the powerful is perpetuated.

Julia Anaf Norwood (SA)

Bishop Anthony Fisher is quite right: ''Bad laws are mostly made by bad people and in turn make people bad.'' For example, the Catholic Church's canon law provisions on birth control, women priests, clerical celibacy and homosexuality.

Michael Frawley Downer (ACT)

EUTHANASIA AND HOMOPHOBIA IN ONE ARTICLE - IS THIS A RECORD??

What is wrong with the following article which was published in the Sunday Age on 23 January 2011??

The writer of the article who comes out of his exercise as a homophobe of the first order is trying to equate voluntary euthanasia with gay marriage in the public eye, as if the one issue is competing with the other for the attention of the public.

Euthanasia is a vital issue which is important for people in my age group in their eighties, but just as important for anybody who has a life-threatening illness which is causing unbearable suffering and which is destroying the quality of life for that person and those who care for and support that person.

Gay marriage is being pushed by the "gay lobby" whatever that is, into the public arena as if it is the most important issue around today. Or that is what this journalist is trying to prove to the newspaper-reading public.

In fact the two issues have nothing in common and the idea of equating the one with the other is nothing short of an exercise in gay-bashing, however Paul Malone wishes to dress it up. His article is a disgrace, and the editor of the Sunday Age should have refused to publish such an article, unless he or she is also a homophobe.

Any letter I would have written to the Sunday Age on this topic would not have been published because in general, my political views are not acceptable to the right-wing religious bigots who control the media - or most of it.

Fortunately there are still blogs available to the likes of me, so I am able to express my views, fairly sure that the homophobes of the newspaper world will not even get to see what I have said about the issues under dispute.

Euthanasia is a vital issue and one which the politicans and journalists are too afraid to address positively, as if it is a threat to everyone's lives and no one will be safe if we have voluntary euthanasia legislation such as that introduced with great success in certain countries.

Gay marriage is also an issue which has not caused the sky to fall in, and also in overseas countries, has given equal rights to all its citizens - something which Australia is a long way from doing!

Here is Paul Malone's homophobic article:

Right to die surely a bigger deal than gay marriage

Paul Malone

January 23, 2011

ANYONE following the media coverage of the most recent federal election could be forgiven for believing gay marriage was an issue of overwhelming concern to electors across the country.

Another social issue, euthanasia, would not have appeared to be of great interest.
A number of candidates were keen to make gay marriage an issue and saw it as a vote winner, while few thought promoting euthanasia would increase their chances. And yet all the polls over the years show much higher and broader support for euthanasia than they do for gay marriage. Consistently, more than 80 per cent of the population approves of a doctor meeting a request from a suffering, terminally ill patient to provide a lethal dose of drugs.

Attitudes to homosexuality and gay marriage are much more divided.

Advocacy group Australian Marriage Equality commissioned a Galaxy Research poll of 1050 voters in October last year. After being told same sex marriage was legal in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands, voters were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that same sex couples in Australia should be allowed to marry. The result: 62 per cent agreed, 33 per cent disagreed and 5 per cent were undecided.
Australians have become more tolerant of homosexuality. But Roy Morgan Research has found that about 27 per cent of the population still believes homosexuality is immoral.

Given the high percentage of the population supporting voluntary euthanasia, you would think some candidates would consider it more worthwhile pushing this issue, rather than gay marriage.

There are two reasons why this has not been done. One is the success of the gay lobby. The other is the way in which the community is divided on the issues.
It's not surprising that newly elected Greens MP Adam Bandt is pushing gay marriage and last year moved a motion calling on parliamentarians to gauge their constituents' views on the issue.

This push, and the election result, has also prompted a number of Labor members to express their support for gay marriage, and the issue will be a major one at Labor's national conference late this year.

It seems strange to me that gay marriage has become such a cause. For years gays fought to get the state out of the bedroom. Until 1972, male homosexuality was a crime across Australia. Following the death of gay law lecturer Dr George Duncan, who was thrown into the Torrens River and drowned in May 1972, South Australians led a hard-fought campaign for decriminalisation. All states followed, with Tasmania the last in 1997. Now it appears gays want the state to oversee their relationships.
As someone who has lived with one woman for 30 years and has two grown-up children - but never married - I find this strange.

If people want to attest their relationships, there is nothing to stop them doing so in front of as many friends and relations as they care to invite. If they're religious, they can have a religious ceremony. Gays can get a group together as easily as anyone else and can formalise it with whatever piece of paper they choose to employ, except of course a marriage certificate.

I don't care if the state does allow gay marriage. It just doesn't seem such a big deal. (As they swear in sickness and in health, forever and ever etc, they will join the ranks of all the other married couples lining up for the right to divorce.)
But voluntary euthanasia is an issue for me. I want the right - should the time come - to be able to say: ''I've had enough. The pain is too great. Give me the lethal injection.''

