Censorship shows need for a Bill of Rights

acotrel says:

07:26am | 15/06/11

Freedom of speech may be a ‘right’  but there’s an old saying ‘abuse it and lose it’ ! There have been several times in my life when I’ve noted religous people opposing democracy and the rights of others.  Now we have them crying for their own rights?  They always were power seeking hypocrites!

Pete says:

07:37am | 15/06/11

I agree Erick, that a decent bill of rights should not compel people to carry a message against their will.  However, a constitution or bill of rights should enshrine the freedom of speech you speak of.  Something our constitution sadly lacks. So I disagree with you about not having one that does.

KH says:

07:46am | 15/06/11

A billboard is hardly comparable to a church newsletter, but this is the kind of comment I would expect from you.

This is not a political ad - it doesn’t support either side (or any others) in politics, as at present, both sides are equally sychophantic to the religious nut lobby groups, who do not represent the majority of people.

marley says:

08:53am | 15/06/11

Hmm. I agree with Erick.  (Not a first, perhaps, but close to it. )

Freedom of speech means you are free to state you opinions, political, religious or whatever, without repercussions from the state (with obvious exceptions such as defamation).  It doesn’t mean that private businesses or organizations, or public ones for that matter, have any obligation to provide you with a platform. 

The Atheiest Foundation is free to make its point about the census.  It will just have to do it by some other means, be it self publishing or whatever.  Railcorp is under no obligation to accept advertising from them. 

And let me assure you that a Bill of Rights wouldn’t change that one iota.

Tedd says:

09:18am | 15/06/11

The AFA is not compelling someone to display their message for them, they are requesting the message be displayed on a standard advertising billboard Rail Corp would not normally worry about.

Claiming it is forcing, and that it is a political message, are both false positions.

Lostie says:

09:20am | 15/06/11

Marley - I think the point was the reason for refusing the advertisement.

It is difficult to make the claim that the census is political - even more difficult to make the claim that asking people to answer honestly is a political statement.

Edward James says:

09:35am | 15/06/11

I invite people to consider using freedom of expression, instead of freedom of speech.  Edward James

Timmy says:

09:35am | 15/06/11

KH,

Not a political ad?

It is attempting to ask people to identify themselves as having a specific world view so that they can attempt to remove the political impact of a group of people with a different world view.

It is an attempt to gain political influence throug advertising, and is therefore political.

AdamC says:

09:59am | 15/06/11

One would have to be very anti-Erick to find fault with his comment here. I couldn’t have put it better myself.

This article is utter rubbish.

David Stasey says:

10:37am | 15/06/11

Dear Erick.
You have already claimed the title of Most Obsessive Misogynist and are a good contender for Most Objectionable Git. Are you now vying for a stupidity prize? (Beware, Marley and AdamC are mounting a strong challenges.)
I’ll ignore the Bill of rights (fitting given your ignorance of the subject, free speech and even newsletters) and simply point out that accepting advertising that is neither illegal nor immoral is a part of Railcorps business. We don’t need an inquiry to know that this is quite obviously censorship by a STATE (ie SECULAR) owned corporation pandering to people with beliefs like yours.
The only thing that is absurd about the atheists trying to place the ad is that they shouldn’t have to pay for something that that the SECULAR STATE should be doing anyway. Or do you think that the census should be inaccurate? Why?

Edward James says:

10:47am | 15/06/11

I thought the question about religion in the census was there as a chance for a bit of fun when we write Jedi Or some other response.

Dave says:

11:04am | 15/06/11

@ David Stasey - what’s with all the hostility? Are you so scared of alternative points of view that you have to attack anyone who doesn’t think the same way that you do? Try learning some tolerance, my friend.

NicoleG says:

11:08am | 15/06/11

@David Stacey, stupidity prize? Go and re-read that waffle you just wrote. You are the proud owner of the stupidity prize!

David Stasey says:

11:39am | 15/06/11

@Dave, trying to prevent a point of view is not “alternative” and I’ll attack anyone who tries to or supports it. Why do you want an inaccurate census?
@NicoleG. I explained why it was stupid. Do you intend to rebut any points or are you making a late run yourself?
Do any of you have the courage to put uor names to your posts?

Michael N says:

11:46am | 15/06/11

@ Erick. I applaud your use of the word “tosh” and I agree with your broad sentiment pertaining to the efficacy of a Bill of Rights but the analogy you provided is misleading.

What you suggested would be akin to Railcorp being forced to carry advertisements from competing rail companies (were there such competitors). That would not be acceptable, but neither is their involvement in this particular debate. As Tedd has noted, Railcorp are simply taking a stand on an issue that is well outside their purview.

Erick says:

12:07pm | 15/06/11

If RailCorp has a policy of rejecting advertisements that are political in nature, then it would be justified in rejecting this advertisement. However, if the proposed ad breached none of RailCorp’s rules, there would be a case for claiming that its rejection was an instance of discrimination.

Nevertheless, the right to freedom of expression is a case of negative liberty - the right to be free from impositions. What David Nicholls appears to be demanding is the right to force others to broadcast his views, regardless of their own rules. This does not appear to be a just cause, unless it can be shown that actual discrimination is involved.

David Stasey says:

12:37pm | 15/06/11

@Erick. So we have an “if” now do we? Maybe you should have checked first. I did. Railcorp not only carries political ads, it exempts election material from it’s usual planning guidelines.
This is no more political than a public health campaign anyway. At least when the homophobes and religious nuttbaggers objected to the recent safe sex ads i could understand that it was due to narrow minded bigotry.
What the hell is anyone objecting to here?

Richie says:

12:45pm | 15/06/11

The number of Erick sycophants on Punch is truly sickening.

Budz says:

12:54pm | 15/06/11

Possibly a slight re-wording of the ad by removing the word politics and changing it with something less political.

marley says:

12:56pm | 15/06/11

@Lostie - to my mind, it doesn’t matter whether the ad was “political” or not.  If Railcorp doesn’t want to rent the space to put it up, that’s their choice.  It’s their billboard.  This is not a free speech issue.  If the police came and arrested the head of the Atheist Foundation for making the same point, that would be a free speech issue - but that’s not the situation here.

Jay Santos says:

01:01pm | 15/06/11

How refreshing again to see the anti-Christian lobby struggle for oxygen and currency.  Swinging at the low hanging fruit of organised religion is eclipsed only in tedium by the increasing shrillness of its detractors.

Maybe they thought your ‘ad’ was crap.  I know I did.

Such awkward insularity is the hallmark of the anti-religion collective bulwarked here by the Atheist Society whose leader gleefully exclaims:  “an accurate answer about a religious position will make politics more honest, but so what?  That is not political…”

Well, so much for “honesty” then.

