Gillard is doing it for all the unmarried barren atheists

Isabel says:

08:12am | 28/06/10

How can you be certain that he has not already been and was not noticed?

V I Lenin says:

08:46am | 28/06/10

Oh he’d be welcomed… right into the back of a rubber truck… where his ‘followers’ belong, especially the gun-tottin’ southern red-neck kind…

Voltaire says:

10:12am | 28/06/10

V I Lenin - how appropriate that you have named yourself after one of history’s worst tyrants. Your suggestion that all people who hold some beliefs with which you disagree should be imprisoned is straight out of Lenin’s book.

Your outdated, fascist ideas have been thoroughly discredited, and are rightly rejected by all democratic nations.

MondayPunch says:

10:18am | 28/06/10

Ah, Jesus hasn’t come back before because he hasn’t felt welcome because .... he is a ranga. (That and the fact that he can’t come back because when you die, you can’t come back to life).

TellTale says:

10:41am | 28/06/10

The story of the Second Coming was to engage those who thought “the Going” was confirmation he wasn’t a messiah, as messiahs weren’t mortal. The Second Coming was supposed to happen soon.

Anyway, the narrators failed to capture the post-Resurrection period, as they wrote nothing about that.

CSallen says:

10:49am | 28/06/10

maybe the Jews got it right after all and he just hasn’t come yet!

TellTale says:

11:08am | 28/06/10

CSallen, maybe it’s all fiction ... and mind-numbingly so.

V I Lenin says:

12:24pm | 28/06/10

@ Monday Punch: Jesus is only a ranga when depicted in western art… actually, being a 1st century Judean jew he would have looked, well… middle eastern. Just don’t tell Voltaire. He’s a little ‘touchy’ about the late JC.

Voltaire says:

01:11pm | 28/06/10

I couldn’t care less about the late JC.

But I am a bit touchy about tottalitarian-minded people who want to lock up others purely because of their beliefs. As I’ve said before, I might not not agree with what they think, but I’ll stand up for their right to think it.

V I Lenin says:

02:27pm | 28/06/10

@Voltaire,

the ‘back of a rubber truck’ was a reference to an insane asylum, not a prison, there frenchy. ‘Outdated, fascist ideas’ were the stock-in-trade of federal governments both here and in the US until quite recently, with complete complicity of the ‘christian right’. I support the ‘right’ of stupid people to believe whatever they like. I get a litttle frightened when it becomes the basis of US foreign policy in the Middle East.  It’s good to see you apply your literal mindedness to everything, not just your interpretation of the good lord’s scriptures.

Steve says:

02:36pm | 28/06/10

@Voltaire says

I couldn’t care less about the late JC.

But I am a bit touchy about tottalitarian-minded people who want to lock up others purely because of their beliefs. As I’ve said before, I might not not agree with what they think, but I’ll stand up for their right to think it.

Ditto Voltaire.

The Redman says:

08:33pm | 28/06/10

Voltaire said

“But I am a bit touchy about tottalitarian-minded people who want to lock up others purely because of their beliefs”

What rubbish. Some people sincerely believe it’s their right to molest children. Some that it is their right to beat the crap out of someone. People get locked up for their beliefs all the time. There is a group of people that truly believe that their god insists that they must kill and main those who do not recognise their god. And many of them are locked up at this moment. And I’m sure that Voltaire would not consider the US, Briton, France, Canada, Australia et al as totalitarian states.

Nash D says:

07:54am | 29/06/10

I’m speechless.  Why don’t we start loving each other.  Religion teaches nothing but empty lies and deceipt through power, money, greed, and don’t get me started on those little meeting they have to decide the pope ... and people rely on this business (yes business, money money money… just look closer).
I really hope Gillard is of the above opinions and will be in a position to change this country and instead of loving “god” we could love each other… sounds SO HARD, but really, it’s natural, a cat will lick another cat for no other reason but to clean and nurture… what a beautiful world!

Voltaire says:

08:34am | 29/06/10

Redman, nobody gets locked up in our countries for merely believing those things. They get locked up if they act on their beliefs and commit actual crimes.

Big, big difference.

blah says:

08:00am | 28/06/10

have you ever seen the (admitted terrible) movie Idiocacy? it shows what happens when your vision comes true.

Uncle Jim says:

08:11am | 28/06/10

People like Gillard are into taking more care of the kids already on the planet by trying to offer them a better education etc - we don’t have to pop out our own to play a meaningful role - eg - I’m the ‘cool’ gay uncle the troubled teenagers confide in - bail them out etc - breaks it to mum and dad gently - can admit to my own mistakes at the same age - offer a couch rather than drink drive home - etc - I am with the writer on this one - a lot to gained from her appointment in myriad ways.

PaulB says:

08:18am | 28/06/10

Best part is that after they get off the car bonnet and swear their infantile way through the delivery, we taxpayers pay them for their efforts!

V I Lenin says:

08:43am | 28/06/10

Yeah! Imagine if a federal government actually encouraged that… say with a $5000 ‘baby bonus’? You’d have an underclass of docile factory-fodder in no time!

Runs With Scissors says:

04:43pm | 28/06/10

The intelligent childless people are out working so we can support the charities that support the children of idiot parents. Like providing breakfast in schools so that the children can concentrate on learning. And to think that parents call us irresponsible.

Lorraine says:

05:15pm | 28/06/10

“get pregnant on a car bonnet”?  Are you suggesting that this is how virgin birth occurs. Toi the best of my knowledge there would have to be two people on the car bonnet for pregnancy to occur.
It just goes to show the complete lack of imagination or initiative of the men who are at the “root”( pardon the pun) of 15 year old pregnancies.

Kay says:

10:45pm | 28/06/10

Where I grew up, it was the fifteen year olds in the academic extension programs who were getting pregnant on car bonnets.

Jessica says:

06:20am | 29/06/10

Whether Carrie or Julia G intend to remain childless is too much information.  Their choice and they are welcome to keep it to themselves.  Who cares, there is every benefit in women who are not interested in children or who think they would make lousy mothers not having children in the first place.  Who really needs to hear about their decision over and over again, it is so damned boring.

Deliberately Barren Jezebel says:

08:11am | 29/06/10

JJJ, what sort of “encouragement” should the educated be given to “contribute to the future”?

I understand that there is an incentive for the “educated” who do wish to breed; it is called parenthood.

Having children is not the only way to contribute to the future. I think that I speak for many childfree people when I say it’s not as if I’m personally capable of making a contribution to society through my own hard work and creativity. I’m not taking the easy way out—imagine that!

annie says:

08:08am | 28/06/10

yes okay break the mould in middle ground i hope but unfortunatly she will be driven by the next election and direct instruction from the faceless men and unions who control the party

V I Lenin says:

08:40am | 28/06/10

@annie,

have you checked under your bed this morning? The ALP was started by trade unions, to represent them in the parliament. Since the 1890s it has evolved into a typical bourgeois-democratic party, which is governed by it’s democratically elected federal executive.  On the other hand the"Liberal” party is completely dominated by any leader who can lead it to office, just as Menzies intended it. That’s largely why they lost the last election: simple cowardice in the face of Howard’s obstinance.

WayneT says:

12:33pm | 28/06/10

She will never live up to expectation as long as her party can remove her if she doesn’t tow the party line.  Forget about anybody ever doing the right thing especially if it is not in the parties interest.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

01:01pm | 28/06/10

V I Lenin :  The leadership of the A.L.P. is owned and controlled by the Unions , the Labor M.P.‘s are also beholden to the unions , nothing is democratic in that setup as was clearly demonstrated last week.
Your assertion that a Liberal leader totally dominates the party is simply hogwash . If he performs well he remains as leader if not the party,s democratic processes are put in train.
If an A.L.P. leader falters he is sacked from a back room in Sussex St.and the faceless men appoint a new leader.

Heath Karl says:

01:14pm | 28/06/10

@ Lenin.

Its pure hypocricy of the left to hold the ALP to the standard to which it aids its bourgeois interests, and yet the bane of enlightened workers, the thumb which keeps their revolutionary instincts in check -Trade Unions, get off unscathed.

Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

01:45pm | 28/06/10

Will Red Julia reinvoke Labor’s previous policy on immigration known as the “White Australia Policy” that was a central plak of their policies for many years & was wound back by the Liberals. (White Australia Policy introduced by Billy Hughes, Labor)

Ben81 says:

02:17pm | 28/06/10

V I Lenin - Unions as a whole don’t even represent a quarter of all workers, let alone the retired and unemployed, and that’s before you even consider which particular unions are pulling the strings in whatever power struggle is unfolding in the Labor party on any particular day.  Why should they have so much power?

Steely Dan says:

02:32pm | 28/06/10

@ Robert Smissen Rural SA

“Will Red Julia reinvoke Labor’s previous policy on immigration known as the “White Australia Policy”
Why would she, Robert?  When she joined the ALP the last remaining remnants of the policy were being purged from legislation with the support of both the ALP and the conservatives.

V I Lenin says:

02:46pm | 28/06/10

@Ben81,

after taking all the self loading firearms from the civilian population, what was the next thing the Howard government did? (You’re probably too young to remember). They began their long campaign to destroy the political power of organised labour in this country by setting out to destroy the trade union movement. That’s why union membership declined. The final expression of their lust for untrammelled industrial power was ‘work choices’. If you work in this country, the wages and conditions you recieve were most likely negotiated on your behalf long ago by the collective action of ordinary wage earners.

Ben81 says:

01:41am | 29/06/10

No V I Lenin, I may have been an ignorant teenager at the time but it’s hard to forget the Port Arthur massacre and resulting knee jerk gun laws, which I don’t agree with either.

And of course you’re blaming anyone but the unions themselves for their own declining membership, nobody was ever banned from joining.  One reason I wouldn’t join one now is that I don’t want to donate money towards tens of millions of dollars in political advertising that I don’t agree with.
And I still don’t see anything justifying their power over the government.

V I Lenin says:

05:25pm | 30/06/10

@Ben81,

people weren’t ‘baned from joining’ unions, that’s technically correct. There are plenty of other ways to curtail unions legal rights, ‘legally’ like banning strikes and secondary boycotts. You’ll never have to imagine what working conditions in this country would be like without unions: they’ve already fought for wages, conditions, awards etc, etc, decades before you were even born. Why should non-union members receive the benefits and conditions unionist have fought for? You might do well to realise this ‘egalitarian’ society you live in is historically based on the exploitation of cheap or free land by free labour (convicts) at the expense of the indigenous population, under the auspices of a colonial administration. Our far from egalitarian society need unions and the like to correct some of the more obvious power imbalances…she’ll be right mate, indeed

Just Sayin' says:

05:52pm | 30/06/10

@VI Lenin

“They began their long campaign to destroy the political power of organised labour in this country by setting out to destroy the trade union movement. That’s why union membership declined.”

That can’t be right.  Surely “The workers, united, can never be defeated!”?

Just Sayin' says:

06:07pm | 30/06/10

VI Lenin

Oh, and union membership has been in constant decline in Australia since the late 70’s.  Mighty impressive of Howard to have such an effect long before he was Prime Minister.  Oh, and union membership has been incline in most wealthy nations for 20 years.  Again, I’m very impressed at Howard’s level of influence. 

Under Menzies, another evil anti-labour Prime Minister from the Liberal Party, the level of union membership in Australia rose to its highest level ever.  The next peak was around 1979, four years into Fraser’s Prime Ministership, after having declined significantly under Whitlam - hero of the Labor/labour party.

It’s a shame the facts got in the way of your cute little story.

V I Lenin says:

08:24pm | 30/06/10

@Just Sayin’,

union membership declined because the huge wage/condition/entitlements battle had already been won and extended through the entire industrial relations system, via awards. ‘Scabs’ will take the conditions etc without making any valuable contribution to their maintenance. Union membership declines during Labor governments because industrial relations are handled reasonably and respectfully. Conversely membership increases during ‘Liberal’ goverments for exactly the opposite reason. Your ‘argument’ makes a significant contribution to my ‘cute little story’... thanks! Have you been to one of your think-tank’s ‘a-bad-stradgedy-is-better-than-no-stradgedy’ meetings?

Ben81 says:

09:30pm | 30/06/10

V I Lenin - I’m not saying I don’t appreciate the role of unions, I’m talking about their huge political power.  I already told you one reason why I won’t join one today even though those in the past have done a lot of good work.

Northern Steve says:

01:02am | 01/07/10

V I Lenin, can you try and stay on track?  Your constantly shifting arguments are making me dizzy.

To summarise - Past efforts by the unions do not require that we maintain them as a societal force as a memorial.  If they fulfilled a broad, useful role in society today, they would not be in decline.  As a union member myself (yes), I’ve suffered more from my Labor state government removing industrial rights than any Coalition government.

Just Sayin' says:

12:24pm | 02/07/10

So, in summary, union membership does up under the libs because the libs are anti-worker.  It also goes up under the libs because the libs are anti-worker.  It usually declines, but sometimes increases under labor because they are pro-worker.

You’re completely right VI Lenin, I’m amazed I couldn;t see the truth a little earlier.

And actually, I got the figures figures from a lefty academic, who also pointed out the real wages declined under the accord in the 80’s.  Presumably becuase hawkie was pro-worker and labor helps out the workers by cutting their wages.

Just Sayin' says:

02:10pm | 02/07/10

Sorry, bad typos in the previous post. First paragraph should have read:

“So, in summary, union membership GOES up under the libs because the libs are anti-worker.  It also goes DOWN under the libs because the libs are anti-worker.  It usually declines, but sometimes increases under labor because they are pro-worker.”

joe says:

02:38pm | 28/06/10

So Luz where you able to really have it all like young girls are promised now? Was giving so much priority to your job and ultimately your boss really worth it in the end?

Bob says:

03:21pm | 28/06/10

@ Joe,

Typical comment from someone who thinks breeding makes them special. Seven billion other people did it, what makes you think it validates your existence?

Believe it or not, some people live very happy lives without ever experiencing the mundane miracle of childbirth. We don’t regret our decisions either.

But I wouldn’t want to trample on your rights. Please, feel free to continue patronising people. One day we might come around to your point of view if you keep at it long enough.

joe says:

05:33pm | 28/06/10

@Bob I am just asking Luz if it was all worth it to see Julia PM and if she has any regrets. I think from your protest I may have hit a raw nerve.

KH says:

08:50am | 28/06/10

I’m really sick of that ridiculous argument.  There are more than 7 billion people in the world. There is no danger there won’t be anyone around.

BobM says:

09:32am | 28/06/10

@KH - yeah but will any one of them want to wipe your 95 year old bottom….?

Barney says:

09:39am | 28/06/10

Job creation - some of them will have to become carers, some will want to become carers, and by that stage the government may offer an industry ‘area of need’ type scheme to get more people to be carers.

Steely Dan says:

09:40am | 28/06/10

Sure Wayne, we’re in real danger of having a completely de-populated planet.

JC says:

12:40pm | 28/06/10

what a crock. you walk into any aged care facility in this country and the people that are ” changing nappies” all foreigners, because the precious little aussie kids feel they are above all that.
The kids produced by Australian families are more than happy for our education system, but rather than hanging around they take off overseas and pay all their future tax revenue to either the UK or USA governments. we never get our investment back.
Your whole argument is ridiculous

KH says:

12:58pm | 28/06/10

Does the word ‘immigration’ mean anything to you?!  In fact, I have a friend who works in aged care, and already the majority of staff are recent immigrants in her workplace….....that is likely to be the case in the future.  Besides, what makes you think I want to be a vegetable in a nursing home?  I also believe in euthanasia - I could think of nothing worse than ending up like that - I will prefer to take my own way…......