Four-fifths of the population feels the same way. Only the fanatical moral minority opposes voluntary euthanasia.

It should be emphasised that voluntary euthanasia means just that.
No one will be compelled to seek termination of their life. Safeguards are not difficult to devise.

A doctor would provide lethal treatment to a consenting patient to alleviate suffering. The strict process, as outlined by the Dying With Dignity organisation, would require at least two doctors to confirm the diagnosis and prognosis.
Anyone who wanted more, could seek as many opinions as he or she wanted.
And cooling-off periods would be required. A patient could not simply request a lethal injection today, have two doctors look at him tomorrow and get it all over and done with in 24 hours.

Greens leader Bob Brown has introduced legislation to reverse the Howard government's act which stops the ACT and Northern Territory assemblies from making their own laws governing the issue.

The baby boomers, who are now giving us an ageing population, have pioneered many changes in society. Today some of these oldies maintain a rational outlook on life and death. It's time parliamentarians across the land granted these people the freedom to end their suffering should they have a terminal illness and live in great pain.

Paul Malone is a freelance writer.

THE AGE HAS SACKED PAST EDITORS - TIME TO SACK THE CURRENT EDITOR!!

On Wednesday 5 May 2010 the following announcement appeared at the end of the letters page - underneath a letter of complaint about Catherine Deveny:

EDITOR'S NOTE: Catherine Deveny's column will no longer appear in The Age.Ms Deveny's comments on other media are not in keeping with the standards we set at this newspaper.

This is an absolute disgrace. Has the editor been approached by the rabid right-wing reactionary religious bigoted establishments to deny Catherine a voice in The Age?

What are the comment on other media to which the editor has taken exception?

We won't get an explanation, but we will be censored because Catherine dares to mock our society and in the process to give us something to think about and to have a laugh.

The Age has became a pathetic shadow of its former self - editors like Michael Gawenda and Andrew Jaspan haven't help lift the standard of what was once a great newspaper.

How art the mighty fallen??

Time to get rid of the current editor and try to restore some balance to this pathetic rag - now only one degree better than the other daily rag, but plumbing the depths of that one by publishing - or not - what it thinks its delicate readers ought to read.

Newspapers are rapidly sinking below the horizon, and it is easy to see why, after this effort to silence one of its better journalists who is not afraid to open her mouth. Pity all those others who have to shut up because their livelihoods depend on working for these disgusting people who control the media.

AND THANK GOODNESS FOR THE WORLD WIDE WEB AND ITS GREAT INVENTOR WHO HAS ENABLED US TO GET WHAT WE NEED IN THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY FROM AROUND THE WORLD!

--------and all this in response to a letter by Nicholas Yallop - who? I hear you ask? Oh, yes, Nicholas's father had some involvement with The Age some time ago. Here is Nicholas's letter:

Calculated to raise a profile - and offend

FOR someone of her experience in the media industry, Catherine Deveny seems quite naive to the power and reach of her insensitive Twitter comments.

The Age may employ her for her controversial and allegedly funny commentary, but I think many readers see her as an intellectual imposter doing nothing more than indulging her warped view of the world.

While she occasionally makes valuable points, Deveny seems intent on making them in the most vulgar manner. Just as with her disgusting attacks on Anzac Day, Deveny's comments regarding Rove McManus and Bindi Irwin were crude, thoughtless and merely said to provoke a reaction.

In her defence, she described Twitter as some form of intimate social networking platform, akin to ''passing notes in class''.

That is rubbish. Politicians and celebrities are using it to shape their brand and Deveny appears to be no different. Every tweet seems to be a calculated attempt to promote her shock-making ways, which are often nothing more than offensive.

Nicholas Yallop, Surrey Hills

NO JOKE ON APRIL FOOL'S DAY!!!

Letter in The Age on 1 April 2010 - and it's for real!!!!

It's just unreal

I'M SLIGHTLY discomforted by the fact that our Prime Minister, alternative prime minister and the governor of the Reserve Bank believe in supernatural beings that exert control over their lives (and hence, to some extent, ours). Wouldn't it be better if our top public servants were people with a stronger grip on reality?