What Nicholls, his acolytes and acid-tongued fellow travellers above fail to acknowledge or understand is the reason the question about religion is asked.  Nothing more innocuous than the provision and allocation of resources and services.

Plenty of NGOs and others subscribe to the ABS census data as part of their planning process, but understanding that would require engaging this truism as an adult.

Yet the AS sees denial of its ‘billboard of rights’ as subversive and an oppression of their religious freedom and association.

Make no mistake, atheism is a religion (if not, why does it need a leader)...with almost disturbing cult-like qualities and it beggars belief that such an innate fear and loathing can be slaked by a 15 metre billboard over a train line in suburban Canberra.

It is patently obvious Nicholls and the AS draw nourishment and self- affirmation from believing those who tick “No Religion” are by default “atheists”.

Such deluded thinking will always ensure that groups such as his will always dwell in the twilight; on the very fringes of mainstream society.

marley says:

01:05pm | 15/06/11

@David Stasey - so sorry you think I’m climbing up the stupidity ranks.  The thing is, you know, that I understand what the expression “freedom of speech” actually covers, and what it does not.  And no entity, be it private or state, is obligated to provide a platform for all comers. 

Do you think the ABC should be forced to host a column written by Erick or myself, for example, just because it’s a publicly funded body?  Should it be required to provide space in its programming for anti-vaccination campaigns, anti-immigration campaigns, anti-evolution nutjobs or people who think everything is a Marxist conspiracy?  Or should it have the right to say, thanks, but no thanks?

The anti-vaxers, anti-immigration, anti-evolution, conspiracy theorists have every right to pronounce their views - they can print pamphlets, hold meetings, set up websites, contribute to blogs, and generally rabble rouse for their points of view, and they can do so with impunity.  That, sir, is freedom of speech.  Requiring private or public entities to carry your points of view is not.

And you will find that countries which do have constitutional protections for freedom of speech, such as the US and Canada, would not intervene in a situation like this.

Craig says:

01:16pm | 15/06/11

@ Jay Santos: Why do atheists need a leader?  I’ll be sure to ask the Atheist Pope next time he’s in town for you.

David Stasey says:

01:24pm | 15/06/11

@Marley
1. It’s a paid advertisement.
2. With a state owned company.
3. Which accepts “political” advertising.
4. Which this isn’t anyway.
Try again.

AdamC says:

01:41pm | 15/06/11

David Stasey, the mere fact of RailCorp being owned by a government hardly elevates its refusal to run an ad to the status of government censorship. You may have an argument if there was some evidence that government ministers pressured the organisation to refuse the advertisement, but that is not the case here.

And people who may identify with a particular religion, but do not reguarly attend services, are perfectly entitled to claim that as their religion on the census. It doesn’t make the census ‘inaccurate’ at all. That you think it does demonstrates your mystifyingly nutty zealotry.

marley says:

01:41pm | 15/06/11

@David Stasey:

Is the Atheist Foundation being denied the right to voice its opinions publicly? No

Is it being threatened with arrest or punishment for stating its views?  No.

Is it free to select another venue for its campaign?  Yes.

This is not a freedom of speech issue.  And a Bill of Rights would not make it one.

Try again.

Kevin says:

02:07pm | 15/06/11

@Erick
Where in the article does the author mention “freedom of speech”?
A Bill of Rights would not “force others to carry your message”.  It would compel government departments and agencies to act in a non-discriminatory manner.
Once again, it is you serving up the tosh.

Reggie says:

03:07pm | 15/06/11

Christians frequently exclaim Australia to be a Christian country which I understand to mean they are claiming it is NOT secular.

Therefore they’re claiming a prior right to attack and exclude those who do not conform to their views. The moment to oppose these views has arrived. Along with Republicanism we need to decide whether we are Christian or secular. Guess what, it’s not going to be Christian.

While no entity, even a government one, needs to explain its reasons for excluding advertising, it seems at the moment that Christians have a reason to fear a Bill of Rights for the formal rejection it would bring.

Erick says:

03:51pm | 15/06/11

@Kevin: “Where in the article does the author mention “freedom of speech”?”

Nowhere.

Which is the problem. The author is not interested in freedom of speech, but in the ability to compel others by force to broadcast his own speech.

This is not a human right, it’s a suppression of human rights.

Reggie says:

05:15pm | 15/06/11

But you brought it up Erick; “Freedom of speech means you cannot be punished by the government for something you say, or forcibly prevented from saying it.”

Apart from which you are revealing your obsession with government prevention when it applies equally to everyone. SO ...equally those with deep pockets quake at the thought of losing their ability to silence opposition if a Bill of Rights was enacted. 

A Bill of Rights can be a bad thing because it formalizes all sorts of community variables that ordinary people would rather remain flexible. Not something to be accepted or dismissed lightly.

queen b ann roo says:

01:11pm | 17/06/11

I like your use of the word “tosh”, as I haven’t heard it for a long time.
I don’t think any of us Queen B Ann people would have noticed the sign anyway.

Geoff Russell says:

08:20am | 15/06/11

“Party political” and “political” aren’t the same. Would a pro-nuclear advertisement be called “political”? Under your definition yes, but its about energy systems and isn’t party political at all.

Timmy says:

09:21am | 15/06/11

Geoff, I agree, but you introduced the term “party political”, the article does not make that distinction.

Tedd says:

09:32am | 15/06/11

They are not seeking to affect politics.  Just the way society in general reflects itself truthfully in matters of belief and proportions that truly do and do not believe. 

So, politicians, politics, and general reflections of views the various belief systems, including non-belief (aka abelief), are reflected accurately in govt considerations, such as spending on religious activities in public schools.

Just Sayin' says:

11:59am | 15/06/11

“I thought atheists are supposed to be logical and rational”.  You think all people with one thing in common must be identical?  Logic and rationality are clearly not your strong points either.

Rose says:

02:59pm | 15/06/11

Okay Tedd, but why is it only accurate if some one marks “No Religion”. The question doesn’t ask whether or not someone practices their particular faith, just if that’s what faith they identify with.
Would it be OK for the Catholic Church to run an ad saying, “Baptised at birth, mark Catholic and put religion back into politics”? If not why not?
This ad is trying to influence the way people fill out a census form, therefore it is a deliberate attempt to influence the way our society operates. Results from the Census influence government activity, funding and the provision of government goods and services. Businesses use the Census to forward plan. This ad is a direct attempt to reduce the number of people identifying with religion so that the ‘no religion’ view gets more influence.

Roland says:

03:38pm | 15/06/11

@rose: the ad asks ‘not religious NOW?’ it is clearly aimed at those who would mark themselves down on the census as belonging to a religion because they were raised catholic/muslim or whatever, but no longer actually believe in god/gods. it is not aimed at non-practicing believers as they would still identify as religious would they not?

