British Expats
Page 4 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   Australia (https://britishexpats.com/forum/australia-54/)
-   -   Gillard is a true red (https://britishexpats.com/forum/australia-54/gillard-true-red-674560/)

fish.01 Jun 30th 2010 1:22 am
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 8667098)
You could easily say the same about atheism.
You could but you'd be wrong :) Religion is a faith based dogma, atheism is the just an absence of that dogma with the belief that things should be subjected to evidence based tests like all parts of our secular democracy are meant to be.

Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 8667098)
And what about those leaders who are atheist and do the same - a couple of examples include Albania when it was under Hoxha, North Korea, China. Political doctrine can be easily seen along the same lines as religious doctrine, and I would say that atheist doctrine is a form of religious doctrine.
The don't do it in the name of atheism like religious crusaders do. They are economic movements. They have a lot in common with religious crusaders though - after the ability to control people.

Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 8667098)
Not all Christians agree with the proposed internet filter, it's far to easy to generalise this as a "Christian supported" proposal. The problem is that many people (both Christian and "other") are not aware that child porn traffic is apparently more likely on peer-to-peer than WWW, and so the internet filter will have very little effect.
Extreme christians are pushing it.

Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 8667098)
So you would want to get rid of 5 of the public holidays in Australia then? And you think ANZAC Day has to change, with public commemorations becoming "non-religious"?
Why would we replace the pagan celebrations we are used to?

fish.01 Jun 30th 2010 1:26 am
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8667615)
I thought marriage was a concept of the church and IS between a man and a woman. Gay 'marriage' isn't a marriage and I don't get why they want to call it that.
What's wrong with settling for the legal protections of a 'social contract'?
Gay couples had dozens if not hundreds of protections they could not partake in because of the laws prohibiting their union.

I may be talking out of turn but I believe they would be happy to call it something else, for example "civil union" but this was also objected to by many religious.

fish.01 Jun 30th 2010 1:28 am
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8667615)
I thought marriage was a concept of the church and IS between a man and a woman. Gay 'marriage' isn't a marriage and I don't get why they want to call it that.
What's wrong with settling for the legal protections of a 'social contract'?
Marriage is a civil secular union in our democracy. The church has nothing to do with it. People can optionally sign a church register as well as the govt one but that is their own faith based appendage and nothing to do with the secular institution of marriage.

iamthecreaturefromuranus Jun 30th 2010 9:37 am
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 8667822)
Marriage is a civil secular union in our democracy. The church has nothing to do with it.
Legally that's all correct, but unless I'm mistaken, and if I am I'm sure somebody will be along soon enough to tell me, marriage was at the prerogative of the church and a religious concept.

To claim the church has "nothing to do with it" is, frankly, nonsense.

moneypenny20 Jun 30th 2010 10:49 am
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8668773)
Legally that's all correct, but unless I'm mistaken, and if I am I'm sure somebody will be along soon enough to tell me, marriage was at the prerogative of the church and a religious concept.

To claim the church has "nothing to do with it" is, frankly, nonsense.
The church had sod all to do with my marriage ;)

iamthecreaturefromuranus Jun 30th 2010 11:05 am
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by moneypenny20 (Post 8668873)
The church had sod all to do with my marriage ;)
Nor my second one... but I was thinking more about its original conception than what we get now. :)

IvanM Jun 30th 2010 11:26 am
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
It maybe to you. My wedding was a civil arrangement that bonded us in marriage. Marriage means different things to different people and different religions. The bible is irrelevant to me and a significant amount of society. Marriage is a concept generated by society over the years and has evolved. Marriage will carry on evolving as societies norms and tolerances change.

Gay people do not want to settle for something different to what the rest of us take for granted. Why should they?

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8667615)
I thought marriage was a concept of the church and IS between a man and a woman. Gay 'marriage' isn't a marriage and I don't get why they want to call it that.
What's wrong with settling for the legal protections of a 'social contract'?

IvanM Jun 30th 2010 11:29 am
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8668773)
To claim the church has "nothing to do with it" is, frankly, nonsense.
Correct but marriage came long before the church and has existed in godless societies and many other religions.

Swerv-o Jun 30th 2010 3:22 pm
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 8667806)
You could but you'd be wrong :) Religion is a faith based dogma, atheism is the just an absence of that dogma with the belief that things should be subjected to evidence based tests like all parts of our secular democracy are meant to be.



The don't do it in the name of atheism like religious crusaders do. They are economic movements. They have a lot in common with religious crusaders though - after the ability to control people.



Extreme christians are pushing it.