Amelia says:

04:33pm | 28/06/10

People should be respected for their choice to be childless. People should also be respected for taking on the job of raising children. Don’t make it a competition - each of these groups contributes important things to society, and neither goup is better or worse than the other for their choices.

Runs With Scissors says:

04:47pm | 28/06/10

Wayne1966, that 95 year old will be keeping your kids in a job.

Star says:

04:52pm | 28/06/10

Yes, Runs with Scissors, ‘cause 95 year olds will be such an endangered species - not like we are experiencing an ageing population at all.

Lee says:

07:38pm | 28/06/10

If fertility doesn’t have a sustained increase, Australia’s population will eventually begin a spiral into depopulation. Furthermore, the problem does not lie in the sheer number of inhabitants, it is the age composition of the population, a huge number of retirees compared to younger cohorts. Unfortunately, immigration only has a limited effect, more and more immigrants are needed each year to maintain the age structure of the population.

Andrew says:

08:30pm | 28/06/10

I’m also very very sick of the ‘aging population’ argument.  It’s a giant pyramid scheme, and anybody with a grasp of the insanely obvious and a year 2 level of maths should spot that in an INSTANT.  The current number of elderly is what you’d expect from the birth rates we had in the 20s-50s Yes, when the population was MUCH smaller than it was now, and the number of children being born was also MUCH smaller.  So if we need more and more workers to support that (relatively) small number of elderly, how many times MORE will we need to support the stupidly large number of elderly we’ll have when the current bunch of kids get old (believe it or not, they tend to do that).  Shall we then increase immigration and birth rates again so that our new population of 200 million can support the next generation of elderly?!  It’s time for sustainability in population, not endless growth.  If we can’t manage our finances such that the current population level can look after the current elderly, the spiral will continue infinitely.  And along with it the corresponding increase in infrastructure spending, housing, education, health, etc, that goes with a growing population.  Perhaps if we concentrated on STABILITY, the reduced levels of spending in those areas would actually pay for the “aging population” myth that we’ve been fed for oh so long..

JC says:

02:51am | 29/06/10

Andrew - great comment. Totally agree with you. A pyramid scheme is the perfect way to describe the madness of having a baby boom to address ageing population. The previous baby boom is what caused the problem in the first place! We need to find a more sensible approach to economics than an endless cycle of mass overpopulation. I plan to do my bit and not have any kids. Mercifully I’ve been surprised to have met many women my age who sincerely hold the same view. Not all of us see breeding as the purpose of our existence. BTW, I don’t mean this is as direspect to those for whom it is a big deal. But for some of us it isn’t and this should be recognised.

Deliberately Barren Jezebel says:

08:26am | 29/06/10

Yes Andrew, that is a great comment. I am getting mightily tired of the child-makers’ faux-altruism presented in various permutations of “my kids will be the taxpaying lawyers, doctors and nurses in the future who will wipe your ar$e in the oldies’ home” schtick. The child-makers did not have children with mine or the nation’s future in mind. S’ok Wayne. Rst assured, I’m happy for your children not to support me in my dotage. I’ll look after myself thanks. I know it’s been keeping you up nights, but now you can get a good night’s sleep.

Andrew is right. Insisting that we need to breed is a giant paramid scheme that will only esacerbate future demographic imbalances. The ageing population—if that is a bad thing at all—is a result of the demograophic blip of the baby boom and longevity and not just because birth rates have fallen.

The idea that there is an ageing population crisis or that we won’t have anybody to look after us in our old age is a lie. The population has been ageing since the end of WWII.

Remember the predicted crisis in the 1960’s when everybody said in 2008, life expectancy will be 82 years (it was 70, then) and 20% of the population will be over 60 (it was 8% then) and that means that there will be nobody left to work and nobody left to look after us when we are old?

If you don’t remember, it is because it didn’t happen. There are probably some changes that have to be made, such as a higher age for pensions to kick in and more flexible working conditions so that older people will want to stay in the workforce, but those changes are nothing compared to the changes we are going to need to feed a world with 9.5 billion people and very little cheap fossil fuels.

There are many, many more difficult problems to solve than an ageing population and increasing the population makes most of those problems harder to solve.

Sebastyne says:

10:29am | 29/06/10

Great Comment Andrew, this is what I’ve been thinking a lot about, that do people ACTUALLY think that fixing baby boom effects with another baby boom is a fantastic idea. XD

If I’ll need a caretaker when I get old, I’ll import someone who has 10 siblings in a unit of 20 square meters and who’s parents died of AIDS at the age of 30 from an over populated country to do my ass wiping. She’ll be grateful and not complain about having to take care of someone and your precious kids, Carrie, don’t have to get their hands dirty. Besides, what makes you think your kids will be wiping your ass when you get old? Just because you’re their mommy makes no guarantees you won’t need to import someone from indochina to take care of you.

Jack says:

09:05am | 28/06/10

Those that expect a massive welfare hand-out…. same as Howard before him.

We need to do away with “Baby Bonus”, “Cash Hand Outs” and “Firs Home Buyer” payments and make people work for their money.

LifeofY says:

10:07am | 28/06/10

Hold on a minute there @Jack,
I’ll take your point with the baby related payments but the First Home Buyers made it possible for me at 26 to buy my first home in the outer suburbs of Sydney. I do work hard and in the Sydney property market, Icould have worked hard at 12 jobs all day everyday and never been able to afford to buy my first house.
Also take into account I’m a single household and I would have retired before buying a house.
I give thanks for the first home buyers!!!!

David says:

01:49pm | 28/06/10

LifeofY - you seem to completely misunderstand the impact First Home Buyer grants actually have in the market. The grant serves to only inflate low level property values and improve buyer confidence in their capacity to make the purchase. If you had the capacity to borrow the remainder of the value of the property (with interest) from the grant and possibly some savings of your own then had the grant never been implemented you possibly would have just needed to save for a few more months (maybe a year).

The First home Buyers grant is social welfare of an indirect kind, sending the money to relatively low socioeconomic property owners and relatively high socioeconomic propoerty investors.

Shifter says:

02:34pm | 28/06/10

@LifeofY - you’re saying you couldn’t have sacrificed a few pints in the pub to save up 14 grand?

I’m saying the grant inflated home prices by roughly the same amount as sellers took the money and ran. If you didn’t get in at the start of the grant, you’re on the outer as it offers you very little comparatively now.

Peter says:

09:56pm | 29/06/10

First home buyers bonus works like this.. The Government gives you $10K to buy a house and takes $25k in stamp duty.. Sounds like a good business to me…

Roja says:

12:28pm | 28/06/10

Errr, Clive the deputy was loyal to the party and the people first, not the person.  Police are a State function (where I presume you mean ‘do away with’).  Then your rant seemingly disintegrates into meaningless drivel.  Can I perhaps get the English version? Or has the declining standards in use of the English language been implemented retrospectively?

Old Clive says:

12:34pm | 28/06/10

I appreciate your comment on,“meaningless drivel”, I have heard a lot of it over the last 21/2 years from the highest leaders in this country and no doubt will hear a lot more in the next couple of months.

Observer says:

09:34am | 29/06/10

“Lets do [away] with the police service as well, if you decide to do away with all the standards…”

Strawman = meaningless drivel, Clive.

bec says:

11:41am | 28/06/10

Hey, Gabrielle, I’m the person who has to look after *your* children because you do such a piss-poor job of it. It’s always the sanctimonious ones who raise the worst kids.

You might pop them out, but I’m the one doing the ground-work of ensuring that they’re actually passable human beings who contribute more than bodily fluids.

BT says:

01:55pm | 28/06/10

A predictable middle class response.

Juju says:

02:32pm | 28/06/10

@bec - well, if you’re a teacher you should be ashamed of yourself it that’s your attitiude to the children you profess to look after. Passable human beings - in whose eyes? The leftie Teachers Federation?

joe says:

02:34pm | 28/06/10

@Bec it is feminists like Gillard who want all the childcare for their feminist mates so others can look after their children while they can live the feminist dream. The real sanctimonious ones do their best to look after their own children and not leave to people like you.

Runs With Scissors says:

04:53pm | 28/06/10

Gabrielle, newsflash for you hon. Childless people pay taxes too. We contribute at a higher rate than you. We don’t have any offspring that are a drain on the public purse. We are entitled to benefit from public services too.

DJ says:

05:25pm | 28/06/10

isn’t that what our super is for so we don’t get government handouts and can live comfortably? just asking

Steely Dan says:

09:48am | 28/06/10

@ Joan
“Julie Gillard is more blokie than the average bloke - was there ever a man as PM who was not married and had not fathered children?”
How does that maker her “blokie”?  What are you trying to say?

“The woman with the red hair and no heart - who said to Kerry O`Brien ~ `A great day for redheads` not a mention of a ` Great day for democracy`”
Rudd was ousted democratically, Joan.  Gillard clearly had the numbers, so Rudd bowed out before he was booted.  We don’t directly elect the PM or Opposition leader.  Never have.
And how is being an agnostic atheist going to make her a drawcard for Christian, Jewish and Muslim voters?

Phil says:

10:08am | 28/06/10

Joan exactly. Totally agree with your point.

As I have said, her views will pick up some votes, not that Carrie and her bra burning feminists would vote conservative anyway, but for many strong believers be they Christina Jewish or Muslim it will put them against her on that point alone.

SC says:

12:39pm | 30/06/10

For your information Joan there have been 4 male PMs who did not have children, though, to my knowledge, none who were not married.

Yadeh says:

06:04pm | 28/06/10

But jojo, the work/family policies in Australia HAVE allowed women to have both, that’s why they are important.  Men too now have the opportunity to be active in both work and family commitments.  I was raised by a single father so I know how great and hands-on dads can be - having two loving and involved parents can only be a plus.  (I support same sex parents for the same reason.)  Not to mention with the skills shortages in Australia our communities need many of those mums to return to work.

I support people’s choice not to have children, my two closest Aussie friends and my old boss/mentor chose that route.  However it needs to be recognised that unless you are a forest dwelling hermit, you are part of a community and the primary imperative of every community is survival i.e. procreation and the subsequent raising of those children. (Please people, no more rubbish about there being so much procreation going on that it’s no longer special or needs community support - having children is not a fashion statement, we are what evolution has made us and without procreation our species will cease to exist!)  Raising children is expensive and impacts upon the earning potential of parents, therefore it is best for the community as a whole to partially share those costs so families can have a standard of living at least close to those without children.

Deliberately childless people needn’t worry too much.  No matter the official policy, there will always be a way for people without family commitments (or who have a partner who takes on the lion’s share) to get ahead in their career - they simply have so much more left of themselves to give and employers will always want that extra dedication.

Sorry jojo, only the first sentence was in response to you…

D says:

07:43am | 29/06/10

“procreation going on that it’s no longer special or needs community support - having children is not a fashion statement”

Yadeh, just because having childen is expensive does not mean that it should attract a subsidy in the form of cash handouts. Government entitlement that involves a private benefit accrued by some people means a cross-subsidy from those not receiving the benefit. OK, so ear, we have all sorts of things that involve this type of cross-subsidy. But most of them can be rationalised on the basis of social risk bearing, e.g., we do not know who will be disabled or unemployed, so we agree before the fact to a payment from the winner to the loser in the game of life. But the decision to have children is under the control of parents and cannot be characterised as a clear-cut losing proposition in any case. So on a social contracting basis, there is no rationale for a cross-subsidy.

Indeed, there is a curious contradiction in your comments. If having children is ” what evolution has made us ” then, as a natural process, it should not need to be incentivised with cash.

“Raising children is expensive and impacts upon the earning potential of parents…”

Having children *IS* a choice. Children are a private benefit that are largely enjoyed by their parents. This means that there are opportunity costs just like any other decision.

“...therefore it is best for the community as a whole to partially share those costs”

Yes, there are also some social benefits from children being produced. The challenge is trying to determine the level of those social benefits.  Parents should be able to access social services aimed at making them better parents such as ante-ntal care, obstetrics, schools and health care for kids. I have no argument that social wealth is of long term benefit to me and society. 

However without a hint of irony, it seems the voices of those who argue against the notion that children are a private good and insist they are social goods are, incongruously,  supporters of private welfare – in the form of taxpayer-funded cash handouts —for parents and they seem to revile social support such as government supplied services for mothers and their children.

“... so families can have a standard of living at least close to those without children.”

Therein lies the problem. Modern parents are having children as a “fashion statement”. It seems that modern parents want their baby-as-designer-handbag and **the same** consumption levels as DINKS (not even “close to”) and someone—anyone but them—must subsidise it. 

Policy makers seem to insinuate that upholding the private wealth of parents is deserved as a matter of course, this can be achieved through compensatory income distribution and it is morally acceptable to penalise the childless to achieve this.

James1 says:

11:28am | 29/06/10

If you feel that is unfair D, you could always have kids…

Joan says:

08:38am | 28/06/10

Add to that - disloyal, treacherous and the dirtiest player in politics today. the woman who said it was a `Great day for redheads` - as she chucked democracy out the door .  I hope Kirner``s large pocka-dot jacket Gillard was seen wearing on Sunday show is a portent of her demise at the poll

marley says:

08:49am | 28/06/10

@Joan - mmm.  Nothing in Westminster democracy says you can’t change PM’s midstream.  Happened to Maggie Thatcher, and, lest we forget, to Bob Hawke as well.  And NSW has had a revolving door of Premiers, hasn’t it?  Why is it only disloyal, treacherous and a threat to democracy when it’s a woman doing the chucking?

KH says:

08:56am | 28/06/10

I will remind you, Joan,  of all the shafting that goes on in the Coalition - you don’t seriously think Tony Abbott is there because he is a great guy who deserved the job?! What planet do you live on?  Turnbull was stabbed in the back just as much as Rudd.  Don’t get me started on the whole Costello saga.  Politics is a dirty game, whoever is playing it.  You are kidding yourself if you think this was out of the ordinary.

John-Paul I says:

09:08am | 28/06/10

@Joan… we live in a stable, two-party western democracy which is a (failed) attempt to reconcile the ‘british’ westminster system and the american federal system… the leader of the parliamentary paryt in government is known as the ‘prime minister’. They are elected by the party, not by the people. In both parties the parliamentary leader is subject to change without notice. It’s just that the “Liberals” are always too gutless to do it in government. I guess the shadow minister for super-sizing will be their next leader when that jug-eared catholic idiot leads the to dessimation at he next federal poll.

Joan says:

09:44am | 28/06/10

KH - same with blokes who kick out PM midstream - the peasants vote for the leader not the party as Labor would have believe - everyone is celebrating rise in polls with Gillard as leader -  the party has not changed - leader has so pfft to Wesminster- the peasants vote for leader in Australia- democracy as seen by Australians- snubbed by Gillard and rats. Opposition is the place to sort out party leadership - not when in government. PM elected by the people. Pfft to Westminster and the rats that disposed of Rudd.This is historic and not just because Gillard is a redheaded woman and a cold hearted, dirty ,treacherous player

Steely Dan says:

09:54am | 28/06/10

@ Joan

“Add to that - disloyal, treacherous and the dirtiest player in politics today.”
If you say that because she took the party leadership - how did she beat Tony Abbott to that title? Shouldn’t it be a tie? And what about Turnbull? Hockey? They all challenged their leader in recent years…

Ras Putin says:

10:59am | 28/06/10

Dear old girl—-I like you;a very succinct blog! A very good blog..              Joan,i would have thought that what happened was democracy in action,try not to be so rusted on..I am sure ms.Gillard has some good points and will do her best for us all..

OldGirl says:

11:11am | 28/06/10

Joan I hope your not saying I am disloyal, that would be ludicrous since you don’t even know me. If your refering to Julia Gillard, well thats the Wesminster system for you. The Libs have overturned a few leaders in their day as well. I gather your a Liberal, with no real concern for Kevin Rudd, your just point scoring!!

marley says:

01:15pm | 28/06/10

@Joan - you say “the peasants vote for the leader not the party as Labor would have believe.”  Well, here is one peasant who votes for the party, not the leader - possibly that’s because I grew up in a Westminster-type democracy (not this one) and understand what it is. 