Tedd says:

04:12pm | 15/06/11

Rose,

This ad is Not “a direct attempt to reduce the number of people identifying with religion so that the ‘no religion’ view gets more influence.”

It is an attempt to get people to answer accurately so the census figures go some way to aligning with the data and outcomes of various polls that show the level of “religiousity” in society is different to the census data.

The census question *about* religion offers a number of options - http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/be4aa82cd8cf7f07ca2570d60018da27/97c2c545cc1859fdca25737f00168976/Body/0.9C0!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

An issue about religious data is the claim that baptism into a religion, as you allude to, is a truism - it is not.  The irony is that various churches have previously used baptism data to claim more adherents than they really have.

Media suggests the western world has a vastly different view of religion than it did in 2006.

Tedd says:

04:30pm | 15/06/11

It is interesting to compare the Australian census question on religion to others in similar countries, particularly the Commonwealth ones, such as NZ -

http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/2006-nz-question.jpg?w=440&h=257

Richie says:

12:28pm | 15/06/11

You are completely incorrect John. The fact that Australia does not have any legislative power to protect a person’s freedom to speech has been a gag on the supposedly egalitarian society that we see ourselves as. It is alright for the Westboro Baptist Church (who you were referring to) to protest, say whatever they want for one simple reason. If it’s not alright for them to say whatever they want in the public space, then it’s not alright for Muslims, communists, racists, white supremacists etc. etc. Considering hate speech is defined in such subjective terms, either everything is alright to say, or nothing is. And just because racist groups, radical Muslims etc. have a freedom to say whatever they want, doesn’t mean they get more of a following. In fact, having their opinions out in the public space rather than gagging them can show people how loony they really are.

eddie says:

08:41am | 15/06/11

Bravo jack - well said.

Septimus says:

08:42am | 15/06/11

“Atheists are logical and rational, Timmy.”

That’s your opinion.

Interesting you advocate a certain position, but others aren’t allowed to differ from yours.

marley says:

09:00am | 15/06/11

@Jack - I’m not a religious person myself, nor would I personally have a problem with the billboard proposal - but that’s not the point.  I don’t own the billboard; Railcorp does. 

if the owners of the billboard , for whatever reason,  have a problem with a particular advertisement, whether this one or any other, then they have the right to refuse to give space to it.  It’s the owner’s property, after all.

It would only be an infringement on freedom of speech if the Atheist Foundation owned the billboard and the government refused it permission to post its notice.

So, to my mind, the Foundation is completely wrong on this issue.

gnostic says:

09:10am | 15/06/11

Fascinating how you seem to believe you have the right to declare your position with such passion, zeal and vitriol whilst denying the same to others.  Personally, to paraphrase you, I believe anyone not belonging to a religion should go on a database and be visited by mental health professionals, as they are obviously quite mad.  That is my position, are you going to deny it?  Or is your bill of rights only going to apply to those poor misguided idiots who have no faith in anything?  Also, why is your trite little outburst seemingly only targeted at Christians?  There are plenty of other religions with various dieties - or lack thereof - you could play with.  Or is just Christian bashing makes the intellectually handicapped seem somehow more urbance and sophisticated.  I will pray to the great spirit of the mother for you, you poor child.

T S Sebastien says:

09:13am | 15/06/11

It’s a sectarian billboard looking for the exclusion of every citizen with religious beliefs from the political system which instantly makes it inflamatory.  I thought persecution of people due to their beliefs in the Western world went out with the inquisition but apparently not to the sources of this billboard. The billboard could have been messaged about making sure that atheists were correctly recognised by the census which to me would make sense and a good idea. Instead it uses a message of exclusionary sectarian hatred to try to whip up support which instantly devalues the message.
You can use a bill of rights to stir up hatred if you want to (I’ll fight for your right to do so) but don’t try and dress up vile intolerance as something “rational” or “logical”. It’s the same crap I see comming from your average racist of fascist (change the word religion in the billboard to either aboriginal or muslim to see what I mean) so as a citizen I have placed the message in the same “extremist” bucket. I thought atheists would be better than that but apparently I was wrong…

mark says:

09:19am | 15/06/11

This is the height of irony,

“Not only that, but they want to impose it upon me AND expect me to pay for it.”

And to talk about seperation of Church and State is a little outlandish, when the Atheist Foundation is kicking up a stink that a government billboard wont house their advertisement.

I’m with Timmy on this one- rationality and logic are clearly lacking from your comment.

Jack Richards says:

09:26am | 15/06/11

@Marley. Railcorp is owned by the people of NSW of which I am one. As a public entity, I don’t see any reason why some pallid bureaucrat can decide that this billboard is “political” without giving a single reason. The hands of the Fred Niles and Steve Fieldings are behind this little bit of Inquisitorial oppression. The one thing the religious always fear is that someone with a brain will encourage others to use theirs. Just remember that the holiest thing one can achieve is blind faith - that is, the ability to believe a load of obvious piffle and twaddle despite a mountain of contrary evidence - and to impose those nonsenical beliefs upon others and torture and kill them if they won’t believe as you do.

@Septimus. The only positions I advocate are: missionary, doggy and sixty-nine. As for you, well head-in-the-sand seems appropriate.

@ Leopard. How about we start with an old kraut who used to be in the Hitler Youth. Isn’t it interesting that the twisted and perverted organisation he leads found time to proscribe books by Rene Descarte and Charles Darwin but Mein Kampf was never on the “index”. Not only that, but the Catholic Church excommunicated any number of scientists and philosophers but never excommunicated Hitler or Mussolini. Now, insofar as “races” are concerned, I didn’t mention any. As far as I know, every race is represented in all the major religions - so they are all equally insane, ignorant, backward and benighted.

Tedd says:

09:35am | 15/06/11

Septimus & gnostic - there is no denying or disallowing.

That is just the tangent people go on when they don’t like the message.

Timmy says:

09:55am | 15/06/11

Jack, at your behest, I will make an appointment to see a mental health professional as soon as I can. Just so you know, I will be claiming through medicare (because I have no other desire to ensure that my religion impacts heavily on the public purse.)

You claim that an objective of religion is to surpress contray voices. I sort of noticed that this is also the purpose of the ad at the centre this controversy. To surpress the religious voice from the political sphere.

I will continue to maintain, that many atheists lack the logic and rationality that they revere.

AdamC says:

10:07am | 15/06/11

“The thing that really astonishes me is that there are people out there who seriously believe all that religious claptrap and nonsense. Not only that, but they want to impose it upon me AND expect me to pay for it.”