Campbell Aitken, Brunswick

ATHEISTS FEEL COLD SHOULDER

Atheists feel cold shoulder
November 26, 2009

ATHEISTS have accused the Brumby Government of discriminating against them by refusing to fund the movement's global conference in Melbourne but giving $2 million to a religious conference.
The Parliament of the World's Religions begins on December 3 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. It has received $2 million from the Federal Government and $500,000 from Melbourne City Council.
The Atheist Foundation of Australia says it approached all three levels of government for a total of $270,000 for its conference, to be held at the same venue early next year, but has received no funding.
''This is a world-class event with world-class academic and intellectual speakers,'' foundation president David Nicholls said.
''If I was the Catholic Church they'd be all over me like a rash. This is an ideological decision.''
KATE LAHEY
Some tourism dollars worth less
November 27, 2009

AS ONE of 4 million-plus non-religious Australians, I'm outraged that Labor governments are putting $4 million of taxpayers' money into a religious event, but have refused funding for Melbourne's Global Atheist Convention.
You only have to search the internet to see how news of this event is spreading internationally. Isn't that what the funding is for: to promote tourism to Australia and Victoria?
I will be travelling to the convention in March. Does the Brumby Government value my tourist dollars less than those of a theist? If so, I will be careful to restrict my spending while in Victoria and I won't be in a hurry to return to a state where non-theists are obviously not wanted.
Chrys Stevenson, Mapleton, Qld
Was application read?
I WOULD be tempted to think there may be some kind of religious bias in the Government's decision especially as I wrote to Tourism Victoria, the department responsible for funding not-for-profit international conferences, only to be told it did not provide funding for business conferences.
The Atheist Foundation is a registered not-for-profit organisation and this was clearly stated in the application. From the department's answer I can only assume the application for assistance was rejected without even being read.
Doug Steley, Cowwarr
Christians agree with bias
AS A Christian minister I agree with my atheist friends on this one - it appears they have been discriminated against on the basis of religion.
It's all very ironic and kind of humorous, given the Brumby Government's social engineering reconstruction project for Victoria. As a taxpayer I don't support funding a conference for atheists (how much money do they need to say ''God is not there''?), and I also don't agree with funding the ''World Parliament of Religions''. I would have thought that putting the money into hospitals would be a better investment.
Murray Campbell, minister, Mentone Baptist Church, Mentone
Blurring the boundaries between church and state
THE Government's funding decision is not surprising. Religious lobby groups have formed a very powerful relationship with government far, far beyond the numbers they represent. This continual assault on the equality of non-believers in supernatural things is going to prove costly. We really have had enough.
The State Government's decision to grant $2 million to a world religious conference, also in Melbourne, reveals a bias that disregards our status as a secular nation. This is just another example of the blurring of the separation of the church from the state.
Warren Bonett, Pomona, Qld
Where's the money going?
WHERE are the missing delegates to the Parliament of World Religions and where is all the money going?
Original claims of about 13000 delegates have now been reduced to 5000 by John Brumby. With funding of $4.5 million from taxpayers and ratepayers, that is nearly $1000 per head.
What have they spent the money on?
Andrew Rawlings, Blackburn
All welcome to attend
ATHEISTS need not ''feel the cold shoulder'' (The Age, 26/11) because the State Government has provided funding to a multi-religious, not a religious, event.
Everyone who is willing to be respectful of the views of others is welcome at the Parliament of the World's Religions, including atheists. They, too, are part of the rich diversity of religious and philosophical value bases that ennobles our life in Melbourne.
Professor Gary D. Bouma, Monash University

EDUCATED VICE-CHANCELLORS AIN'T WHAT THEY USED TO BE!

In days gone by, when a person became a university vice-chancellor, that person was usually expected to be someone of intellectual standing and a person of some erudition.

Imagine the shock then when one starts to read an opinion piece in the remaining broadsheet newspaper in Melbourne and there is an article by a vice-chancellor, one who is from the Australian Catholic University in Melbourne and he starts having a rant about atheists in which he exposes himself to be an ignoramus whose essay would put a late high-school student to shame.

This vice-chancellor, Greg Craven, attacks people or groups about which he has no understanding and less inclination to start a dialogue with those he is attacking.

In the end he is exposed as somebody who is ignorant, biased, prejudiced and discriminatory and his essay is one of total bluster. This is not really surprising from someone who still believes, in 2009, that there is some "being" who controls the universe!

Here is the essay, and below it are letters in the newspaper, The Age, in response to what the craven Greg has written!

A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target
GREG CRAVEN
November 4, 2009
Comments 331
Attacking Christians is not really clever, witty or funny.
FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.
Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer's blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.
No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.
Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.
Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?
The answer is twofold. First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.
The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers - and perhaps especially Catholics - do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.
Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus. Thus, as a Catholic, I do not normally sense in some tabloid atheist the presence of a supreme discerning intellect. I simply place him or her in much the same pitiable bin of intellectual vulgarians as the chartered accountant who cannot see the art in Picasso, the redneck who cannot admit of indigenous culture, and the pissant who cannot see the difference between Yeats and Bob Ellis.
It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity. It is a bit like the old joke: how many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None - no matter what they do, they just can't see the light.
The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.
In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.
Applied to the average totalitarian dictatorship, this charge sheet would be over the top. Ascribed to virtually any ethnic minority, it rightly would result at least in public revulsion and quite possibly in criminal charges. But applied to Christians, it seems to be accepted as just another modern blood sport, like the vilification of refugees and the elimination of the private life of the families of public figures.
At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.
Greg Craven is vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
Source: The Age