The Prime Minister is just that - the first amongst a group of ministers.  He is not the president, he leads at the will of his party, the caucus and his cabinet.  And if he loses their trust -pffft - he’s gone.  But the party survives in power, because we the people voted for it, and for its policies, not for the PM.

Richard says:

02:50pm | 28/06/10

Joan is completely correct. The Leader of the Party that wins the election has a mandate to rule! It was Kevin07’s face on tv asking us to vote labor, not julia gillard, not the local member. Now obviously, the party that has lost the election has also lost its mandate to rule, so the prudent course of action for them is to make some changes while in opposition so as to present a different platform to the voters in the next election. Kevin Rudd singlehandedly won the election for Labor last time, what a nice way to say thankyou by stabbing him in the back.

A ruling government is completely different to an opposition, you cannot compare them when it comes to leadership changes.

Runs With Scissors says:

04:58pm | 28/06/10

@Joan - I think a government has a responsibility to replace a leader who isn’t doing the job.

Chris L says:

06:02pm | 28/06/10

Strueth Richard, didn’t you just read the posts about Australia using a Westminster form of government? The party leader has no such “mandate to rule”. Funny how us peasants understand government better than the born-to-rule side.

Laine says:

06:11pm | 28/06/10

Joan and Richard: Anyone who votes for a leader instead of a party is a fool who clearly knows little about politics.  Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of them in this country!

Richard says:

06:40pm | 28/06/10

Don’t be deliberately obtuse Laine: every reasonable voter knows that the character of the leader shapes the policies and platforms of the party they lead. Why do you think Kevin07 was on tv so much reassuring us he was an ‘economic conservative’? why do you think Labor ran a scare campaign warning us that ‘a vote for Howard is a vote for Costello’? Clearly the particular person who will carry the title of ‘Prime Minister’ is a relevant factor every rational citizen to consider in deciding how to vote. You can’t try to label normal people as fools over this issue without seeming to be one yourself!

Joan says:

10:17pm | 28/06/10

To all of those that say we vote for the party lets have faceless voting forms and faceless PMs- then all Australians will know they are voting for the party- no faces on placards, TV and all advertising. So please lets see Julie and all pollies with bags over their heads - bags marked Labor Or Lib whatever-  and the voters will know its the party they are voting for not the person. .

Peter says:

04:03pm | 29/06/10

I have never know anybody to vote for their local representative. Most Australians wouldn’t even know who they are. We run presidential type election campaigns here, so all this talk about our westminster system of government is irrelevant…

The people chose Kevin 747 not Gillard. She is right to call an election early, but she should give us 3 or 4 months to have a look at what she has to offer…

Chris L says:

10:28pm | 29/06/10

I don’t even know why the Lib supporters are upset anyway. It wasn’t long ago they were supporting the effort to try and oust Rudd and Swann with a fraudulent email. Now Rudd has been removed by legitimate means they think it’s not cricket.

Sean says:

08:36am | 28/06/10

Well said Sally

KH says:

09:01am | 28/06/10

What you think I reject religion as being ridiculous because I want to stand out? Be controversial? Ha! I don’t think so.
Whats the matter Sally? Feeling a little threatened?

Sally says:

09:28am | 28/06/10

@KH,
No perceived threat here.  In relation to Carrie’s body of work, I detect consistancy of theme.  You pulled just religion out KH.  If you also tick ALL the other boxes (proudly childless, social commentator, iconoclast, dinner party doiyen, social darling, philosopher, writer and non-mortgage holder) you become an individual.  Good work, but not there yet.  To fully qualify you must then be smug ( if only the pig-ignorant masses were as educated, informed, reflective and unique as myself) the world would be a better place.  Then, and only then, are you entitled to perceived “soul sister” status.

Andrew says:

11:26am | 28/06/10

Sally, if I wasn’t married I’d propose to you today!

Freda says:

05:07pm | 28/06/10

Yeah, there is a bit of smugness involved in being a self-appointed member of the intelligentsia.

Question 1, where the heck did the Mad Monk get his smugness from?

Question 2,  perhaps the masses are pig-ignorant because they’ve been brain washed by Mad Monk et al into having babies and not thinking constructively about social issues, i.e. become as much of brain dead poll loving reactionaries as the latte left and the caviar right?

Question 3,  in the event the rhetoric of question 2 is correct, perhaps us childless atheists (smug though we may be) are doing the pig ignorant masses a favour by coming out and getting all cranky over your narrow minded conservative, mud covered hinds?

Fred De Nile says:

09:22am | 28/06/10

Surely you’re aware that ‘family values’ in this country and particualrly the US is shorthand for ‘our right-wing, christian values’? You know, the sort of ‘values’ that developmentally handicapped chap from the ‘Family First’ party espouses?

Roja says:

12:37pm | 28/06/10

I think both groups of women, loving mothers and dedicated career women, contribute to a wonderful well balanced society.

Without parents, we have no children and no future.  Without dedicated career professionals, those children may not have a world worth living in. 

Balance is always the key, so both sides can and should be proud of their contribution.

Daniel says:

01:38pm | 28/06/10

The only problem with “family values” is that is hate speech. Family values stands for banning abortions, right wing Christian ideals and the denial of gay marriage.

Families come in all types, one mum, two mums , two dads. Yet “family values” seeks to discriminate against anyone who doesn’t fit the norm of the nuclear family. I would like to think that we are living in a liberal progressive society but sadly our key leaders have previously been pandering to the Christian right for the sake of votes. It is comforting to know that our Prime Minister is sensible enough not to follow some 2000 year old superstition.

Rosie says:

03:00pm | 28/06/10

I agree we all have different family values and mine I like and will stick to it. It maybe be boring and old fashion but it keeps me grounded and at peace in my own skin.

I believe my strong family values was inherited from my parents and this is the legacy that I was blessed with. This legacy passed down generation after generation forms the basis of a very strong family unit that makes it possible to rely on each other for support. We do not expect any government handouts and this is only possible because we live in a land of opportunties. Our expectations of any government is to take the tax we pay and do the job they were elected to do in making this a sanctuary for the people of this nation and generations to come.

I don’t make any judgement on anyone, I don’t like what was done to Rudd even though I am a staunch Liberal voter. In life I find a balance in everything by entrenching all that I think is right and good and at the same time am very aware of everything that I feel will give me a sense of uncomfortableness in society. I may not agree on many things but too remain sane in the 21st century I have learnt to accept. I have friends and relatives that are gay, unmarried mums, those that have had abortions, christians, aethists, marriage breakers etc but hey I have accepted the fact that I am living in the 21 century!

Runs With Scissors says:

05:06pm | 28/06/10

Rosie, well it’s refreshing to know that someone is concerned about the values passed on to their children. Unfortunately a growing number of parents do not share your view.

Kay says:

10:57pm | 28/06/10

How can you assume Julia Gillard does not share your family values?  She could spend every weekend watching her nieces and nephews at their sporting matches or at her great aunt’s nursing home.  Just because she hasn’t started a family of her own, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a family!

Mayday says:

11:51am | 28/06/10

Yes the conservatives will grumble at the unmarried pair, the Liberals won’t think twice about it because as you state Liberals want to make their own decision individually and its Julia and Tim’s business.
The Collective belongs squarely with the Left and I don’t think they will care less either about the PM’s living arrangements.
Please try to be accurate and factual when bantering around factions and political thinking.

T.Chong says:

08:47am | 28/06/10

Yur correct Ads.Another good reason we must keep that Abbott away from the Lodge.

KH says:

08:52am | 28/06/10

How do you know it is the opposite? You have spoken to all 21 million plus of us have you?  I have a lot of friends, most of whom, like me, are atheists.  I also know quite a few women, including myself, who don’t have children (I’m over 40, so its pretty much cast in stone now).
Frankly I would prefer a non-religious person as a PM - they are less likely to be guided by superstitious beliefs.

V I Lenin says:

09:13am | 28/06/10

She seems to share a belief with the 92% of Australians who stay well away from church every sunday. Perhaps she’s not so out in the cold?

Ads. says:

09:41am | 28/06/10

gee KH i didnt have time to speak to all 21 million of us. But the last census said only 16% of australians have no religion and 49% of us are couples with kids. Even if the data is slightly flawed im sure its a better sample than your polling of your friends.

Steely Dan says:

10:00am | 28/06/10

I don’t care what the beliefs of the PM are, whether Gillard stays or Abbott comes in.  Just as long as they’re secular.  I can’t see Julia trying to impose atheism on anyone, but I can see Tony crossing the line.

JC says:

06:08pm | 28/06/10

What the hell makes you think you can speak for the majority? how dare you.
Hopefully Julia Gillard will manage to undo the damage that John Howard did this country by exulting the nuclear family to godlike status and making everyone else feel like chopped liver.
The fact is that everyone is making their own way now, whether it be the single life, nuclear family, single parent family, two mums, two dads whatever.
The only people that dont be able to accept how the majority think are small minded freaks like you.
Do not ever assume you can speak for me again.

Sandra says:

08:42am | 29/06/10

Well said JH. But it also applies to Rudd (and I am an ALP voter who volunteered at a booth in his electorate!). The oft-repeated “working families” and the associated cash handouts has marginalised the people who are not making small children and has created a whopping sense of smug entitlement among those who do.

P T Barnum says:

09:37am | 28/06/10

Actually, the ‘force out the opposing worldview represented in politics’ is the approach adopted by the ‘Liberal” government under John Howard, not the arguement advocated by Ms. Miller. You seem to be simply projecting your neo-conservative weltanshauung onto her. I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but if you think the ‘nuclear family’ is the basis of ‘society’ you’re a fool. How long do you think a single family unit would last in the wild? That’s right: mum and the kid would be eaten the first time dad went back out hunting… the basis of society is small tribal groups, not single family units. We are a social animal by necessity, not by choice. It’s not ‘us’ against the world, as John Howard’s siblings report his family’s ethos to have been in childhood; it’s collective human activity for the survival of all, or at least as many as possible.

tell it like it is says:

10:00am | 28/06/10

Yeah, I don’t deny that the worldviews collide and try to force out each other. I admit that mine leaves no space for hers from where i’m standing - my world view doesn’t agree with Ms Miller’s, and i’m happy to admit that there is a real sense in which I don’t tolerate it, and will fight against it (while respecting that she is her own person and must hold to her own convictions as she thinks best - I can’t and wouldn’t change it on a personal level, that’s her business).
My point was that her worldview is just as intolerent. She’s obviously got no sympathy to more conservative worldviews, and indeed is quite vocal in fighting them. Let’s not get around calling for ‘tolerance’ as Miller seems to be proposing when it’s not true. When truth claims collide, one must be true, one must be false, and they don’t leave any space for each other as ideas. In calling for a democratic and tolerent society, her worldview is extremely hostile in intolerent of worldviews which have a different perspective on issues (such as those she is so vehemently rejecting).

On a side, that’s one of the great jokes about democracy, it’s all about tolerance, but there’s no tolerance for anyone who doesn’t ascribe to the same perceptions as ‘us’. Everyone must become a democracy!

You’ve misinterpreted what I said on the family bit. I said civil society is the basic ‘social’ unit. You said: “How long do you think a single family unit would last in the wild?” Well if it was in the wild, it would no longer be in society or ‘social’ would it? - which was a necessary ingrediant to my position. I wasn’t denying collective human activity, I was including it by contextualising the family as the basic ‘social’ unit. - the basic unit of collective social human activity. Why is it more basic than the society itself? Well, you can’t have a society without families, but you can have a family without societies. It’s pretty obvious really, and i’m surprised you can’t seem to see that.

Steely Dan says:

10:28am | 28/06/10

@ tell it like it is
” Domination to athiesm and feminism! death to all else!”
Foam at the mouth much?  I don’t recall that part of the article.

“but it’s just a fact of life that the nuclear family is the basic social unit upon which society functions”
No, its not.  It is a fact of life that many (not most) families fit this description, but your assertion that its necessary to keep society together is baseless, and ludicrous.

” At the most basic level it’s common sense: stop having kids and raising families, and the population continues to shrink.”
Your opinion is noted, human number 5,753,534,771. Let’s worry about underpopulation when it actually looks like becoming a problem.

P T Barnum says:

10:38am | 28/06/10

@tell it like it is,

What is ‘truth’? And is it your contention that people living in tribal groups ‘in the wild’ do not live in ‘society’?

tell it like it is says:

10:56am | 28/06/10

@SteelyDan: yes, I was being deliberately melodramatic (*note toungue in cheek). The point being of course the intolerance of Miller’s worldview for other ones.

2nd point: well, if you don’t have families reproducing, the society dies out in a generation. That’s pretty good evidence.

3rd point: but it is a problem. The Western world at large is heading backwards when it comes to population. Many European countries are experiencing a decreasing birth rate. It is well recognised as well in many European societies that Islamic culture is continually exercising influence for the sheer fact that while the ‘western’ elements of said societies are breeding at 1.5 per couple, Islamic factions of the society are running on 8+. Entire cultures will be shifting and societies changing for sheer weight of breeding, and time will show it. The question is, which worldview will dominate? Probably not one’s like Miller’s, cause they’re not really passing it on to anyone. They’re basically self-defeating by their very nature. The issue isn’t under-population per se, it is more along the lines of serious under-population in sub sections of the society; and cultures will die as a result.

Steely Dan says:

11:23am | 28/06/10

@ tell it like it is
“yes, I was being deliberately melodramatic… The point being of course the intolerance of Miller’s worldview for other ones.”
I know you were, Tell It.  I was asking for evidence of the alleged intolerance. 

“well, if you don’t have families reproducing, the society dies out in a generation. That’s pretty good evidence.”
Reproduction of the human species does not require a nuclear family.  In fact, informal free-love polygamy might work better, if you measure the health of a society on its ability to create more potential society members. 

“The issue isn’t under-population per se, it is more along the lines of serious under-population in sub sections of the society; and cultures will die as a result.”
It sounds like what you’re talking about is some Us vs Them fertility race.  Nobody wins that race, Tell It.  We just run out of resources and die.  If you want to combat the rise of Islamic fundamentalism fine, but your strategy is questionable to say the least.  A healthy, sustainable population means better quality of life, a stronger economy and hence a stronger military, if you’re so worried about ‘Them’ coming to attack you and your culture.  And if cultures die because they don’t want to reproduce, that’s up to the members of that culture.

NEFFA says:

12:46pm | 28/06/10

The nuclear family has been dead for over 50years. Get with the times mate.

tell it like it is says:

12:48pm | 28/06/10

@Steely Dan:
The evidence (to cite a few examples):
“As an unmarried, childless heathen it looks like someone who reflects my personal values has finally become Prime Minister.” “but I feel positive Julia privately holds my beliefs on some of the big issues: religion, marriage, and children.” “Clearly what Ms Gillard meant was that God is an imaginary friend who grown-ups don’t need because they have real ones;” “From this perspective she represents the best opportunity we’ve had in about fifteen years to do away with the ‘family values’ bulls**t that has undergirded the rhetoric and the policies of both parties” “As someone whose life doesn’t conform to the ideal of the ‘working family’” “But most importantly, let’s hope our new PM has the courage to spring out of the atheist closet that I’m pretty sure she’s hiding in. This would be the strongest statement she could make against politics’ undemocratic preoccupation with only one type of social unit: the nuclear family. “
Her position is abundantly clear, and overtly hostile and intolerant towards more conservative positions in particular.