Jack Richards, you clearly suffer from delusions of persecution. I suspect you also have horrible intellectual insecurities, given your sneering descriptions of religious belief and practices. As a non-believer, I can assure you it is quite possible to not share the beliefs of religious people without ridiculing them or accusing them of trying to save your soul without your permission. (Oh, what a terrible thing that would be!)

Septimus says:

10:12am | 15/06/11

@ Jack Richards

Shame you seem to be by yourself when you adopt these positions.

James1 says:

10:13am | 15/06/11

You are confused TS.  Let me help.

Firstly, there is no hatred in the advertisement.  Show me where it says anything about hating religious people.

Secondly, the non-religious clearly identifying themselves as non-religious in a census does not constitute persecution of anyone.  You fail absolutely in making any case that it does.

How do you come to the conclusion that correct identification of one’s religious views is “vile intolerance”?  As an atheist, I respect your right to practice religion.  However, I do not respect your right to impose your religion on me via government legislation.  Is that vile intolerance on my part?

You could easily add the word Muslim to the advertisement without problems, because Islam is a religion, not a race.  Changing it to Aboriginal would be illogical and is irrelevant to this discussion, because people are born Aboriginal and do not get to choose that.  People choose to be religious.  There is a very important distinction there.

Jack Richards says:

11:36am | 15/06/11

I just love it, don’t you. All those poor diddums with hurt feelings - conveniently forgetting the 2000 years of misery they’ve inflicted on the world (and want to do it all again), crying “foul” because I have called it as I (and many other billions) see it.

Now let’s have a look at what my pious holier-than-thou critics have had to say in their normal reasonable and rational way:

“Christian bashing makes the intellectually handicapped seem somehow more urbance (sic) and sophisticated”. At least I can spell!

“... you have the right to declare your position with such passion, zeal and vitriol whilst denying the same to others.” Well go read the Bible or the Talmud/Torah, the Koran/hadith or the Hindu texts and tell me who wants to deny what to whom. I’ve never stretched anyone on a rack, stoned a fornicator, burned a witch, bombed the infidel or flown a plane into a building - but the bloody religious lunatics have AND STILL ARE! And you’ve got the hide to accuse me of harbouring “zeal and vitriol”.

“I’m with Timmy on this one- rationality and logic are clearly lacking from your comment.” No comment needed, a raving nutter!

“You claim that an objective of religion is to surpress contray (sic) voices.” You are spot on Timmy - and there is 5,000 years of history to back that up. Just find a time machine, go back, and ask Galileo and all the thousands of witches, blasphemers, and heretics who were burned at the stake whether the “objective of religion is to supress contrary voices”.

“Jack Richards, you clearly suffer from delusions of persecution.” That’s right! I know that there are lunatics out there who would be only too pleased to blow me up, cut my throat, break me on the wheel and inflict as much suffering on me as they could - so that they could save my immortal soul! The only reason it’s a “delusion” is that cranks like you no longer have the power to really do these things again - as your co-religionists did for millenia - but that’s not beacuse you don’t want to.

“Shame you seem to be by yourself when you adopt these positions.” You might have a full hand going alone, but don’t ascribe to me your nasty little habit of Onanism.

“Bravo jack - well said.” A sensible comment from someone with a brain.

Isn’t it amazing how the religious can go around trying to force their superstitious nonsense on everyone: knocking on doors, spruiking on street corners, gushing and babbling on radio and TV, constantly trying to ban everything to make life as miserable, painful and bloody as possible - and then claim victimisation when challenged!

But they are right of course. There is a heaven up in the sky - though no astronaut has ever seen it. After all, Mary ascended on a cloud directly up there and Mohammed rode his horse up - all in front of witnesses. Everyone has a soul, though no surgeon or anatomist has ever found one. It’s quite possible for a star to fall to earth and for the sun to stand still - so all those telescopes and theories in physics must be wrong. Prayer can cure disease, but only selectively and about as often as people win powerball ten trimes in a row. There really are angels, all seven choirs of them and God, who created everything, had to rely on the Archangels to supress an attempted coup in Heaven! God is up in Heaven keeping a gazillion galaxies spinning around and, at the same time, takes a personal interest in me, listens to my thoughts, observes what I eat (don’t touch that ham and bacon whatever you do), tunes in to my daily prayers, and writes it all down in a big book so that he can judge me after death and punish me for all eternity. But I know that he loves me!

Yep, that’s all definitely true - NOT.

Just to re-iterate, anyone who believes this ancient guff has got to be insane. They are not deserving of respect, not one drip of it. And if some people are offended by me speaking my mind ... well, I don’t give a shit!

Religion is the greatest curse and horror that has ever befallen our particular species of apes - and it’s high time the whole rotten lot of it was cast into the dust-bin of history.

T S Sebastien says:

12:06pm | 15/06/11

James1 I actually didn’t read the billboard that way but on reflection I can see the ambiguity. The statement “take religion out of politics” is ambiguous. This could be a statement about ensuring atheist citizen values are recognised (versus a perceived religious bias - what i now think it is probably trying to say) or a call to disenfanchise religious voters by ensuring their values should not count at all.
I read it as the latter as in conjunction with Jack R’s comments above it would seem to be questioning the right of religious citizens to participate and apply their personal values in the political realm (“mental health database” - WTF). I find that sectarian argument to be fairly vile in a pluralist democracy that has worked hard to ensure all citizens are included in the political system regardless of race or religious belief/non-belief.
Happy if this was not the case although I suspect the billboard was a bit of political “dog whistling” to fire up the hardcore atheist supporters. I still think it is treading a very fine line between sectarianism and reasoned political discourse but I can see where you are comming from…

Timmy says:

12:09pm | 15/06/11

“Religion is the greatest curse and horror that has ever befallen our particular species of apes - and it’s high time the whole rotten lot of it was cast into the dust-bin of history. “

Stalin agreed with you before you even made this statement and he himself became an even greater curse and horror to befall our particular species of apes than all religions collectively.

No .... the “greatest curse and horror that has ever befallen our particular species of apes” is our own selfishness, both the religious and the irreligious alike suffer from this affliction.

James1 says:

01:34pm | 15/06/11

TS, my advice is to not take Jack’s comments in conjuction with anything.  They are a touch extreme.

AdamC says:

01:45pm | 15/06/11

Jack Richards, I am glad you acknowledged being delusional before you yet again demostrated it with another stupefyingly bizarre, unhinged rant.

James1 says:

03:26pm | 15/06/11

We need to get the John defending Hitler on the Dalai Lama thread in the same room as Mr Richards.  That would be awesome.

Leopard says:

04:49pm | 15/06/11

@Jack Richards Where are you?
Most people posting comments here are slightly mental (not you, of course).  Nothing wrong with that!  Some of the best people are.  If you feel superior by describing those belonging to a religion “quite obviously howling mad”, fine!  Nevertheless, most of us are ....... quite obviously slightly mad.