Lack of fact, logic and argument
November 5, 2009

THANKS, Greg Craven (Comment & Debate, 4/11), for providing an academic example of an ad hominem argument - one which attacks the person instead of debating their ideas. Rather than comparing atheists to frogs and blowflies, a sound argument would account logically and factually for the existence of a god and thus prove the atheist tenet wrong. And any attack on the Catholic Church would be countered with numerous examples of the respect that its authorities have consistently shown for human rights, intellectual enquiry and freedom of belief and dissent, for which the Vatican holds an impeccable record.

Esther S. Ginsberg, Bentleigh

Turn other cheek

GREG Craven, to look at atheists and only see the ''pissant'' and ''redneck'' is disturbing, especially as you are in a position of educational importance. I am agnostic and hold no hatred for any religious group, nor should you if you subscribe to biblical values. What happened to turning the other cheek? To compare Christians to refugees is laughable. Call attackers of the Pope what you will, but didn't he recently claim that condoms were ''wrong''? Isn't the Catholic Church a hotbed of abuse against those who they should love and raise, children?

I know many intelligent and reflective Christians who are happy to argue religious views with no animosity. Yet they always seem to be local people, not people like yourself in positions of authority. A shame, but I suppose the meek shall inherit the earth. Who am I kidding?

Brett McDonald, Mentone

Call for scrutiny

NO ONE would be bothered by the Catholic Church if it insisted that only Catholics followed its precepts. But in the past year alone, it pushed to influence Parliament to support discrimination against non-Catholics, argued in favour of prolonging the untreatable suffering of non-Catholics who are dying and opposed reproductive health for non-Catholic women. The more sinister aspects of its health policy have been discussed in The Age this week. The Catholic Church is a wealthy, non-tax-paying organisation that receives huge government funding for the provision of social services to all Victorians. For these reasons, what it stands for - unsavoury history, policy directions from a non-human and continued efforts to re-establish medieval Christendom with secular funding - should be scrutinised.

Janine Truter, The Basin

Dangerous extremes

GREG Craven, I agree hatred is never clever or funny. As an agnostic, I believe everyone should live and let live. People should be allowed their beliefs, as long as no one gets hurt. I also acknowledge there are prominent Catholics who have had a positive impact on society, particularly Mother Teresa, who dedicated her life to promoting peace and helping those in pain, and modern-day Catholics who work in welfare or education.

However, the more extreme and conservative Catholics have a lot to answer for. Their aversion to contraception leads to over-population, which in turn means a greater strain on the planet and exacerbated poverty in developing countries. While Catholics may not be responsible for the spread of the cane toad, some Catholic teachings have severe consequences for the environment. It is unfortunate for progressive Catholics that these fundamentalists are the ambassadors of your religion.

Elizabeth Howes, Ascot Vale

Did I miss the joke?

I MISSED the wit and humour in Greg Craven's article, but I am sure they were there, unlike facts to support his bon mots. For example, who are these plagues of hobby atheists? And how is their alleged hate manifested? In tirades from a pulpit? In sectarian prejudice? In indiscriminate bombings? Then again, facts have always been a bit of a problem for the faithful, and as for a sense of humour …

Matt Gately, Rivett, ACT

Religion/atheism

FUNNY, irreverent and intelligent. Greg Craven would be my new god if I believed in that type of thing.

Nick Johnson, Northcote

GREG Craven used the same sort of language and stereotypes as Catherine Deveny. And contributed about as much to the debate.

Dick Danckert, Mount Duneed

DID ''turn the other cheek'' go out in the same load as limbo and meat on Friday?

Brian Kilday, Jeeralong Junction

IT'S clear from Greg Craven's contribution that God must have created atheists just to take the mickey out of Catholics.

Stuart McCallum, Bannockburn

Short letters - The Age 061109

NOT so long ago, a plague of Catholics descended on Aboriginal Australia. The indigenous population had beliefs that were just as firmly held and traditional as those held by present-day Catholics. Plagues are always unwelcome and are frequently overwhelming.

Peter Williams, Alphington

THE Age regularly saves space for Catherine Deveny's caricatures and Leslie Cannold's skewed criticisms of Christianity. Nobody gives a murmur. But when Greg Craven responds in kind, from every corner come the whimperings of "unfair" and "ad hominem"!

Bill Uren, Parkville

AS AN atheist, the only Catholics I hate are pedophile priests and their protectors whom I read about in the media with monotonous regularity.

Rob Collinge, Glen Waverley