Well, it’s hard to hypothesise on the ‘what ifs’ of potential reproduction scenarios. However, I think I’ve got the whole of human history on my side when I argue for the necessity and strength of the basic family in propagating society, and so it is well-tested and established. Can you cite a successful historical example of your ‘potentially’ more effective free-love arrangement? It’s a baseless proposition, but the nuclear family has a well set precedent. Also, it only potentially works (according to your guidelines) if you measure the health of a society sheerly on it’s ability to create more potential society members? Is that your position? If so why? If not, why did you bother putting it forward?

“It sounds like what you’re talking about is some Us vs Them fertility race.” No, I’m talking about the basic nature of a society. If more people of one culture breed, the culture will dominate and the other will die out – particularly if they’re heading backwards. It’s common sense. As for it being a race – well, all I can say is I have a perception of what right and wrong is, and so if another world view steeped in a culture presents alternate truth claims and seeks to dominate a given society, naturally I do not favour it’s progress.

“A healthy, sustainable population means better quality of life, a stronger economy and hence a stronger military, if you’re so worried about ‘Them’ coming to attack you and your culture”. What if they have a different ideal of what better quality of life is than you do? i.e. multiple wives and oppression of women?

“And if cultures die because they don’t want to reproduce, that’s up to the members of that culture.” I don’t deny that. But a cultural mindset that intrinsically desires it’s own demise strikes me as one which is inherently faulty.

tell it like it is says:

01:01pm | 28/06/10

@ P T Barnum:

What is truth? A most excellent question, and one which most fail to ask and consider. I am convicted that truth is centred in God, who created all of existence, and at the centre of that is Jesus Christ, whom God chose to relate to mankind through. Jesus said: ‘I am the way the truth and the life’. The nature of truth in reality therefore naturally hinges on what God has created it to be (truth being knowledge that accurately aligns with reality). I think worldviews that do not recognise God for who He is can not deal with the concept or possibility of truth satisfactorily.
To apply my concept of truth to the discussion: with the question of family, naturally enough it is what God made it to be, and counter claims and efforts against what it is are destructive of it (thus my earlier comments on my problems with Ms Miller’s world view and the necessary collapse of society that occurs when such worldviews become consistently prevalent).

As for tribal groups ‘in the wild’ – of course not. Naturally, they are a society as well (being a gathering of humans dwelling in a given place). They might be a less developed society, but the basic definition of a society as a cluster of humans living together remains and so they naturally qualify.

How do you define society and the family? And what conception of truth do you base it on?

Steely Dan says:

02:20pm | 28/06/10

@ tell it like it is

“Her position is abundantly clear, and overtly hostile and intolerant towards more conservative positions in particular.”
None of what she said has shown her to be overly hostile or intolerant.  She is not arguing for nuclear families to abolished or discouraged.  She has only argued that those who want to force religious notions on private citizens can get stuffed – and rightly so. 

“However, I think I’ve got the whole of human history on my side when I argue for the necessity and strength of the basic family in propagating society, and so it is well-tested and established.”
Formal polygamous relationships (which were very common for a long time) included?  Our most recent common ancestor – ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ – was unlikely to have been in a monogamous relationship.

“It’s a baseless proposition, but the nuclear family has a well set precedent.”
You mean - ‘it’s what we’ve been doing for a while’?  That doesn’t mean non-nuclear families are a danger to society.

“Also, it only potentially works (according to your guidelines) if you measure the health of a society sheerly on it’s ability to create more potential society members? Is that your position?”
No, it was yours.  See your 10:56 post.

“As for it being a race – well, all I can say is I have a perception of what right and wrong is, and so if another world view steeped in a culture presents alternate truth claims and seeks to dominate a given society, naturally I do not favour it’s progress.”
What about putting forward an argument for your truth claims?
“What if they have a different ideal of what better quality of life is than you do? i.e. multiple wives and oppression of women?”
I oppose oppression of women, although I’d support a woman’s decision to be in a polygamous relationship if they wanted to (though I doubt there are many women who actually want that).  What does this have to do with anything?  Even if I reproduce like crazy and have 20 strong-willed independent daughters who never take crap from men – that does nothing to lower the number of women being oppressed and/or forced into polygamous marriages.
“But a cultural mindset that intrinsically desires it’s own demise strikes me as one which is inherently faulty.”
If you assess that as ‘faulty’, then fine.  The hypothetical non-reproducing society could assess the ‘goal’ of their culture as being the quality of the collective relationship of the living members of the society.  But it’s up to that society isn’t it?  And you sound like you wouldn’t want a ‘faulty’ culture to thrive anyway…

tell it like it is says:

04:21pm | 28/06/10

@ Steely Dan
“She has only argued that those who want to force religious notions on private citizens can get stuffed – and rightly so”. That’s the point I’m making. She’s trying to force her perception of ‘tolerance’ on everyone while denying others the same right of arguing their perspective of what ‘should be’ in the public sphere - i.e. from her, and apparently your, perspective those who’s religious beliefs convict them to influence society in accordance with their convictions and wish and seek to do so shouldn’t. She’s essentially saying ‘no, you can’t do that, you have to be tolerant as I perceive it’ - while at the same time seeking to force her own perception on everyone else. By forcing her view of ‘no one has the right to force their view on others’, she’s forcing that very view on others. It’s doing the same thing, just a different ideology and idea behind the identical action. Why shouldn’t I seek to impact society and other people consistent with my worldview? 
I’d comment on the rest, but it would likely be pretty useless to do so given our respective positions differ at the very foundations. You hit the central issue when you ask me to put forward my truth claims, I think that’s what it all comes down to (I’ve put forward the basic position of my truth claims above to Barnam). As I said, I don’t think truth claims make all that much sense without God. If I was an atheist, I’d be pretty peeved that everyone was trying to enforce this conception of the ‘family’ on me too – it would just be a fake metaphysical construct to me. Just like ethics, and any other supposed behavioural norms would be.
From my side, the fact that God has made families means that they have an objective definition and working structure which should rightfully be defended against those who would undermine it.

You said: “Also, it only potentially works (according to your guidelines) if you measure the health of a society sheerly on it’s ability to create more potential society members? Is that your position?”
No, it was yours.  See your 10:56 post.”
I note that that’s not what I said at all. Essentially, my understanding of a healthy society is based upon what God has defined a healthy society to be – comes back to my truth claims again.

You said: “I oppose oppression of women, although I’d support a woman’s decision to be in a polygamous relationship if they wanted to (though I doubt there are many women who actually want that).  What does this have to do with anything?” It has to do with the intolerance of your worldview for that of others – i.e. if a culture arose within your society that propagated oppression of women, you wouldn’t tolerate it. You’d fight it. That’s the point, you can’t have a ‘tolerant’ worldview, when it comes down to it, there are two truth claims colliding that don’t tolerate one another. Carrie wishes to see conservative bias banished from the public sphere and replaced by convictions similar to her own – as her article basically asserts (thus her intolerance). But the real question is, what validates yours/her perception over ‘theirs’/mine/those that oppose? And why shouldn’t they be able to enforce their worldview as they see fit (e.g. by oppressing women), just as you would fight what theirs was bringing about? Who’s to say your idea’s are better than theirs?

Steely Dan says:

05:12pm | 28/06/10

@ tell it

“She’s trying to force her perception of ‘tolerance’ on everyone while denying others the same right of arguing their perspective of what ‘should be’ in the public sphere”
No, not at all.  Tolerance has a pretty well-known definition.  Don’t like what Julia Gillard does in her private life?  Tough.

“She’s essentially saying ‘no, you can’t do that, you have to be tolerant as I perceive it’ - while at the same time seeking to force her own perception on everyone else.”
Are you trying to say that being intolerant of intolerance is intolerance?  I have no problem with that sort of intolerance.  She’s telling people that they can’t enforce their beliefs on others.  In doing that she’s not forcing anything on anyone. 

“Why shouldn’t I seek to impact society and other people consistent with my worldview?”
You can, but we’re a secular society that values individual freedoms (so long as exercising that freedom doesn’t harm others.  So when you make your arguments, you’ll have to do it without appeals to deities.  Unless you can prove the existence of god, that is.

“I note that that’s not what I said at all.”
You claimed that a nuclear family was required for society to function.  You then claimed that reproduction as the evidence.  If you were talking about measuring health by religious standards you wouldn’t have been looking for physical-world indicators to back it up.  You’d have probably started with spiritual health, not measurable indicators.

“That’s the point, you can’t have a ‘tolerant’ worldview, when it comes down to it”
No.  I have no problem being intolerant towards oppression of women.  I don’t see that intolerance of those who deny women’s rights is a problem at all.  If you want to say that it’s still technically intolerance, then fine.  That’s a type of ‘intolerance’ I’ll defend to the death.

“But the real question is, what validates yours/her perception over ‘theirs’/mine/those that oppose?”
Basic human rights.  Start with what we know, and work outwards.  That means not accepting holy scriptures until you have evidence they’re accurate.  You can still apply them to yourself, but you can’t enforce them on others.  Freedom of religion and freedom from religion can work hand in hand.

Matt Worthington says:

08:05am | 29/06/10

There is a lot of debating going on that’s bordering on panic of the demise of western society and its ever so broad philosophy on life.

In my opinion the most beautiful cultures/people have already become extinct and couldn’t really care less if this planet some how manages to get rid of its cancer that is 7 + billion large. Except for probably about 5%who still are genuinely beautiful spirits, who emulate the most noble of human traits.

It funny to read opinions in this blog that worry about depopulation or the need to breed ect, all I can think about is our similarity to a simple virus. As with viruses, the virus that can copulate/replicate the most becomes dominant.

Religion as a whole has always been a tool for control, propaganda, conformists and warfare with a tad of moral self-righousness. Never been a fan myself and usually lent towards agnosticism, however Greek or Scandinavian mythology is defiantly a beautiful idea I wish I could have been apart of. The awe and reverence portrayed by stories of the original beings Titans; leading to the Olympian Gods is truly inspiring. Those who have seen the amasing relatively new form of visual media (video games) God of War 3 would concur :D

Cheers,

Matt Worthington

tell it like it is says:

01:11pm | 29/06/10

@ Steely Dan:
You said: “Are you trying to say that being intolerant of intolerance is intolerance?  I have no problem with that sort of intolerance.  She’s telling people that they can’t enforce their beliefs on others.  In doing that she’s not forcing anything on anyone.”
Now you’re getting it. She has the view that tolerance should be expressed to others – but what if someone with a different mindset and worldview doesn’t share those convictions? (funny as it may seem, not everyone thinks in the same way). In telling them to be tolerant in accordance with her convictions, she’s being intolerant of their perspective and convictions! What right does she have to do that? You said she’s not forcing anything on anyone, but she’s forcing her version of tolerance on others. 
Just as a side: There is naturally a sense in which your view is right (i.e. I’m not gonna ‘force’ my view on others – they have to accept it on their own terms or otherwise) – but there is equally a sense in which different opinions are intrinsically intolerant of opposing positions, and one has the right to fight within all lawful means against such opposing opinions (e.g. I would basically oppose abortion tooth and nail in all spheres). I’m not talking about ‘mind control’ here, but I am talking about the battle of worldviews that is happening all the way across society.
I’d continue discussing the other points, but time is short (bring them up further if you really wish).

One last bit that I felt like bringing up particularly – you justified your position with the following: “Basic human rights.  Start with what we know,”. Can you give me a basic definition of what you think human rights are, and justify the stance if you can? You have assumed that basic human rights are accepted seemingly intrinsically I.e. “what we know” – if I accept them, I want you to give me a good reason to do so.

Steely Dan says:

03:18pm | 29/06/10

@ Tell It

“but what if someone with a different mindset and worldview doesn’t share those convictions? In telling them to be tolerant in accordance with her convictions, she’s being intolerant of their perspective and convictions!”
People are allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want to, and they have the right to act on their beliefs – to an extent.  Praying to god X?  Fine.  Believe god X says adulterers should be stoned?  Stupid, but fine. Acting on that belief and stoning adulterers?  Not okay.  Church members can impose whatever moral rules on each other, but they still live in a secular society – one which does not (or at least should not) impose laws based on the spiritual beliefs of others.  Telling religious zealots people to back off is an expression of freedom of speech, as well as the right to freedom from religion.
 
“one has the right to fight within all lawful means against such opposing opinions (e.g. I would basically oppose abortion tooth and nail in all spheres).”
You’re welcome to oppose abortion at a legal level.  But you’d actually have to show that it’s murder in a legal, secular sense.  If you start talking about souls or your god’s role in conception then you are attempting to force your religion on others.  If you fail in your bid to ban it, then your freedom to not have an abortion remains intact.

“Can you give me a basic definition of what you think human rights are, and justify the stance if you can?”
Here’s the most basic human right, in its most basic form – the freedom not to be harmed. 

Whatever happened to your assertion that the nuclear family was vital for the survival of society?

tell it like it is says:

12:45pm | 30/06/10

@Steely Dan:

Ok, I think this bit gets to the heart of the issue (including your comments on where you limit people’s rights to act on their beliefs: “People are allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want to, and they have the right to act on their beliefs – to an extent”):
You said: “Can you give me a basic definition of what you think human rights are, and justify the stance if you can?”
Here’s the most basic human right, in its most basic form – the freedom not to be harmed.”
My problem is that you didn’t justify the position. Why do humans have this basic right? You originally talked of starting with “what we know” – which you have said was this notion of human rights – but you haven’t told me how or why you know it. I would appreciate your response on that!
Your propositions of the right to hold and act on beliefs hinge on your ability or otherwise to justify your position on human rights. Incidentally, I happen to have a different position on what constitutes human rights and the infringement thereof - thus my challenge to you that others do not necessarily share your convictions of tolerance etc.

You said: “Whatever happened to your assertion that the nuclear family was vital for the survival of society?” I still maintain that, of course, but the stream was getting quite convoluted and distracted from my initial point and I was pressed for time. Happy to continue on the line of thought however. To re-clarify: 1. what is a nuclear family? Essentially, it consists of a man and a woman in a loving and committed relationship to one another, and the natural resulting children who also make up the family (a man and a woman are the core ‘ingredients’ - children are not necessary to have a family, but they naturally occur in it, and are an important aspect of it). There is no doubt that a society will not survive, unless the equation of one man and one woman (the basics of a nuclear family) naturally producing children/a child is happening within that society. You don’t have that happening between members of the society, and societies die off.
Also essential to a nuclear family is a binding, and loving, commitment between said man and woman (even you can’t deny that we seem to be naturally wired to fall in love with one other person, and that when it fails, it’s destructive and hurtful for both parties and children in the family - and consequently society more broadly).
In normal historical circumstances, this is undeniably the way that humans have predominantly reproduced and formed societies. You can get breakdowns of the family arrangement (i.e. divorce and remarriage, which starts a new family under less than ideal circumstances), but the blueprint is still clear. The blueprint of one man one woman is certainly undeniable in purely biological reproductive terms.
I’d argue that if you also start breaking the committed loving and binding relationship between a man and a woman, you’re also being destructive to a society (even if you can still ‘reproduce’ per se, thus there is more to a healthy society than mere reproduction! – although that is a significant aspect).
I would argue that things detrimental and destructive to this basic family formula within a society, are bascially destructive of that society, and I think arguing otherwise exhibits an exquisite level of blindness. Feel free to dispute. 
Thanks for your comments

Steely Dan says:

01:38pm | 30/06/10

@ Tell It

“My problem is that you didn’t justify the position. Why do humans have this basic right?”
Because not wanting to be harmed is something we all agree on, and it’s something we all prefer (some rare/kinky exceptions apply).  That much we know for a fact.  It’s one of the most basic elements of a societal contract.  It is a right that does not have to be handed down from the clouds; it is given to us by our society.

“There is no doubt that a society will not survive, unless the equation of one man and one woman (the basics of a nuclear family) naturally producing children/a child is happening within that society.”
You haven’t justified this claim at all.