PW says:

07:12pm | 15/06/11

If 7 out of 8 Australians do not attend church, it is a drawing a very long bow indeed to say that all of those 7 out of 8 must be atheist or “no religion”. Many many people hold religious beliefs but either don’t like churches or can’t be bothered attending them.

If you really strongly hold an atheist view, you will say so in the census question. If few do, it indicates there are really few true atheists.

carol says:

07:32pm | 15/06/11

Jack Richards was a convent school boy?
Got to be a reason for all that rage.  Seems a shame to be so hostile to the millions who have religious beliefs.
Some say religion is good for women and children - won’t take that any further.

Rebecca says:

02:41am | 16/06/11

I’d like to know who said religion was good for women and children - and which religion they were talking about.  Besides pre-christian (‘pagan’ - though that term is actually functionally incorrect) religions, I know of no religion today that does not place women at a significantly reduced place in society.

While I agree that Jack may be going to extremes, I agree with the sentiment.  If you mentioned (religious beliefs) without saying you were ‘religious’, you would be seen as having psychological issues.  You speak to people who you can’t see, and you think they act on your behalf?  Hmmm… How many people had an imaginary friend as a child - and how many never outgrew it? 

Whatever reason the religious have for their beliefs, they can have them.  Helps you sleep at night?  Provides consolation?  Think it makes you a better person? Great.  More power to you.  If you need a religion to provide you with comfort, then who am I to argue?  Though I am certainly entitled to my belief that it shouldn’t, and my belief that the ethics of the abrahamic religions are abhorrent - but hey, each to their own, right?

The whole purpose of the advertisement is to encourage people to reflect their actual standing in the census, NOT just identifying with a ‘cultural’ value - I was brought up CoE, but I do not subscribe to that religion.  If you have no specific religious leanings, besides being baptised, or brought up as, you should not identify as religious - NRA is your answer - it stands for No Religious Affiliation. 

Hmm… to the commenters suggesting that people can have a ‘general’ belief in something, but not attend church, etc - well, I think you’ll find they need to go back to their religious leaders and query that.  Subscription (attendance) is generally required to ‘prove’ faith, so it then comes down to ‘how do you demonstrate your belief?’.  I don’t care if its kept private (in fact, would prefer it) - but unless you actually do something concerning your ‘faith’, I would argue that you’re not actually religious at all.  I will, however, concede that, in spite of the religious dogma that states otherwise. 

However, if you are going to profess a belief in a religion, you should do more than just write it down on the census form.  Including (most importantly, but not limited to) - understand what it is your beliefs actually hold you to.  It is unbelievable how many people claim to be religious, but have never actually read the document they purport to support.  I’m not talking about attending ‘alpha’ courses, or ‘bible study’ - I’m talking about a serious, critical analysis (and before you get narky, ‘critical’ does NOT mean ‘criticise’, it means question, and consider thoughtfully).

Religion does not, in general, limit itself to race - so whoever claims that it does is likely trying to tie in racism with atheism.

Oh - and really - enough with the ‘Atheism is a religion’.  I call complete and utter BS - ‘theism’ is a belief in religion (more specifically, a god).  ‘a- theism’ is simply the opposite (ever read the dictionary? In the english language, adding an a- to a word generally implies an ‘opposite’ value) - it is the NON belief in a god.  You want to sit in the middle (either ‘don’t know’, ‘don’t care’, etc) - be agnostic (oh, again, not the a-).  Unfortunately, atheism has been seen as a major threat by pretty much every religion, and so has developed some sort of twisted connotation.  As for leaders - atheists have none, and yet many.  Anyone can be an atheist - and to quote one, ‘We’re all atheists, I just believe in less god(s) than you all do’.  Atheists are of all stripes, from all walks of life, varying in endless ways - we do not, in general, use atheism to identify ourselves, except when we’re being told to accept religion as a basis for social policy.

Funnily enough, if you read the koran, you’ll find an interesting line - in spite of all the perceived hatred between muslims and jews, or muslims and christians, the koran actually states that the jews and christians are ‘misguided’ (in the official translation) after being led down the wrong path - oh, but it is the ATHEISTS who are the real problem.  Kind of like a child telling their catholic mother he/she is an atheist, and getting the response ‘not believing in god, I could handle, but an ATHEIST?!’...  Seriously, what exactly do you think atheism is? 

Oh - and before I’m claimed to be trying to revoke rights to believe in religion - while I certainly think those that do believe are wrong, I would be the first person to stand up and fight if that right was under threat.  Your right to BELIEVE is NOT under threat - but that does not mean I have to accept your belief - and it should not mean I have to put up with religion being used as a basis for society.

carol says:

11:10am | 16/06/11

@Rebecca   -  religion keeps them in their proper place??
And yes, atheism is a belief - don’t atheists get all fired up, and zealous, and fervent -  and present 10-para word homilies?

Chris L says:

01:13pm | 16/06/11

@Carol, I could write pages regarding jedi knights but I don’t believe in them.

How come theists try so hard to class atheism as a religion or a belief? Are you trying to accuse us of something?

carol says:

05:56pm | 16/06/11

@Chris L   Not trying.  It simply IS the case.
Appreciate your restraint -  5 lines.  Brevity is beautiful

Chris L says:

02:15pm | 17/06/11

It’s a religion because Carol says so? Looks like the oxford dictionary is wrong then.

Shane* says:

09:02am | 15/06/11

Actually Mayday, the quote is thus:

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

And when he refers to an ‘opiate’ he doesn’t mean something to delude the people… it means a painkiller. So yeah, sounds a bit different now, doesn’t it? “Heart of a heartless world” and all that…

Don’t get me wrong, Marx was no fan of religion, but he saw it’s merits, and he certainly did not see it as the enemy of the people.

AliceC says:

11:18am | 15/06/11

+1 to Shane!

Mayday says:

11:52am | 15/06/11

Actually Shane*  @ 9.02 the full quote states…...

“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.”
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Religion helps you forget pain and suffering just like opiates but it will not cure the pain.

“Often the cure is administered by the same oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering in the first place. Religion is an expression of more fundamental unhappiness and symptom of more fundamental and oppressive economic realities. ” A. Cline.

Shane* says:

12:18pm | 15/06/11

Whether Marx meant ‘soul of soulless conditions” or “spirit of spiritless conditions” is open to debate thanks to inadequate translations.

However, the point remains. The quote is often misrepresented as Marx deriding religion for supressing the people. In fact, he saw religion as an illusion created by humans (and perpetuated by the ruling class) to protect themselves from a harsh existence. He was begrudgingly respectful of religion.

Snake says:

02:20pm | 15/06/11

Remember House “Religion is the placebo of the masses.”