Why would we replace the pagan celebrations we are used to?
Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 8667817)
Gay couples had dozens if not hundreds of protections they could not partake in because of the laws prohibiting their union.

I may be talking out of turn but I believe they would be happy to call it something else, for example "civil union" but this was also objected to by many religious.
Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 8667822)
Marriage is a civil secular union in our democracy. The church has nothing to do with it. People can optionally sign a church register as well as the govt one but that is their own faith based appendage and nothing to do with the secular institution of marriage.

Great posts. I was going to reply to some of the previous ones, but I don't think I could do as good a job as you have here!


S

BadgeIsBack Jun 30th 2010 3:25 pm
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by Seneca21 (Post 8667020)
I think that one of the reasons why so many go to church, etc., is because having literally no authority above you is quite stressful. Imagine making serious decisions all day long, decisions that will affect the lives of millions in some cases - but there is no one to pass it up to, ever. So believing in a god allows them to have a boss again, some constant they can draw on in the difficult times.
Sitting in church allows you some peace and quiet and whilst the old man is preaching and the choirboys are nodding off you can get a bit of shut-eye and mull over aspects of policy without being interrupted! Organised peace and quiet...hmmmm...where do I sign?

coolshadows Jun 30th 2010 3:42 pm
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
To say marriage has nothing to do with religion - why don't men in Australia have multiple wives as in other nations? What are the exact reasons why bigamy is illegal?

Why do we get married at all? what are the benefits to our society?

(I'm not religious by the way! :p)

Seneca21 Jun 30th 2010 4:46 pm
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by coolshadows (Post 8669310)
To say marriage has nothing to do with religion - why don't men in Australia have multiple wives as in other nations? What are the exact reasons why bigamy is illegal?

Why do we get married at all? what are the benefits to our society?

(I'm not religious by the way! :p)
Marriage is actually all about protecting families' progeny, in a nutshell. It's fundamentally natural for a man and a woman to be attracted to each other and want to make children, and humans quickly worked out that the perfect unit was one man + one woman = progeny.

Today, we see things only in legal terms and therefore it makes sense to allow gays and lesbians to marry, because in marrying they will become "equal". Of course, the ancient tradition of union between man and woman for the purposes of producing and protecting their progeny is a different thing.

One philosopher recently asked: what is wrong with inequality? What do we mean by equality? We are fundamentally all unequal. My view is that I can see no reason why gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry, but even if you call it marriage and afford them all the legal benefits of marriage, it will still not be the same intitution as that entered into by man + woman.

roaringmouse Jun 30th 2010 5:39 pm
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 8667806)
You could but you'd be wrong :) Religion is a faith based dogma, atheism is the just an absence of that dogma with the belief that things should be subjected to evidence based tests like all parts of our secular democracy are meant to be.
You're adding an awful lot of stuff to the meanings of religion and atheism. In the purest of terms, religion simply means a belief in and worship of God or gods and atheism simply means a belief there is no deity.

Therefore, an argument could be made that atheism results in narrow thinking, as you put it, because people following this dogma have closed their minds to the idea of a God - even though the Bible has quite a lot of evidence for its credibility.
Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 8667806)
The don't do it in the name of atheism like religious crusaders do. They are economic movements. They have a lot in common with religious crusaders though - after the ability to control people.
Perhaps you should check up on Albania under Hoxha, where this was part of the constitution: "The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people". Certainly looks like "actions were taken in the name of atheism, forsaking the good of their country in favour of following their own doctrine".
Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 8667806)
Extreme christians are pushing it.
And so are non-Christians supporting and pushing for the internet filter. However, not all Christians and not all non-Christians support the internet filter. It's as much a "Christian-supported proposal" as it is a "non-Christian supported proposal".
Originally Posted by fish.01 (Post 8667806)
Why would we replace the pagan celebrations we are used to?
So you support religious public holidays now - I thought you were an atheist!! Paganism is a religion(s) too you know..

luis_be Jun 30th 2010 7:13 pm
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by Seneca21 (Post 8669406)
the perfect unit was one man + one woman = progeny.
I fully agree, that is why I think unfertile men and women should also be refused the right to marry, after all what is the point? Or are you telling me that LOVE has anything to do with it? ;)

By the way, this is Gillard's view on the subject:

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/loca...o_gay_marriage

Well I find great that she is an atheist, but I this is a bit disappointing to me...

Luis

iamthecreaturefromuranus Jun 30th 2010 7:26 pm
Re: Gillard is a true red
 
Originally Posted by luis_be (Post 8669646)
Well I find great that she is an atheist...

Luis
Why?. What's 'great' about it?


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:53 pm.
Page 4 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.