“even you can’t deny that we seem to be naturally wired to fall in love with one other person”
That might be your preference, and it is mine as well.  But I actually know a few people who grew up in hippie communes where relationships were completely fluid.  They’ve grown up fine.  It depends what the kids are used to – if these friends of mine had grown up with two parents they would probably have been upset if that situation suddenly changed. 
“The blueprint of one man one woman is certainly undeniable in purely biological reproductive terms.”
You do realise how popular polygamy has been (and still is)?  And even if all children had been born into monogamous heterosexual marriages right back to when we stepped down from the trees – you still haven’t shown that changing that arrangement will kill society.

“even if you can still ‘reproduce’ per se, thus there is more to a healthy society than mere reproduction!”
I agree, as you know.  So list some of these indicators of societal health, and show how they rely on nuclear families alone for survival.

tell it like it is says:

04:42pm | 30/06/10

@Steely Dan:

Okay. We can agree that the desire to avoid harm is more or less evident when we look at ourselves. But the only ‘fact’ that that proves is that I don’t want me to get hurt. I don’t necessarily intrinsically care whether others do or do not get hurt, and no one really has the right to tell me (much less enforce upon me in my actions) that my view is wrong if hurting others is something I view as legit.

To deal with the problem just outlined, you then cite the concept of the social contract/the will of the majority as the binding authority which imparts this right not to be hurt (i.e. a collective of individuals – a society – not wanting to be hurt live together and basically agree not to hurt one another because it is mutually beneficial).

A couple of issues then arise:

What if I don’t agree to the terms of the contract? (for e.g. the basic principle of not harming others). I am then in the situation where I am forced to accede to the tyranny of the majority or be punished by them for living consistently with my own perspective (basically then, it is ‘might makes right’ – sounds like a great way to establish the morals of a society).

What about if you live in a society that doesn’t believe in a right not to be harmed? (e.g. a hierarchical war-mongering society that functions on power to those at the top, and the right to dish out pain to ones inferiors? - certainly there are examples in history). Does that mean that it is no longer a human right? That would mean that it’s not a set-in-stone right and is potentially fluid, essentially that it is a relative/subjective ‘right’ based on human perception. And if it’s relative, that’s not terribly convincing to me in terms of your argument for the existence of this foundational human right (and hence the arguments that follow from your pre-position). Doesn’t really sounds like it exists at all, except as some sort of invented construct.

I’m not arguing against the basic position of not harming people of course, I’m simply seeking to flesh out the implications of what you’re arguing based on your presuppositions.

Comments on the nuclear family to follow.

tell it like it is says:

08:20am | 01/07/10

@Steely Dan:

You said: “ “There is no doubt that a society will not survive, unless the equation of one man and one woman (the basics of a nuclear family) naturally producing children/a child is happening within that society”. You haven’t justified this claim at all.”

Ok. Let me put it a little more bluntly: if people aren’t having sex, there will be no children born, and thus there will be no people – society will die out. It hardly needs justifying, but to be fair I wasn’t making myself clear enough. You might then argue “but you’ve reduced ‘the nuclear family’ to the sexual act!”. At the base and biological level, yes I have. From a purely physical perspective, this is at the centre of the nuclear family. Two people reproducing. You can’t have three people reproducing, you can’t have two people of the same sex reproducing, you can only have one man and one woman (rather exclusive isn’t it!). That was the first element of the nuclear family that I was arguing before, and I hope it’s clearer now. Whether there’s polygamy, communal living, etc., this equation is still undeniable, and there is a bond between the two who have procreated, and the child of that union – regardless of whether or not the mum or the dad goes off and creates another ‘family’ with someone else.

What we build on to that physical reality is then somewhat more metaphysical in nature. I’d argue that as well as creating the physical equation just outlined, God also created an ‘ideal’ and natural reality in terms of how sex and the relationships between people having sex, should and should not be happening. I’m sure you’re familiar with the position: one man, one woman, bound in marriage for life maintaining faithfulness only to their spouse.
Clearly, societies can still survive (at least for a time) even if this ideal is not happening – purely on the fact that people can still reproduce.
But I’d still argue that the Biblical formula is still basically necessary for a healthy society, and that it’s broadly a negative thing to undermine the formula.
A couple of basic reasons why (although this is a massive topic):
a) two parents committed to one another provides a stable environment in which children can grow up in, and develop as stable people in their society (big part of this is the love and commitment of the parents to them, and the lessons they receive from these parents). It’s pretty well recognised that instability at home, rejection/a lack of love from parents is basically destructive to the life of kids involved – and manifests in later years (broad generalisation – obviously there are exceptions). Naturally the higher frequency of this within a society, the more destructive it will be of said society (e.g. in areas like crime as one obvious example). The one dad one mum formula is the most stable and natural way in which this love can be provided (let’s be serious, it’s a tried and tested truth that no one loves their kids like the parents do).
b) two parents supporting one another in a loving relationship is basically positive, and seems to be the dominant natural inclination of people (I would argue that that’s because God simply made us this way). Even in a polygamous situation (not ideal) there is still commitment between e.g. a man and each of his wives individually.
As I said before, when these basic one on one relationships break down, it’s immensely painful and damaging to all involved – and has potentially broader ramifications for society.

Also: I’m sure that even your friends bought up in a commune had a significant and unique relationship to the ones who were their parents in that commune – or was it all indistinguishable?

Cheers

Steely Dan says:

11:07am | 02/07/10

@ Tell It: (1 of 2)

“We can agree that the desire to avoid harm is more or less evident when we look at ourselves. But the only ‘fact’ that that proves is that I don’t want me to get hurt.”
… and that the vast majority don’t want to get hurt either.  What more do you need?

“…and no one really has the right to tell me (much less enforce upon me in my actions) that my view is wrong if hurting others is something I view as legit.”
No-one has shown an ‘intrinsic’ (or God-given) right, as you would put it.  But if you hurt me, and I don’t like it, I’m going to try and stop you.  If I didn’t have the police to help me, I might have to hurt you.  As the vast majority of people value not being hurt above the ability to freely hurt others, we make a social contract not to run around harming each other.

“What if I don’t agree to the terms of the contract? (for e.g. the basic principle of not harming others).”
Then the moment they try and harm someone, we lock them up so they can’t.  In this country, we actually afford them the rights of the society (not to be harmed or killed) despite the fact they haven’t accepted the responsibilities of being a society member.  Which is nice of us.

“I am then in the situation where I am forced to accede to the tyranny of the majority or be punished by them for living consistently with my own perspective.”
But if they’re acting tyrannically as a minority, wouldn’t that seem fair?  In this case it’s not ‘might makes right’, it’s ‘might exercises opportunity to not get hurt’.

“(basically then, it is ‘might makes right’ – sounds like a great way to establish the morals of a society).”
Like religions, where you do what God says? (Enter Euthyphro’s Dilemma).

“What about if you live in a society that doesn’t believe in a right not to be harmed? … Does that mean that it is no longer a human right?”
The right not to be harmed doesn’t go away because someone is separated from safe societies by national boundaries.  That person can ask others in other countries to protect them.
Incidentally, do you think that hypothetical society would be a healthy society?

“That would mean that it’s not a set-in-stone right and is potentially fluid, essentially that it is a relative/subjective ‘right’ based on human perception.”
If our perception of harm changes (I don’t see that happening), then sure.  Without that rules regarding not harming others would be truly baseless.

“Doesn’t really sounds like it exists at all, except as some sort of invented construct.”
That’s correct.  But the preference not to be harmed is objective.  Just like the number four doesn’t exist at all, except as an invented construct.

Steely Dan says:

11:11am | 02/07/10

@ Tell It” (2 of 2)

“From a purely physical perspective, this is at the centre of the nuclear family. Two people reproducing… What we build on to that physical reality is then somewhat more metaphysical in nature.”
What you mean to say is that you’re about to commit the ‘is-ought’ fallacy.  You can claim it’s insight into the will of god, but you haven’t demonstrated that’s the case.
“Clearly, societies can still survive (at least for a time) even if this ideal is not happening – purely on the fact that people can still reproduce.”
Why ‘at least for a time’?  Do you have some knowledge of a used-by date?

“But I’d still argue that the Biblical formula is still basically necessary for a healthy society, and that it’s broadly a negative thing to undermine the formula.”
Is monogamous marriage mandated in the Bible?  It doesn’t exclude it, but it doesn’t demand it, and it does speak mention rules for polygamous marriage in Deuteronomy 17:17 (that the king may not have too many wives – not that the king may only have one wife).

“a) two parents committed to one another provides a stable environment in which children can grow up in”
That obviously can happen (and it might not, depending on the quality of the parents). 

“The one dad one mum formula is the most stable and natural way in which this love can be provided (let’s be serious, it’s a tried and tested truth that no one loves their kids like the parents do).”
Loving step-parents, adoptive parents and kids of abusive nuclear parents would slap you in the face.  That’s such an over-generalisation it needs to be called incorrect.

“b) two parents supporting one another in a loving relationship is basically positive…”
Of course.  I’m not arguing that nuclear families are bad, Tell It.  But you need to show that all others are basically negative before you make blanket assertions that non-nuclear is bad.

“…and seems to be the dominant natural inclination of people”
That only tells us what most people do, not what most people should do.

“As I said before, when these basic one on one relationships break down, it’s immensely painful and damaging to all involved.”
If you’re talking about an actual one-on-one relationship breaking down, I agree – any relationship breaking down is painful and damaging. 

“I’m sure that even your friends bought up in a commune had a significant and unique relationship to the ones who were their parents in that commune – or was it all indistinguishable?”
Would it matter?  Non-nuclear is non-nuclear.  Healthy, stable children are healthy, stable children.  Are you trying to argue that because nuclear and non-nuclear share an element (reproductive biology) then nuclear families should get the credit for any positive results?

tell it like it is says:

03:58pm | 03/07/10

@ Steely Dan: (pt 1)
From you: ““We can agree that the desire to avoid harm is more or less evident when we look at ourselves. But the only ‘fact’ that that proves is that I don’t want me to get hurt.”?… and that the vast majority don’t want to get hurt either.  What more do you need?”
Just cause I don’t want to get hurt, doesn’t mean that I have an obligation not to hurt others. There’s no causal link (from the atheist position) between my not wanting to be hurt, and my not hurting others – especially if I want to hurt others (hypothetically speaking).

You said: “No-one has shown an ‘intrinsic’ (or God-given) right, as you would put it.  But if you hurt me, and I don’t like it, I’m going to try and stop you.” You’ve affirmed the point I was making i.e. might makes right. The one who’s perspective wins out in our scenario is the one who can beat up the other.

You said: “we make a social contract not to run around harming each other.” I note you’ve again cited the social contract as the source of authority behind the right… (this will be important as I’ll argue).

You said: “What if I don’t agree to the terms of the contract? (for e.g. the basic principle of not harming others).”?Then the moment they try and harm someone, we lock them up so they can’t…Which is nice of us.” Nice for the one who doesn’t want to be hurt, oppression for the one who wants to hurt. Again, might makes right/tyranny of the majority, and who’s to say which opinion is right?
You said: “I am then in the situation where I am forced to accede to the tyranny of the majority or be punished by them for living consistently with my own perspective.”?But if they’re acting tyrannically as a minority, wouldn’t that seem fair?”
Fair by your standards maybe, but obviously not by those of the minority (or they wouldn’t have taken the action to start with probably). Who’s to say your standards are better than theirs?

You say: “basically then, it is ‘might makes right’ – sounds like a great way to establish the morals of a society.”?Like religions, where you do what God says?” (Enter Euthyphro’s Dilemma).”
Again, you haven’t refuted my argument – which is that basically without God morals boil down to relativity (massive problems with that). As for ethical standards based on God, your proposition simplifies and misrepresents the theistic (Christian) position. Briefly and simply: God is over and outside creation + God is 100% righteous/right/good in all of his being + good then is determined by what God is (as the suns rays are determined by the substance of the sun). Euthyphro’s Dilemma falsely separates ‘good’ conceptually from God. Good is derivative of God. Because God then exists, as humans we have an objective, righteous ethical standard by which right and wrong can be measured. Thus, from my position, I have an objective reason for saying hurting someone is wrong. As you admitted (or haven’t refuted), you can’t actually say it’s wrong from your standpoint, and hence have no real grounds for telling someone they’re doing the wrong thing for hurting someone.

You said (and this one is very important): “The right not to be harmed doesn’t go away because someone is separated from safe societies by national boundaries.” But you have already cited the social contract as the authority behind the right, if an individual leaves that society, or lives in a different society with different standards, naturally the right does not follow them as it is a right conferred under a separate jurisdiction. It’s the logical conclusion of your position. Based on the ‘right’ being imparted from society, there should be nothing ‘wrong’ with a society in which harm is a way of life, you can’t have it both ways!

You said: “Incidentally, do you think that hypothetical society would be a healthy society?”
Yes, but that is because my worldview provides me with an objective standard by which I can measure a healthy society and right and wrong within that society. You have no such grounds for condemning it as unhealthy from your position.

Your comment on 4 was interesting, will keep thinking on that one. Comments on family to follow as able! Cheers.

Steely Dan says:

05:02pm | 04/07/10

@ Tell It:

“Just cause I don’t want to get hurt, doesn’t mean that I have an obligation not to hurt others.”
But you do.  Not a spiritual one, but a real obligation to society.

“There’s no causal link (from the atheist position) between my not wanting to be hurt, and my not hurting others – especially if I want to hurt others (hypothetically speaking).”
There is, if you don’t want retaliation.  The angry drunk at the pub looking for a fight is more likely to be hurt than anybody else there – because he’s more likely to be hurt in retaliation for hurting someone else.

“The one who’s perspective wins out in our scenario is the one who can beat up the other.”
The ‘perspective’ doesn’t win out, but the more powerful person will usually succeed in exercising power over others.  This isn’t might making right, this is might getting what it wants, right or not.  The most effective way to counter this simple fact of life is to create a society where non-violence is valued. 

“Nice for the one who doesn’t want to be hurt, oppression for the one who wants to hurt.”
Sure, if you want to be loose with the definition, oppression it is.  I’m happy to oppress murderers by locking them up.  My guess is you are too. 

“Who’s to say your standards are better than theirs?”
My standards are better because they provide demonstrably beneficial outcomes for those involved.  The assumed right to not be punched is better than the right to punch, because the pain of not being able to punch someone is nowhere as great as the pain felt by the person being punched.

“Again, you haven’t refuted my argument – which is that basically without God morals boil down to relativity (massive problems with that).”
Hopefully I’ve address the first part above – might doesn’t make right, might just gets what it wants.  That’s a descriptive position, not a descriptive one.

“Euthyphro’s Dilemma falsely separates ‘good’ conceptually from God. Good is derivative of God.”
That’s correct from a history of the English language perspective.  So if God (hypothetically) told you to sexually assault someone, it would be a good action?

“Thus, from my position, I have an objective reason for saying hurting someone is wrong.”
Have you?  Does this come from divine revelation, or a specific passage in a religious text?

“As you admitted (or haven’t refuted), you can’t actually say it’s wrong from your standpoint…”
I can.  Wrong is a bad outcome for all parties given a set of options that could lead to a better outcome.

“if an individual leaves that society, or lives in a different society with different standards, naturally the right does not follow them as it is a right conferred under a separate jurisdiction.”
Naturally?  I’m not talking about governments or national boundaries. 

“Based on the ‘right’ being imparted from society, there should be nothing ‘wrong’ with a society in which harm is a way of life, you can’t have it both ways!”
I don’t think it can go both ways.  Unless the members of that hypothetical society felt that the pain of not being allowed to hurt others was greater than the pain felt by being hurt, there is clearly something wrong with that society.  It would be so unhealthy as to be completely un-workable.  What are your objective standards for a healthy society?