Because opiates actually have a physiological effect.

jf says:

07:14pm | 15/06/11

I would have thought that given the misery that Marx’s philosophies brought to the world that those attempting to discredit religion would steer clear of quoting him for support.

For surely, if religion brought misery to many, Marxism brought worse to more.

ME says:

03:04pm | 16/06/11

@ jf 7.14pm yesterday - You are obviously confusing Marxism for Stalinism. Marxism was actually Marx’s view on the socio-economic environment where there is a struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat with a consequence being socialism would emerge as the ideal political form. You could argue that a Marxist view of the world shows that the entirety of the population has caused more misery than religion, but then that’s like saying all lung cancers combined cause more deaths than lung cancers caused by smoking

jf says:

11:25am | 17/06/11

ME says:
03:04pm | 16/06/11

“@ jf 7.14pm yesterday - You are obviously confusing Marxism for Stalinism.”

I wasn’t but even if I was, the fact remains that Marx’s philosophies inspired not only Stalin but also Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other communist and socialist despots that followed.

acotrel says:

09:45am | 15/06/11

@Dash
‘Can we take Atheism out of politics?’
Along with other religions?  I’d vote for that!  Then we wouldn’t have a slimy little twister, and his archbishop trying to pervert the course of justice

Jack Richards says:

09:49am | 15/06/11

“To acheive such an aim you would have to not only take away a politician’s right to express their belief, but remove any state partnership with church schools, hospitals, welfare groups and charities, and remove the right to vote for anyone who has a belief in God.”

That sounds like a really good idea to me. Why should those ignorant, pious bullying bastards get a cent out of me. Why should I pay for church schools, hospitals etc? Insofar as church Welfare Groups are concerned, are you talking about things like the “Missionaries of Charity” or maybe the “Magdalen Laundries” or “Nazareth House”? Really great stuff if you like torture and repression.

I don’t see anything wrong with denying the obviously mad a right to vote. No-one would think it inappropriate if someone who belived they were getting telepathic messages from the Easter Bunny to kill unbelievers were denied the vote, but an old man in the sky or a paradise with 72 virgins - well, that’s true!

Danny B says:

10:02am | 15/06/11

Nick,

It’s taking the religious influence out of politics - minority extremist groups like the ACL who don’t speak for all Christians, let alone all Australians, influencing the government of the nation to favour their views over the views of the majority.

Ultimately, real democracy can only occur when lobby groups - all lobby groups - are abolished.

James1 says:

10:17am | 15/06/11

Wrong Nick.  Its really about not allowing the religious to impose religious laws on the rest of us.  I have no problem with Christians being Christians.  If you like your religious law, follow it.  However, as an atheist I reserve the right to wear clothes with multiple types of cloth in them and covet my neighbour’s oxen, and you have no right to impose your beliefs on me, any more than I do to force you to covet your neighbour’s oxen.

Also, the things you are talking about are the province of government, and no serious atheist would argue that the government should have no interaction with religion.  Politics is a different matter, and when you mix politics and religion too much, you get Iran.

St. Michael says:

11:35am | 15/06/11

By extension, we already have anti-Catholic laws in place.  Our head of State is Queen Elizabeth.  By the Act of Settlement, which legislatively secures her ancient butt to the throne, no Catholic can ever take the throne of England.

Silver says:

01:06pm | 15/06/11

Don’t forget that an MP is supposed to represent their constituency.  If the majority of their electorate supported euthanasia (say), then it shouldn’t matter if that MP is a Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, or atheist, their duty is to support the will of their electorate.  ‘Taking religion out of politics’ is simply a phrase to remind MPs that their personal views on any matter are secondary to the will of the people they represent.  If they can’t do that, then they shouldn’t be in that job.

The same can be said of the Senate.  Senators are supposed to represent the combined will of their states.  It thus shouldn’t always vote along party lines because the will of NSW and WA may be in disagreement, and that is what Senators are supposed to be representing.  It’s also why the Territories, particularly the ACT, are dramatically underrepresented at that level.

It is, of course, much more complex than this.  There are issues where it is unrealistic to expect an electorate to have a complete and nuanced view of the issue at hand.

‘Taking religion out of politics’ also plays to the subtle ways that non-Christians and particularly non-believers are felt to be excluded.  The classic example is that each sitting of Parliament begins with the Lord’s Prayer.  I don’t see how that isn’t a religious test which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution (section 116).  That is religion in politics that absolutely shouldn’t be there.

St. Michael says:

11:32am | 15/06/11

At which point a bunch of judges from the High Court down would start stuffing it up within six months.

How you write it almost doesn’t matter: if a judge (or, more relevantly, the High Court) doesn’t like it, they won’t interpret it the way you think they should.

Griffiths, the first Chief Justice of the High Court, regularly snarled at counsel appearing before him that they had the interpretation of the Constitution wrong.  He was about the only one in a position to do so since he, along with Edmund Barton and Kingston (I think…) wrote the bloody thing.

I suspect his corpse would’ve hit 3,000 rpm in the past few years.  A High Court said the Federal government could extend its powers massively to control industrial relations of all companies via the corporations power.  The High Court has also pretty much overturned the idea of a relatively weak Federal government and near-autonomous Australian states in favour of the model we have now.  This is not what was originally designed.

Richie says:

12:43pm | 15/06/11

Larry is completely correct, and Dave is completely incorrect.
“You cannot encourage or incite violence, racial hatred, religious hatred, denigrate peoples sexuality etc”
The problem with that Dave is that racial/religious hatred is completely subjective. Would South Park’s attempts to show an image of Muhammed then be deemed as religious hatred? Because all Muslims clearly believe it is hatred.
Either everything is alright or nothing is.

Jack Richards says:

12:26pm | 15/06/11

You’ve forgotten to include Friday prayers at the Mosque and Saturday at the Synagogue where hatred, racism, and intolerance are preached alongside the idea that females are chattels, slavery is quite permissible, and it’s perfectly OK for an old man like me to marry a 5 year-old as did Muhammed (albeit, he didn’t consumate that marriage until she was all grown up at the age of 9). Oh, and lets not overlook the fact that in all these “religions” it is quite acceptable, indeed it is your duty, to kill anyone who doesn’t believe in your God and torture those who may disagree on some theological interpretation.

I couldn’t agree more, Dementer, religions should be made illegal.

Shane* says:

12:57pm | 15/06/11

Yeah Jack! I mean, after all, what you wrote represents the commonly held view of all religious people and not just fringe nutjobs. And it’s not as if religion ever contributed anything to society in the way of art, medicine, education, politics, sovereignty or philosophy! Ban ‘em!