Tell it like it is says:

01:35pm | 05/07/10

@Steely Dan:
Re. nuclear family comments:

Ok, let me attempt to clarify, because it doesn’t seem that I’m making my argument clear.

On a biological level, the fact of the nuclear family is irrefutable. That was what I was arguing in my first point. I wasn’t trying to argue an ‘is-ought’ progression, I was basically arguing that on the ‘is’ level, nuclear family is reality. I then argued the ‘ought’ side of my perspective, but did not necessarily link the two, although I believe the ‘is’ strengthens my ‘ought’ more than it strengthens other potential ‘oughts’.

When you talked about the shared biological element between nuclear and non-nuclear – no, i’m not trying to chalk credit to nuclear families in non-nuclear situations, I’m saying that at the fundamental level, they are nuclear (even in a supposed non-nuclear situation/community). This is the crux of my first point – on the ‘is’ nuclear families are all that exist.

My ‘ought’, on the other hand, is then basically the Christian position - based upon the Bible. I made a few observations to strengthen that the Christian position makes more sense of the ‘is’ than those opposing perspectives. You basically agreed with some of them too (i.e. you agreed that nuclear families are not bad, you agreed that that’s what most people actually do as well – although rightly challenged that this does not necessarily establish the ‘ought’, you also agreed with my reflections on the nature of relationships and the one-on-one breakdown/pain etc).

The way I see it, there are two basic possibilities for the ‘ought’. Either God created us, and created all things, and thus there is an ideal, or ‘ought’ -  a way things should work; or God did not make us, and therefore there only exists the brute physical reality of random chance, and the ‘ought’ does not objectively exist. In the atheistic scenario, the ‘ought’ is determined by us, and is therefore shifting over time, neither right nor wrong, it just is.

The implication of the atheist position is basically that physical reality exists, and anything else is fair game for anyone’s interpretation. Any one can make their own rules, and there’s no logical reason why they shouldn’t be able to live by their own rules (apart from someone else forcing them to acquiesce to a different construction of the ‘ought’, or perhaps their agreeance to someone else’s ‘ought’ on other grounds e.g. the social contract). This is the reality of the atheistic ‘ought’ – there is no ‘ought’ properly speaking.

This is why I think atheists are inconsistent on the issue of sexuality. If there is no way things should be (which atheism entails), why shouldn’t any possible expression of sexuality be acceptable? One person might have a perspective on the matter, but there’s nothing that makes their perspective intrinsically worth more than that of others. Homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, heterosexuality, nuclear families, rape – none of it matters at all. If there are no objective rules, there are no objective rules, and to try and enforce your version of the rules on someone else is mere tyranny. There is only bare reality and what we make of it; and the consequent struggle for power over who has the ability to exercise their ought (individually or collectively).

The atheistic picture I’ve just painted is, I’m sure you’ll agree, repulsive and horrific. Yet, if the ‘is’ is all there is, the atheistic scenario is logical. The fact that the ‘is’ actually much more closely reflects the Christian perspective of ‘ought’ is, I believe, a testimony to the Creator.

The other key aspect of the Christian perspective is the reality of sin. Because we have corporately rejected God (rejecting His ‘ought’), the ‘is’ does not consistently reflect the ‘ought’. As you say, the Bible has rules for polygamy - and divorce as well - but these were only placed there to order the reality of a sin sick world. The created pattern was clear however: one man, one woman. You mention that abused kids in particular would slap me in the face for proclaiming the Christian ‘ought’, but the Christian worldview accounts for the ‘is’ of abuse in the doctrine of sin. I bet you anything that abused kids to a tee would be able to agree with me when I said that they ought not to have been abused, and they ought to have been loved – from that perspective, they would agree wholeheartedly with God’s ‘ought’.

I haven’t necessarily proven the Christian position of course, these are mere observations. But, perhaps you have found my comments interesting.

Steely Dan says:

02:47pm | 05/07/10

@ Tell It:

“On a biological level, the fact of the nuclear family is irrefutable.”
But its not.  A man having sex with a woman (pretending for the sake of the argument that’s the only way children are conceived these days) is the biological ‘fact’.  But that does not require monogamy, or marriage, or even consent!

“I’m saying that at the fundamental level, they are nuclear (even in a supposed non-nuclear situation/community).”
Then it sounds like you’re using a definition of ‘nuclear’ that I’m not familiar with – one that necessarily includes all procreation involving a man and a woman at some point.  I’m sure this wasn’t what you had in mind.

“Either God created us, and created all things, and thus there is an ideal, or ‘ought’ -  a way things should work”
Or god is indifferent (most forms of deism believe this). 

“In the atheistic scenario, the ‘ought’ is determined by us, and is therefore shifting over time, neither right nor wrong, it just is.”
Neither right nor wrong in a theistic (god-given) sense, no.  But there are objectively better and worse outcomes for parties in any given scenario (not that they’re always easy to identify).  The rules may shift over time (for better or worse), and I think in general we’re getting better (virtually no slavery, less oppression of women etc).
“The implication of the atheist position is basically that physical reality exists, and anything else is fair game for anyone’s interpretation.”
Yes, if you’re a materialist (most atheists are).

“Any one can make their own rules, and there’s no logical reason why they shouldn’t be able to live by their own rules.”
If your aim is to live in a safe society, there are logical reasons why you would make and agree to rules, even those that restrict your own freedoms.

“This is the reality of the atheistic ‘ought’ – there is no ‘ought’ properly speaking.”
Who decided that?  You’ve redefined ‘ought’ to presuppose a rule handed down by a deity.

“This is why I think atheists are inconsistent on the issue of sexuality… why shouldn’t any possible expression of sexuality be acceptable?”
Like any action, it depends on who the expression affects.  You really can’t see that paedophilia, rape etc has real negative, non-spiritual impacts on people? 

“There is only bare reality and what we make of it”
‘Bare’ reality?  That sounds like you’re downplaying it.  Isn’t that like saying we ‘only’ have everything?

“Yet, if the ‘is’ is all there is, the atheistic scenario is logical.”
That’s tautological.  The ‘is’ is all there is.  We can construct ‘oughts’ though, using objective reality (the ‘is’) as our guide.

“The fact that the ‘is’ actually much more closely reflects the Christian perspective of ‘ought’ is, I believe, a testimony to the Creator.”
The existence of laws (formal and informal, good and bad) in civilisations not familiar with your god suggests that order is inevitable in human beings, not just Christians.  We can observe that all atheists don’t run around killing and raping people at will.  Unless you subscribe to the idea that god has ‘written the code on our hearts’ – in which case you don’t have any reason to be scared of a secular world.

“As you say, the Bible has rules for polygamy - and divorce as well - but these were only placed there to order the reality of a sin sick world.”
That makes no sense, Tell It.  One minute God is exercising his omnipotence in full OT brutality, plaguing and smiting all who dare consider sinning.  The next he’s thrown his hands up and said ‘all right, so long as you don’t murder your slaves and keep the number of wives down I guess I can settle for that’.

“The created pattern was clear however: one man, one woman.”
What makes you think that’s a god-given pattern?

“I bet you anything that abused kids to a tee would be able to agree with me when I said that they ought not to have been abused, and they ought to have been loved”
You’ve jumped between ‘ought’ and ‘is’.  In many cases, the biological parents (in nuclear and non-nuclear families) do not love their children as much as others do.

“I haven’t necessarily proven the Christian position of course, these are mere observations.”
I understand, that’s another discussion entirely.

tell it like it is says:

11:33am | 06/07/10

@Steely Dan

Re: human rights

You said: “ “Who’s to say your standards are better than theirs?” My standards are better because they provide demonstrably beneficial outcomes for those involved.”
But this doesn’t solve the problem I posed! It only shifts the line without crossing it. How are you defining the ‘better’ in ‘beneficial outcomes’? You’ve got no standard to define better apart from your own opinion. You say your standards are better because they provide better outcomes, but in the view of those opposing you, your perception of better outcomes isn’t better at all! It’s just what you think is better vs what they think is better. In an atheistic/materialist world, there’s no such thing as ‘better’ there’s only different opinions on what is better. Again, what makes you think your views are intrinsically worth more than the opinions of right and wrong that other people hold? ‘Better’ is an artificial creation if this is the universe that atheists suppose, and by rights your better simply cannot be anything other than equal to the opinion of others – regardless of the consequences of theirs or your view.

Determining right and wrong in an atheistic perception of reality (which ‘rights’ is based on) can only be left to the social contract and/or the prevailing of the more over the lesser as you argued (i.e. might getting what it wants, and thus determining what is ‘right’ – you argued that might getting what it wants isn’t might makes right, but if we are the determiners of right and wrong, might makes right is the only option! Right is something that is invented by us for athiests, and there is then a consequent struggle for whose version of right prevails and thus is ‘right’).

Thus the problem of establishing the concept of ‘rights’ remains. If the social contract imparts it, then it can only be reduced to ‘might makes right’ – that is, the dominant view on the matter is imposed (by social agreement or other means) on all. But again, I don’t find this to be convincing in a materialist universe – as I said, in such a universe right can only be based on what we think, and the tyranny of the majority view point cannot be intrinsically more valuable than that of those who disagree. “But it’s the perspective with demonstrably better outcomes” you argue, again, it’s only ‘better’ based on your perception of better. You say such things as “there is clearly something wrong with that society” and talk of “better outcomes” – but they’re only based on your personal view on ‘better’ or ‘unhealthy’.

Problem with the social contract: If it is the society which imparts the rights, it is only in that society in which they apply (I was surprised that you did not seem to recognise this in your last post). This means that said right is not universal, or self-evident, it is only something bound upon a given society by itself– and thus it can not be a binding right in a different society unless it has been established by that society. Societies may have a different opinion on this ‘right’ – and in an atheistic material universe, it is merely the opinion of one society verses the opinion of the other. Neither can be intrinsically worth more than that of other.

Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure we agree on many elements of what a good society should look like when it comes down to pragmatics (e.g. the right not to be harmed), I’m just trying to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the possibility of ‘better’ and positive outcomes in an atheistic perception of the universe. There is no foundation for any of these perceptions of better, or right and wrong, other than the opinion of people – and thus they do not properly exist, and are certainly not binding or universal. Think about that – in an atheistic universe, no one is really worth anything, we’re the same as the mud on the ground, and ultimately human rights and morals are just some myth that we invent. It doesn’t objectively matter whether people are trod down or abused, it just happens. There’s really nothing wrong with not caring about atrocity. It does happen, and our pathetic perception/invention of justice is just some mockery that remains unfulfilled. What a horrible universe. I don’t think that’s the kind of universe that we live in, there’s more to it than that. There’s more to existence than mere ‘stuff’.

Lastly, you asked “What are your objective standards for a healthy society?” Quite simply – the God given standards revealed in the Bible.

Steely Dan says:

02:32pm | 06/07/10

@ Tell It: “How are you defining the ‘better’ in ‘beneficial outcomes’? You’ve got no standard to define better apart from your own opinion.”
The standard is the same we’ve been talking about for some time – to achieve the least harm (pain) to those involved.

“It’s just what you think is better vs what they think is better.”
If we agree that harm is bad, and that people will forsake the ‘right’ to harm in order to protect their ‘right’ not to be harmed, then we don’t have a conflict. Differences can occur when we try and work out how we achieve the least harm.

“there’s no such thing as ‘better’ there’s only different opinions on what is better.”
This assumes nobody agrees on what a better outcome is. 

“what makes you think your views are intrinsically worth more than the opinions of right and wrong that other people hold?”
‘Intrinsically’ presupposes higher authority. I’d like an ethical shortcut too, but I need to see evidence for one first. I believe I can give reasons for why my position is objectively better.

“… might getting what it wants, and thus determining what is ‘right’ – you argued that might getting what it wants isn’t might makes right,!”
Again, might does not determine what an optimal outcome is, just what the outcome will be. This isn’t a problem exclusive to an ‘atheistic’ world.  Powerful people can do bad things, and frequently without punishment. Life is not always fair.

“but if we are the determiners of right and wrong, might makes right is the only option”
Again, you’re confusing ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Just because might gets its way (‘is’) doesn’t mean they are automatically right to do it (‘ought’).

“Right is something that is invented by us for atheists….”
Did you mean ‘by atheists for us’?

“If the social contract imparts it, then it can only be reduced to ‘might makes right’ – that is, the dominant view on the matter is imposed… on all.”
But the dominant view being forced on those who try and harm others isn’t an act of ‘right’ in itself – it’s only an act of ‘might’. While the vast majority of human social interactions do not rely on mobs, police or armed forces, I’m sure you’d agree that it’s a good thing they exist to uphold the peace if necessary.  Police storming into a bank to arrest a robber isn’t an act of ‘right’ – it’s an act of ‘might’, just as the robber storming into the bank with a gun was. It’s the outcome of each action that determines whether the exercise of might was right or wrong.

“This means that said right is not universal, or self-evident, it is only something bound upon a given society by itself”
I believe the rights are universal, and are self-evident (excluding sociopaths). A social contract doesn’t require a signature. The basic understanding is usually enshrined in regional laws, but that does not mean those regional laws constitute the entirety of all human rights.

“Think about that – in an atheistic universe, no one is really worth anything… ultimately human rights and morals are just some myth that we invent.”
I think the issue is that you’re presupposing that there can be no objective ‘better’ or ‘worse’ unless it’s handed down to you. But without proof that a) there is a god b) it’s your god and c) you have interpreted your god’s will correctly, this is where we are.  Even if you don’t like all the laws in explicitly secular nations (especially ones with very high numbers of non-theists, like Scandinavia), you have to admit that they’re not the nightmare scenario of anarchy you seem to expect. If you say this is because these nations have had a history or religious governance – why haven’t they thrown off the shackles of law entirely and reverted to ‘caveman’ status? In general laws against harm reflect the values of atheists and theists.

“What a horrible universe. I don’t think that’s the kind of universe that we live in, there’s more to it than that. There’s more to existence than mere ‘stuff’.’
I agree, there’re concepts too (though I don’t think you’re saying that the spiritual is conceptual). It’s a lovely sentiment – but can you demonstrate that it’s likely to be true? 

“Quite simply – the God given standards revealed in the Bible.”
Please don’t take offence at this – but I don’t believe you follow all the standards in the Bible, and I also think you follow invented new standards (for the better). My bet is you follow a secularised Christianity which is considerably removed from the early church standards. You probably say that pro-slavery passages in the Bible are negated by the less specific ‘be nice’ passages from Jesus in the NT. My guess is you (or your church) have gone through the same reasoning process secular thinkers do.

tell it like it is says:

01:10pm | 07/07/10

@Steely Dan:

Re. nuclear family

I note straight away that I leave many points raised in your last post on the nuclear family issue unaddressed – I believe they all tie in to the central issues of our ‘rights’ thread, and will raise them there in my forthcoming post! To raise them here would be simply repeating myself and confusing matters. However, there were a number of important parts that I would like to comment further on.

“Then it sounds like you’re using a definition of ‘nuclear’ that I’m not familiar with – one that necessarily includes all procreation involving a man a woman at some point. I’m sure the wasn’t what you had in mind.”
That was almost precisely what I had in mind. I wasn’t arguing that that is all there is to defining a nuclear family of course, what I was arguing was that on the purely physical level, this fundamental ingredient of the nuclear family is the only option (reproduction = 1 man + 1 woman). That was my first proposition towards defining the nuclear family i.e. the base fact of the nuclear family thus being inescapable in the purely physical sense (which of course doesn’t form the definition per se, merely a central aspect of the definition). My second half of the nuclear family argument hinges on the possibility of the ‘ought’, which, as mentioned, will be raised in my response to your latest on our ‘rights’ thread.

You said: “ “The fact that the ‘is’ actually much more closely reflects the Christian perspective of ‘ought’ is, I believe, a testimony to the Creator.” The existence of laws (formal and informal, good and bad) in civilisations not familiar with your god suggests that order is inevitable in human beings, not just Christians. We can observe that all atheists don’t run around killing and raping people at will. Unless you subscribe to the idea that god has ‘written the code on our hearts’ – in which case you don’t have any reason to be scared of a secular world.”

I didn’t restrict it to Christians. From the Christian perspective, God created all people bar none, and thus all bar none owe their existence and allegiance to Him, and exist on His terms. Thus the basic order present with all humans (and throughout all existence I might add) reflects perfectly the Christian perspective. Interesting that you mention the ‘code on our hearts’, as it happens, the Bible teaches just such an idea in that all humans were made in ‘God’s image’; as well as the existence of conscience in a sin-sick world (Romans 1 & 2). However, the important ingredient missing in your hypothesis is sin. I’d have no problems with the world at all (given we are all made in God’s image) if the world wasn’t full of sin, which is our rejection of God and our rebellion against His ways.

Re. rules for divorce etc.: You stated that these rules make no sense, but if you understood the Biblical concept of these laws, you would find that they make perfect sense. Divorce for example. God’s rules for divorce do not condone divorce, they recognise the reality that this is a sinful fallen world, and that sin needs to be accounted for. Jesus talked directly to this issue in Matthew 19 (particularly verse 8). The entire Mosaic law was given to God’s people in recognition of the fact and reality of sin. Biblically, divorce laws allow divorce only in the circumstance of unfaithfulness (adultery – which is of course sinful and prohibited elsewhere) – it is the laws of divorce that regulate and protect the rights of the partner who has not been unfaithful. God makes it clear that He hates divorce. Polygamy – well, that’s a more interesting one. You’re quite right, it’s not forbidden (to my knowledge), and in that sense I would not say it’s necessarily wrong. However, it is never condoned either, and references to it generally maintain that it is less than ideal (most accounts of it in the Bible emphasise the negative results of such practice). It’s not a topic I’ve studied in depth, but I’ve certainly got no desires to be polygamous, I find the idea entirely distasteful. This point then ties in with your next comment:

You said: “ “The created pattern was clear however: one man, one woman.” What makes you think that’s a god-given pattern?” The Genesis account: God created one man, and one woman. Not one man and three women. There are plenty of Biblical references that uphold this consistently as well, and outlaw the practice of non-marital (one man one woman) sexual practices. This is the fundamental pattern established by God.

Thanks again for your responses Dan, most people bail out before things have a chance to take off!

Steely Dan says:

02:25pm | 07/07/10

@ Tell It:

“That was almost precisely what I had in mind… what I was arguing was that on the purely physical level, this fundamental ingredient of the nuclear family is the only option (reproduction = 1 man + 1 woman).”
Then why didn’t you just say that Gillard is wrong for choosing not to have children?  Why respond to the term ‘nuclear family’ at all in this context?

“However, the important ingredient missing in your hypothesis is sin. I’d have no problems with the world at all (given we are all made in God’s image) if the world wasn’t full of sin, which is our rejection of God and our rebellion against His ways.”
Then you’ve moved away from your initial premise (ie. “the Biblical formula is still basically necessary for a healthy society, and that it’s broadly a negative thing to undermine the formula”).  Your claim seems to have shifted to ‘secular society is spiritually bad’.  If you believe that, fine, but I don’t believe that your right to live what you deem a spiritually correct life is being restrained by anybody in this country.

“God makes it clear that He hates divorce.”
Maybe.  I don’t recall objecting to that premise.

“The Genesis account: God created one man, and one woman.”
This establishes a pattern for reproduction.  Reproduction necessarily involves no more or less than one man and one woman, even within a polygamous situation.  But putting that aside, that’s not sufficient to show that the pattern is god-given.  You’d need to establish that the Genesis account is an accurate description of what happened first.

tell it like it is says:

01:29pm | 08/07/10

@Steely Dan:

Re. human rights

Dan, I don’t think that you are seeing my central point – being the possibility of an ‘ought’ in an atheistic perception of reality (throughout our discussion we’ve had a number of examples: there is a way nuclear families ought to be; humans ought to have the right not to be harmed; Christians ought not to try and foist their beliefs on others in society; etc).

At the centre of it all is the question: what is ‘ought’? and is it even possible? Is there a way things should be and a way we should act?

You said in your last post: “Again, you’re confusing ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Just because might gets its way (is) doesn’t mean they are automatically right to do it (‘ought’).” This is why I think you’re missing my whole point – there is no ought if we are in the materialist atheist universe propounded by atheists and that’s my argument.

If the universe as we know it is purely physical, purely derivative of natural means (I think that’s already sounding ridiculous but a discussion for another day!) – then the physical is all there is. There is no intrinsic value to anything, there is no way things ought to be, there is merely the way things are.

Now, place humans in such an environment. We come in with all sorts of ideas on reality – but these ideas merely originate from us. They are not reality, they are our thoughts on reality. That’s the sole point of call for any idea, and the sole authority for any idea. As you said in an earlier post: “We can construct ‘oughts’ though, using objective reality (the ‘is’) as our guide.” But that’s just the point – there is no guide from mere reality itself properly speaking; there is only our interpretation. These interpretations are purely subjective, and not at all intrinsically binding or worth anything at all (how can they be?). The universe just exists, it didn’t create any morals, they don’t exist physically, we basically constructed them.

Take the ‘fact’ that we don’t like being hurt. Your interpretation (‘ought’) is that we should thus seek to form communities which mutually avoid harm to all. Fair interpretation. But it’s worth no more, and is no more intrinsically correct, than the opinion of the person who takes the same fact and decides he derives pleasure from causing harm to others (he ought to be able to rule over others in tyranny if he can in his eyes). In an atheistic universe, that’s merely his interpretation, and it is no more wrong than yours because wrong is merely something you and I have invented anyway.

If you start with an atheistic universe as your base assumption, a meaningless universe without the possibility of objective truth is the inevitable and logical end result (thus my basic argument that ‘rights’ and indeed morals are a non-binding illusion if the universe is atheistically materialist as presupposed by most atheists). So few atheists live consistently with this starting point – although Nietzsche came as close as anyone I know of. The question of objective truth is important (as the ‘ought’ is founded in it) – that is, is it possible? In an atheistic universe, it can’t be possible (and most atheists will agree I believe). Ultimately your claims for rights etc. must rest on truth – is it true that people have human rights? I don’t believe it’s possible in an atheistic universe.

Lastly – I didn’t take any offence whatsoever at your last comment on not following the standards of the Bible. On one level you are, of course, correct. To be consistently following the standards of the Bible requires comprehensive and flawless interpretation of it. This is not humanly possible, and I certainly don’t claim such ability. However, I do seek to absolutely submit myself to it inasmuch as my understanding allows. You cite pro-slavery passages. I’ve got no problem with slavery – so long as we’re sticking to the Biblical definition of slavery (which I think is much closer to what we view as employment these days: i.e. service in return for security, protection, etc. – Biblically, slaves certainly had rights as well). Although I will say upfront that I do not think that the kind of slavery that Mr Wilberforce fought against was aligned with Biblical slavery. I would of course side with Mr Wilberforce in his perspective on the abuse of human life which he was fighting against.

Steely Dan says:

12:06pm | 21/07/10

@ Tell It:
Sorry, been away from internet connection for a while, not sure if you’ll see this…

“Dan, I don’t think that you are seeing my central point – being the possibility of an ‘ought’ in an atheistic perception of reality”
I do see your point, and I think I’ve already addressed it.  You see an ‘ought’ as being necessarily intrinsic, although you understand that we can construct a workable system of ethics based on not trying to harm others.  My point is that you haven’t established that an intrinsic moral law exists.  You would have to show that an intrinsic law-giver exists first. 

“But it’s worth no more, and is no more intrinsically correct, than the opinion of the person who takes the same fact and decides he derives pleasure from causing harm to others (he ought to be able to rule over others in tyranny if he can in his eyes).”
Intrinsically, yes.  But as I’ve mentioned, I’m not claiming that we can arrive at moral laws that are absolute or intrinsic.  But my rejection of this hypothetical person’s recommendation (that we dispense with an ethical system based on harm reduction) is as valid as my opinion that gravity exists.  I can’t show that harm reduction is ‘intrinsically’ a good aim, and I can’t ‘intrinsically’ show that gravity exists.  But I can put forward very convincing arguments for both.

“I’ve got no problem with slavery – so long as we’re sticking to the Biblical definition of slavery (which I think is much closer to what we view as employment these days: i.e. service in return for security, protection, etc. – Biblically, slaves certainly had rights as well).”
I’m not sure why you think the term ‘slave’ meant ‘employee’.  Is it okay to beat your employees, so long as they don’t die within a day or two after the beating (Exodus 21:20)?  And does this mean that in the very same book, 20:2 should read: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of employment?”  Were Moses’ followers just God’s chosen dole-bludgers?

V I Lenin says:

09:44am | 28/06/10

Yeah! There’s no point voting: the government gets in all the time! What percentage of statistics do you think are made up on the spot? 87.5%? 93.8? Probably more. Thanks for the warning. If the ABC ever re-make Mr Squiggle, you could probably audition for the role of ‘Blackboard’.

hugh says:

11:00am | 28/06/10

No one cares about politics in this country. the leader of our country was removed by some unionists, and not a word from the people.

In other countries there would be outrage. While we dont directly elect officials into their paliamentary positions, the last campaign was on the back of Rudd for PM. The fact he has been removed is an indictment on our system. Our parliament should be dissolved and put to an election right away. But as no one give a rats arse about politics (besides people in Canberra), it wont happen

So, you are correct - there is no point in voting. Every party has the same policies, and if someone recommends anything different, they are removed.

Steely Dan says:

10:50am | 28/06/10

@Doh
“I hope you keep talking loudly about this issue Carrie.  It will continue to slap the majority of Australians who hold decent values in the face”
Humour me, Doh.  Expand on ‘decent values’.

Doh says:

12:25pm | 28/06/10

@Steely Dan

Sorry, I should have included the Institute (or dare I say it sacrament) of Marriage in my post above.

Steely Dan says:

12:49pm | 28/06/10

@ Doh

“Sorry, I should have included the Institute (or dare I say it sacrament) of Marriage in my post above.”
Ah, I see.  Anybody who doesn’t subscribe to your myth of choice is evil and immoral, and people not being married makes you gosh darn mad?  Well, the onus is on you to show how Gillard (and myself) are immoral. 

Most Christian people in this country (Abbott included) have had sex outside of marriage.  Move to the Vatican if it makes you happier.

Doh says:

04:42pm | 28/06/10

“Anybody who doesn’t subscribe to your myth of choice is evil and immoral”

Er, believe it or not Christians do not hold a monopoly on marriage although it is held in particularly high esteem in that faith.  Have you made a similar lifelong committment to your partner?

“Most Christian people in this country (Abbott included) have had sex outside of marriage.”

It was tough, but I actually did make that decision and am happier for it.  I never made any judgement and don’t wish to but every single friend of mine (both Christian and non Christian) who did not wait have expressed their regret in not waiting as I did.

“Move to the Vatican if it makes you happier. “

Rome is quite nice this time of year, thanks for the tip!!

Steely Dan says:

09:59pm | 28/06/10

@ Doh

“Er, believe it or not Christians do not hold a monopoly on marriage”
Or ethics, Doh.

“Have you made a similar lifelong committment to your partner?”
I have.  But so what if I hadn’t?

“but every single friend of mine (both Christian and non Christian) who did not wait have expressed their regret in not waiting as I did.”
No regrets here.  But I respect your right to make that decision.  I don’t think that you’re without morals for it.  That’s why I’m not a bigot.

Doh says:

11:01am | 29/06/10

@ Steely Dan:

“I have.  But so what if I hadn’t?”

If you have, why not affirm your commitment by way of marriage?  It does not need to be a religious ceremony.

“That’s why I’m not a bigot.”

You may not be, but as for the article above:

Bigot exhibits:

“Clearly what Ms Gillard meant was that God is an imaginary friend who grown-ups don’t need because they have real ones”

“‘family values’ bullshit”

““the great God, and creator of us all”. What the…?”

Steely Dan says:

11:32am | 29/06/10

@ Doh

“If you have, why not affirm your commitment by way of marriage?  It does not need to be a religious ceremony.”
We didn’t have a ceremony, religious or otherwise.  We told everyone we were together for good, then had a party.  Again - so what if I hadn’t?

“Clearly what Ms Gillard meant… they have real ones”
What’s wrong with that statement? Carrie’s not trying to take away anybody’s rights, or (like yourself) calling them immoral for living their life a different way.

“‘family values’ bullshit”
It’s a loaded term, Doh.  In the context it means ‘no gays, women stay at home’.  It doesn’t mean that the author is anti-values or anti-family.  Don’t play dumb on this one, you’re just coming across as petty.

““the great God, and creator of us all”. What the…?”
Read the article again, Doh.  She’s criticising Rudd (and Abbott) for trying to ‘out-Catholic’ each other.  It’s blatant vote-grabbing, and Catholics should be the most offended by it.

Sam says:

04:50pm | 28/06/10

Finally someone talks some sense.

blah says:

11:36am | 28/06/10

you chose the labor party though!

DJ says:

09:20am | 29/06/10

No lets bring back terms like ‘Barren’ and ‘Spinster’, it’s Barren by choice

ArgDesigned says:

10:44am | 28/06/10

She had no choice, Neff. 

Besides, she didn’t bring down the messiah, even if Kev thought himself ‘designed’ to be one (60 minutes 21 June)

Judas says:

02:37pm | 28/06/10

For over 2000 years now, Judas has been getting a terrible run of bad press.

So what if he kissed some uppity cult leader on the cheek in front of some soldiers.

The bloke had been carrying on as if he were holier than thou for far too long, telling all these stories about a a man in the sky, living in a fantasy land, claiming he could walk on water and the like - a little like our dearly departed Kevin really.

Old mate Jesus deserved to be strung up the way he carried on..,.

Doh says:

04:48pm | 28/06/10

@Judas

I would love to see you try and make a similar comment about a certain prophet and see what happens…..

Judas says:

10:16pm | 28/06/10

@Doh - if it were appropriate and in context I would. As far as I know however, Therese was of legal age when Kevin married her.

blah says:

11:48am | 28/06/10

This is a joke right? I thought each and every one of us have a ‘right’. A right to have or NOT to have children, a right to lead our own lives, a right to have or NOT to have a religion. With your attitude RIpa, its soudns like everyone that doesnt conform to your belief is an immoral, non humane being. GROW UP. NOT everyone is the same; what is required from everyone is tolerance and a non simplistic view of everything. What we should judge though is r Julia’s choices as a leader of this country .

Barney says:

03:58pm | 28/06/10

Jeez calm down Ripa, take a breath before you start. Yours is a rant if ever I heard one. And it’s the same old rubbish about people who haven’t had kids being selfish. Stop and consider it from another viewpoint - Julia hasn’t had kids because she wouldn’t be able to give them her full attention, because she’s too busy devoting her time to trying to create a better country.

Some people have kids for purely selfish reasons. They are the types who are doing it because they want to see their little creation have a great life and they think it reflects on them and their parenting. Some people don’t think it’s great having their own family - including those who have families - so don’t try and make out like having a family is all about some selfless mission to create a better future.

Notice you never see posts about how great it is to be in a family - that’s because they’re all wrapped in their selfish little bubble not caring about the rest of the world.

Andrew says:

05:13pm | 28/06/10

Barney and blah, interesting viewpoints, if not a little narrow minded. I suppose if your parents thought as you do we would not be having this argument.