Jack Richards says:

03:06pm | 15/06/11

That’s right Shane. It is the view of the three Abrahamic religions and is clearly set out in the scriptures. It is not the belief of a few fringe nutters - it is core belief. If you don’t believe me, as your barely disguised sarcasm suggests, go and read the Old testament that is common to Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Then tell me what I said is not true.

It is also true that religion never contributed anything to society - other than fear, ignorance and a whole variety of novel torture methods and devices. For more than a thousand years the Church banned all scientific enquiry in all fields. If it was up to the religious, we’d still be trying to cure disease with prayers, charms and holy relics. Insofar as politics is concerned, well we’d have the unelected preachers telling us to have faith and obey - and that would be it. The only reason there is a lot of amazing religious art is becaue no-one was allowed to paint anything else - on pain of death!

No religion has ever sought to educate anyone in anything other than their own dogma. Have a look at the Islamic Madrasses or the way Jesuits ran their “colleges”. Do you think a Jewish Yeshiva teaches a balanced view of anything?

You, Shane, are an arrogant and ignorant fool - and what’s worse, you’re even proud of it!

jf says:

07:17pm | 15/06/11

I am for a Bill of Rights so we can ban stuff I don’t like.

Surely Dementer you are being ironic.

Drafnel says:

07:31pm | 15/06/11

Jack and Dementer, while I do understand what you seem to think you’re saying, could you please take a step back and have a look at your own words? Who’s spitting hate? Who’s intolerant? Who’s suggesting deliberate, targetted oppression? Do you really think your fantasies of oppressing and violently opposing all believers would make the World a better place? And if you even have to think for a fraction of a moment before replying “no” then you’re clearly a religious zealot yourself. Some dude once said something about removing the log from your own eye before trying to help your brother remove the speck from his, but I guess you think he was just being violent.

Robert says:

05:09pm | 15/06/11

You are right. If Railcorp is advertising this space for rent, provided the ad complies with the standards for advertising in regard to thing like nudity, offensive language etc. they should have no right to refuse.

The ad is clearly not political in nature so should never have been refused using this as an excuse.

PW says:

07:06pm | 15/06/11

RailCorp is clearly considering the way its as a business might be viewed by its customers and others if it displayed this ad. For what would be a very piddling amount of money, it risks alienating a lot of people.  It has every right to to pick and choose what is advertised on its billboards in accordance with the values held by the business.

Chris L says:

11:05am | 16/06/11

@PW just as a shop keeper has every right to deny service to muslims. Or how buses in blacktown can refuse access to christians.

Sheldon says:

11:08am | 15/06/11

What about France?

St. Michael says:

11:33am | 15/06/11

Or Singapore, for that matter.  There’s a Berlin Wall between church and state there.  Basically, Lee Kuan Yew, er, the PAP, do what they want and so long as the churches don’t shoot each other or criticise the State, they’re permitted to exist.

A Dose of Reality says:

02:41pm | 15/06/11

France also has a government BASED on ‘Rule of Law’, but again give it no legal force, I may stand corrected but I believe this is due to Napoleon’s idea of what his power should entail.

As to the separation of church and state (in France), I believe that it to has a ‘one-sided’ deal, the state is restrained from interfering with the church however the church is free to interfere with the state.

As a point of interest, when the French were designing their new government, as a guide to the separation of Powers they actually looked at the English Parliamentary system - and ironically codified what the English system relies on ‘tradition’ for.

Singapore - certainly a case in point where the Rule of Law is concerned, there is no way such a regime could exist where the Rule of Law is given legal force.

As to the separation of the state and church (in Singapore), it could be argued the opposite is the case, the state may interfere with the church but the church may not interfere with the state.  Ethically this too would be undesirable - although the fact that there is no opportunity for ‘religious’ conflict nor imposition might be viewed as a plus.

Richie says:

12:33pm | 15/06/11

Yeah our heavily politically correct society is great. Those Americans with their unconditional freedom of speech really are the ones who have it wrong though.

fairsfair says:

02:04pm | 15/06/11

There are pluses and minuses in everything Richie - I’d take Australian “freedoms” over American ones anyday.

Now, where is my glock, I’m off to do the groceries.

Jack Richards says:

01:39pm | 15/06/11

I beat you Graham, I gave up on religion at the age of 6. By that time Sputnik had been launched by the atheistic Soviet Union, and yet God did nothing. It didn’t prang into heaven and God didn’t zap it.

By the time I was 10, Yuri Gargaran and Alan Shepherd had both been into space and, again, neither of them spotted heaven. My father had been a fighter pilot in WW2, but he had never seen an angel on a cloud. Much as I searched, there were no fairies in the garden; I sat up all night and no fat man dressed in red came down the chimney; and my guardian angel didn’t step in when a the school bully gave me a belting.

When I was 6 I had a little dog that died from a tick. I prayed and prayed but the dog stayed dead. Instantly I knew. If God couldn’t resurrect a stinking little dog, despite my fervent prayers, it was all bullshit - just like all the other fairy stories and superstitious nonsense. Now, for someone who made the entire Universe and watched me constantly, how come he couldn’t perform one tiny miracle and save my dog from the toxin of another of his wonderful creations i.e. the tick?

Now, fifty-four years later, I have not seen or heard one scintilla of evidence or sensible argument to change the revelation I had at the age of 6. That is that all religions are: bullshit, rubbish, nonsense, myth, superstition, ignorance with wings, brutality, bullying - sickening death cults worshipping pain and suffering.

And now some smarmy, pious little bastard, won’t let the AFA put up a billboard that simply suggests that people with a brain fill in a census form honestly.

You are spot on when you say the religions: “...are just afraid of the truth emerging”. All religions fear the truth and seek only to keep people in ignorance and servitude.

David Nicholls’ is right. The censorship of this billboard is an example of religious arrongance, yet again. I fully agree:, “That we do not have a redress in the 21st Century is blot on the progressive society we could be.  And who is the greatest objector to a Bill of Rights.  Yes, not a difficult guess.  It is religion.”

By any measure, religion has been a huge brake on human advancement for the last five thousand years. It is a toxic poison and a blood sucker much worse than any tick.

Orange says:

04:55pm | 15/06/11

So, are you guys saying that when my mother dies that i’ll never see her again or something. And that when you die that’s it for eternity. Tell me what you guys know about the dying process - and can you put it on a billboard please.

Robert says:

05:29pm | 15/06/11

Like Jack I beat you too. Having two older sisters I had no chance to believe in either the Easter Bunny or Santa and remember my sisters telling me from a very young age “you know it’s only mum and dad don’t you” (bitches). As for religion While my parents were not religious they certainly did not discourage us from checking it our so when all our friends were going to Fellowship we when to but mainly because there was free cake.

Let me tell you it did not last long. Being raised to be critical thinkers we would ask a lot of Questions and after a short time were politely asked not to attend any more.

I think the billboard is great and wish people would make the census with what they believe instead of what they were raised as. After the Fellowship experience i remember being forced into religious instruction in the state school system because at the time of enrolment. you only had a choice of Catholic, C of E or Other. I put Atheist but the school would not accept this and I was thrown in with the C of E kids.

People blindly putting the religion they were raised in regardless of if they actually believe the fairy tales is the reason the religious right have so much power and the reason an Atheist Prime Minister is willing to spend millions of dollars putting chaplains into schools

jf says:

07:23pm | 15/06/11

“And now some smarmy, pious little bastard, won’t let the AFA put up a billboard that simply suggests that people with a brain fill in a census form honestly.”

The person that said “no” may well have been smarmy and pious. He may also have been little and quite possibly be a bastard. Personally, I reckon it is your typical pompous, self-important public servant luxuriating in his own power.

That said, it’s their sign and, more than anything else, I support their right to do whatever they fucking well like with it. Except, that is a, as it is a government agency, their reasons should be made public and if they are flawed, as I believe they are, then the jumped-up turd that made such a stupid decision should be fired.

Adam says:

03:36pm | 15/06/11

I think that summary is fairly accurate, from what I have read of these comments. Although, the flaw in that summary is that we don’t have “freedom of speech” or “freedom of expression” in Australia. Yes, we do have laws which in some cases protect those things, but we do not have any legal document which specifically protects more or less any rights.

But coming back to the original issue of the article: If the billboard just said something along the lines of “If you are not-religious, or are an atheist, please make sure you specify that in the upcoming census, so the government has an accurate picture of religious beliefs in Australia,” then there probably shouldn’t have been a problem with putting that message up. However, with the ambiguous wording of the current billboard, I can see why it may have been a problem.

As much as it is sometimes entertaining to read rants from both the theists and non-theists on The Punch, the bottom line is this: Does it really matter if you believe something, or don’t believe something, which is different to what I believe? At the end of the day, you will live your life the way you see it, and I will live my life the way I see it, and so long as we don’t do something to ‘get in the way’ of each other, we can live side-by-side just fine, thank-you.”

Bobster says:

04:22pm | 15/06/11

We have an implicit common law right to freedom of political speech, so that is perhaps relevant in some small way in this piece.

I tend to side with the atheists here though. Everytime they try to say anything the christians carry on like their throats have been cut.

They then tell us that no one ever listens to them and they’re perpetually being silenced, conveniently forgetting they have early morning television wrapped up most nights of the week, they get half of Sunday morning to sing at us on a taxpayer funded television, they get two weekends a year when every television station runs nothing but their rubbish (the music is truly dreadful - it should be banned for that reason alone), they have god knows how many radio stations and publications and they have their own healthcare and education systems.

And half of them are tax exempt.

For a group with all of that going for it, it’s a bit rich to accuse Richard Dawkins of oppressive behavior.

AdamC says:

05:00pm | 15/06/11

Er, Bobster, I think the argument ‘against the ads’ is pretty clear, viz

1. A government-owned railway company making the decision not to run an advertisement proposed by an atheist organisation - in the absence of any political pressure - is not a form of government censorship.
2. People putting a religion in the census that they identify with - even if they do not attend regular services - does not make the census inaccurate.
3. While not really relevant, given the ad is not actually being censored, encouraging people identify as non-religious in the census in order to reduce the supposed influence of religion on politics is clearly political.

Bobster says:

07:44pm | 15/06/11

1. Your our first point is utterly nonsensical. Just because the order didn’t come from the Premier’s office doesn’t mean there’s not an issue. I don’t quite understand how you can think an organisation owned by the public should have the right to make that call. I don’t think there’s any problem with my characterisation of that sides response.

2. It’s either disingenuous or foolhardy, depending on your standpoint, to let the argument be framed around “those who don’t attend a church service regularly” or similar. It’s misidentifying the issue.

Religion is the result cultural inheritance and there are reasonable grounds to believe many people identify in the census with a certain religion for cultural or familial reasons, even if they have never practiced, read or believed any of it. Church service/satanic ritual/light-saber duel attendance at any rate is therefore an inappropriate gauge.

Seeing as that leads automatically to an argument as to what constitutes membership of a given religion, you can say the census is unreliable or unclear at least but I think you can reasonably form the opinion that that constitutes inaccuracy.

3. As the above point says, the question as to how one decides which team pick is probably more of a philosophical one than a political one.

Now I understand there are a lot of people who seem to decide that any argument prosecuted by an atheist constitutes a political attack on the very heart of society, but that’s absolute bullshit.

Adam says:

03:41pm | 15/06/11

Actually, we are a secular country officially, Australia doesn’t have an official “national religion,” just like we have no official language (although the “national language” is often listed as English). Yes, Australia is majority Christian (as of the last census anyway), but that does not qualify us as a “Christian country.”

Bobster says:

04:56pm | 15/06/11

Look everyone, it’s an anarchist.

We’ve had plenty of fascists and socialists on the Punch but I think this is the first anarchist I’ve seen.

Who let you out of Reddit?

PW says:

12:05pm | 16/06/11

I think you’ll find that RailCorp sells the rights to place advertising on its billboards to a private company, quite probably with certain provisos attached.

Regardless of this, the suggestion that a private company may refuse advertising whereas a statutory corporation must accept it, no matter what the content, is novel to say the least.

Tedd says:

09:08pm | 15/06/11

None of the contemporary historians of the time - there were about 40 of them - recorded any such events. Those that did make reference to a Jesus were just repeating previous Christian teachings (principally Josephus & Tacitus) and doing so quite vaguely at that.

Bwian says:

10:45pm | 15/06/11

Raptured, by ‘of the time’, I presume you mean contemporary with Jesus - writing when Jesus was living?  Who are these ‘historians and reporters’?  Did they actually write about Jesus?  If so, you have made one of the most remarkable finds of Ancient Near East History - perhaps of all history, of all time. Please tell us who they were and when they were writing and when you will be releasing them to the public..

TheRaptured says:

11:22pm | 15/06/11

I guess Bwian & Teddy, (Bible Experts), every historian is wrong and vague according to your research in your interview’s with those historians 2000 years ago and present. For me I have faith in historian’s and Acheologist who are on my travel’s in Israel, Italy, France, Russia even Jordan to be telling the truth. All liars and are conspiring against you, a 2000 plan against Tedd and Bwian, I guess!

Chris L says:

12:45pm | 16/06/11

Raptured, are you sure those people you met were actually qualified historians? If there is any historical evidence of a roman historian, contemporary with Jesus as described in the bible and making mention of the miracles as described in the bible it would be a revolutionary discovery.