Of course genetically we are programmed to procreate and being social animals we form family units, tribal etc all the way up to the whole society. Throughout history it is likely your viewpoint (unless you were monks) would not have been tolerated and would have been seen as an attack on society itself. Aren’t we all lucky we don’t live like that now.

In terms of selfishness, I guess its all relative. At the end of the day parent of children might interpret people electing not to have children as doing so because they are so self important they don’t want anyone else interfering with their hedonistic little life.

On the other hand non-parents resent such an inference and claim they pay more than their fair share of taxes and therefore are subsidising the family groups. There are of course a few problems here. Firstly, the amount of tax we pay has little if anything to do with our contirbution to society. If it did wealthy individuals who paid $1m tax (even if it was only 5% of their income) would be worshipped whilst someone who pays say $20k would be encouraged to earn more and hence pay more. This is not the case. Secondly, your theory only works well for about ...hmm ... one generation. After that what happens? Oh, I see you don’t care because, your dead and their is no god and you left no-one behind. I see, and the immigrants who take up the slack. What happens if they try to force their believe system on the next wave of childless atheists. Oh, you don’t care because you are dead and left nothing behind and their is no god. Oh, ok.

One last question for you. If their is little or no value in the family unit and you leave nothing behind, why in the name of (insert deity here) do you give a black rats arse about climate change?

DJ says:

09:29am | 29/06/10

Oh I am sick of the argument “if your parents had decided that” blah blah woof woof, for gods sake. We are not animals, we are not pre-programmed to procreate. Now I love kids and plan to have at least one so don’t slam me for that, but seriously? WTF? why is it that everytime someone mentions their personal CHOICE which is part of the whole “free will” thing someone comes along with the parents issue or my kids will be wiping your arse, most likely not mate, it’s more than likely they will be serving me in McDonalds, a high IQ does not guarantee off spring with the same, just like 2 beautiful parents does not guarantee beautiful children.
having kids is a CHOICE (most of the time) it is NOT a miracle, millions of people do it every day and it has been that way for centuries, you haven’t done anything special that people in China or Africa haven’t already done. Now if you could find a way to grow a baby without the need for a mother (an artificial womb if you will) then that would be a miracle

Andrew says:

09:48am | 29/06/10

DJ, we are animals and we are pre-programmed to procreate. That is absolute scientific fact so you sort of lost me after that.

DJ says:

10:22am | 29/06/10

Human beings have evolved past the ‘animal instincts’ part of our nature, seriously how many times have you attacked someone for looking at your ‘girl’? as society evolves so to do we, we no longer kill people who threaten us, show me these ‘facts’ that say we are pre-programmed, state your source on that opinion

Steely Dan says:

03:26pm | 29/06/10

@ DJ

“show me these ‘facts’ that say we are pre-programmed, state your source on that opinion”
Sexual arousal seems the most obvious example to me. 
Of course our instincts to bash people who look at our partners are (usually) tempered by our instinct to maintain a safe and functioning society.  But we’re still animals, DJ.  You’re welcome to think of yourself as rising above the baseness of the animals around you, but your biology disagrees with you.

Old Clive says:

12:13pm | 28/06/10

Thank you for letting me know where Pers has gone, I had thought that he or she had gone to the nether world from whence he or she had come from, but alas as you have pointed out she has risen from the nether world to lead all of the subterrerainians to the surface. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country and send her back to from whence she came.

Andrew says:

11:40am | 28/06/10

Thanks BobM, made me smile. Cheers.

Barney says:

04:16pm | 28/06/10

Don’t you think the same thing has happened with male politicians for pete’s sakes - I seem to remember a little scandal involving the AWB and yet Alexander Downer retained his position.

A bit of balance wouldn’t go astray.

Andrew says:

05:50pm | 28/06/10

BS Barney, the AWB matter was treated very seriously by the Libs on the other hand the BER “investigation” is being run by Brad Orgill a Labor fanboy who was installed to ensure a good report. If you want a fair look at the BER their needs to be either a Judicial Inquiry or a Royal Commission. No chance of that with these bozos is there.

Seano says:

06:41pm | 28/06/10

What waste? There is no media scrutiny because biased opinion does not count as proof of anything.

And apparently such a hardline socialist that she’s dumped “big Australia” as almost her first act as PM.

And just so you’ve got your facts complete straight Gillard was elected PM by the Australia Labor Party.

antiperspirant says:

08:30pm | 28/06/10

Errr Seano. Please explain to me how she has “dumped” the big Australia policy.

What positive steps has she taken to reduce immigration from its current level to ensure we don’t reach the 36 million figure by 2050?

http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/current-level-of-immigration-to-be-a-disaster-for-australia/

There is some information. So if Jools is against a big Australia she must be going to cut immigration dramatically and obviously stopping the boats must be on the agenda too. We can’t have more people coming to achieve her aim.

So. Where is the policy?

Where is the action?

She has “said” something that she thinks will be popular, sort of like “greatest moral challenge of our time” and now I wait with bated breath for the action.

Where is it Seano? It seems all too familiar to me. Promise the undeliverable, promote the popular, lie to the people and have no plan.

I am glad she said it. I hope the msm follows her up on it and asks her the question on the implementation. Of course the msm are all starry eyed and dribbling about “her” elevation. The real story will take a while to get out. Hence an early election. I wonder if the msm will do its’ job this time.

What a load of bullshit - the Australian people have already decided the fate of one bullshit artist. Time for number 2.

Oh and Seano the waste is there. it just will not be investigated.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/schools-stimulus-taskforce-ignores-principals-complaints/story-e6frg6nf-1225884949210

There ya go - don’t be afraid to read information and improve your knowledge base.

Seano says:

11:39am | 29/06/10

1. The opinion of a right winger isn’t fact no matter how you might wish it so.
2. Complaints on their own are proof of nothing. Certainly not the ridiculous numbers being thrown around by the conservative demagoguery. Such a relatively small number of complaints with such a large number of projects would suggest you are grasping at straws.

Sally says:

11:15am | 28/06/10

Belief in a God, without proof, is merely choice (religion).  Disbelief in a God, without proof, is merely choice (atheism).  Hence, isn’t it better to be agnostic and admit you can’t be sure either way due to lack of proof?

Teddie says:

11:18am | 28/06/10

No, religion is centred on the supernatural: i.e. the unverified notions that could be considered fictitious if it weren’t for the vehemence of their promoters - promoters who usually have a financial interest by way of lifestyle

Zac says:

11:23am | 28/06/10

Can’t agree more!! However one thing will change under Atheism, that is freedoms, Check out Atheist China, Atheist North Korea, 20th century Communism and French Jacobine revolution for what I mean. Like Avi Shafran neatly put’s it in - The Indignity of Atheism - “Atheism, in the end, is a belief system in its own right, one in which there can be no claim that a thieving, philandering, serial murdering cannibal is any less commendable a member of the species than a selfless, hard-working philanthropist. In fact, from an evolutionist perspective, the former may well have the advantage.

To a true atheist, there can be no more ultimate meaning to good and bad actions than to good or bad weather; no more import to right and wrong than to right and left. To be sure, rationales might be conceived for establishing societal norms, but social contracts are practical tools, not moral imperatives; they are, in the end, artificial. Only an acknowledgement of the Creator can impart true meaning to human life, placing it on a plane above that of mosquitoes.

Luke4 says:

11:27am | 28/06/10

I’m Agnostic which means I believe that belief in God is unknowable or unknown.
Athiest believe there is no God.

Steely Dan says:

11:29am | 28/06/10

@ Eric
“Atheism is just another religion.”
... like bald is a hair colour.

Steely Dan says:

11:50am | 28/06/10

@ Zac

“However one thing will change under Atheism, that is freedoms, Check out Atheist China, Atheist North Korea, 20th century Communism and French Jacobine revolution for what I mean.”
Who’s arguing for an ‘atheist’ government?  I’m an atheist, I want secularism!  If you want to have a look at a modern, Western country with a high proportion of atheists have a look at Scandinavia.  Secular governments work.  And you seem to be equating communism with atheism…

“Atheism, in the end, is a belief system in its own right…”
Incorrect.  See dictionary.

“…one in which there can be no claim that a thieving, philandering, serial murdering cannibal is any less commendable a member of the species than a selfless, hard-working philanthropist.”
Then why do I give to charities?  Why do I uphold the law?

“In fact, from an evolutionist perspective, the former may well have the advantage.”
Ah, you’re a creationist!

P T Barnum says:

12:09pm | 28/06/10

@Zac,

Oh great! Someone who mistakes ‘religion’ and ‘morality’. I think you’ll find that those nasty pagan ancient Greeks did very well tussling with moral issues, without any need for your monotheist ‘god’. Equating atheism with moral relitivism is a sign of supreme ignorance (see Nietzsche). Your superstition has no place in the modern world and is about as valid as Scientology.

JC says:

12:54pm | 28/06/10

Does that mean if i declare my home an Atheist church, i get it tax free? yee haa

Grant says:

12:56pm | 28/06/10

@ Eric

Wrong.

You have clearly regurgitated this statement from elsewhere, it is incorrect and has been used by various religious leaders and organisations too disingenuously and purposefully place atheism in to the category of a belief system or the ‘presence of belief’.

An atheist is a person who is not a theist; it is the ‘absence of belief’.

Seano says:

01:33pm | 28/06/10

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Luke4 says:

01:50pm | 28/06/10

Grant - Atheism is a belief, there is no God full stop. That’s a belief.
Aganostic is having no belief either way. It is unknown.

zac says:

01:55pm | 28/06/10

Legally atheism counts as a religion

Dr. Perkins
spokesperson for Atheist Foundation of Australia

Zac says:

02:11pm | 28/06/10

To all those who claim Atheism is not a belief system think again. Here is why Atheism is a belief(s). Google “Atheistic Violence” for some practical observations from Atheist conventions.

Atheism is more than a belief. It is an ideology/doctrine, a belief system and a lifestyle. In a nutshell it is values based.

Atheism, in this day and age when religion is all around us, is not simple non-belief. Ignorance is non-belief. Atheism is a conscious decision to disregard the gods and theology proposed in different religions.

It’s disbelief. It’s making a stand and saying, “Your theistic belief system is bunk, and here is why I think so”. The irony is that such a stance is the creation of another belief system, which can turn itself into a religion.

a) Athiesm is certainly an IDEOLOGY.

Here is what I mean when I say atheism is an ideology…….

1 The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

BASIC DOCTRINE’S OR TENETS OF ATHEISM

There is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some common, there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. Listed below are some of them.

Pease note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets.

Believes -

1. There is no God or devil.

2. There is no supernatural realm.

3. Miracles cannot occur.

4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.

5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.

6. Man is material.

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.

8. Ethics and morals are relative

Judas says:

02:49pm | 28/06/10

@zac - you are a bufoon and an ignoramus.

The legal definition of a religion in Australia, as set down by the High Court of Australia during a case in which Scientology was attempting to become legally recognised is:

“We therefore hold that, for the purposes of the law, the criteria for religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.”

Despite the fact that atheism (note the lower case “a”) is the absence of belief, about the only thing that all atheists have in common is:

1 - they are animals
2 - they have evolved past the ignorant, fearful, superstitious peasants of several centuries ago and no longer need to worship a sky pixie.

Steely Dan says:

02:53pm | 28/06/10

@ Zac

“Atheism is a conscious decision to disregard the gods and theology proposed in different religions.”
You can be an atheist and do that, but that’s not mandatory for the definition.

“It’s disbelief. It’s making a stand and saying, “Your theistic belief system is bunk, and here is why I think so”.”
Your first sentence was correct.  Do you understand the difference between not believing X, and believing that X is wrong?

“There is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some common”
Thankyou, Zac.  Took a while for you to say it, but we got there in the end, didn’t we? 

“7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.”
Is this in contention?

“8. Ethics and morals are relative”
I’ve never met an atheist who asserts this.

Terry Wright says:

06:21pm | 28/06/10

Seano says: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”

Seano: 1
Eric: 0

Only those who believe in god also believe atheism is a religion.

Most atheists simply don’t care what other folks believe.

It seems that it’s mainly those who believe in religion that get all tangled up with profound mythology and in-depth analysis of atheism.

But then again, isn’t it the duty of the religious to convert sinners and heathens?

Eric says:

06:25pm | 28/06/10

All these atheists zealously defending their faith and proselytising their beliefs - while claiming they’re not religious.

It’s a laugh riot!

Chris L says:

08:51pm | 28/06/10

I suppose, Eric, they are seeing an ill-informed assumption about them being proferred as fact and feel an irresistable urge to point out the truth. Look up the definition of atheism, there is no central belief, dogma, practices or organisation. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don’t follow any religion. As an atheists I’ll be quite happy to believe in gods if ever there is any evidence, but at the moment there is as much proof of gods as there is of Santa Claus.

Steely Dan says:

10:08pm | 28/06/10

@ Eric

“All these atheists zealously defending their faith and proselytising their beliefs - while claiming they’re not religious.”
You’re my hero Eric.  When confronted with logic you stand proud and unwavering in your ignorance.

Terry Wright says:

10:56pm | 28/06/10

Eric says “All these atheists zealously defending their faith and proselytising their beliefs - while claiming they’re not religious”.

Funny, I thought they were simply explaining why they don’t believe in superstitious rituals.

As I said, only those who believe in god also believe atheism is a religion.

xyz says:

11:20pm | 28/06/10

Zac…“Legally atheism counts as a religion…Dr. Perkins spokesperson for Atheist Foundation of Australia”

Nothing like a bit of quote mining, hey Zac?

The actual quote is from an article in The Age on 29/01/2010 about the Atheist Foundation of Australia lodging complaints of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart after being refused permission to put atheist advertising on buses. Dr Perkins emailed a complaint to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission… part of which said “Legally atheism counts as a religion, though we say we’re not one”.

Poor form Zac, poor form!

... and Eric, if atheism is a religion then off is a TV channel!

Eric says:

05:58am | 29/06/10

Of course atheism is a religion. It’s a belief system and it actively evangelises. It even gets into wars with other religions.

Also, not only is “off” a TV channel, it’s the best one!

Seano says:

09:49am | 29/06/10

Eric I see your point. I guess the next thing I should do is go to an Atheist Church, speak to an Atheist minister, take the Atheist sacrament, say an Atheist prayer and start worshiping the Atheist God…..whooooa wait a minute that doesn’t make any sense at all. And neither does your argument.

Eric you talk belief but the majority of Atheists would happily accept scientific proof of God or Gods, unlike you believers who will happily swallow any bedtime story.

Judas says:

09:51am | 29/06/10

@Eric - it is interesting that you use emotively religious terms: “prosletysing”, “evangelises”, “zealously” to convey your ignorance of what atheism is (and isn’t).

In terms even someone like yourself should understand - the “a” placed before the “theism” implies that an atheist is without theistic beliefs.

Simply put, it means without theism, without gods.

As religion/theism requires; by definition, the belief in one or more deities - it is impossible for atheism to be a religion.

You personally may believe that standing under the sun on a summer day makes you warm - doesn’t make sunbathing a religion.

Pinky says:

12:20am | 29/06/10

He looks like he is probably comfortable wearing a frilly pink apron while he cooks breakfast. for Julia.
I think Jules breaks the PM mould in that way too, another first for the Lodge I guess.
I think their relationship works well for them.

Teddie says:

11:38am | 28/06/10

it started with Bill Heffernan, the QLD farmer-turned-conservative-politician who was Howard’s Rottweiler.

Luke4 says:

01:41pm | 28/06/10

Her mother said on TV that she made that choice when she was 18.

Star says:

04:48pm | 28/06/10

I agree that the word ‘barren’ is offensive. It’s up there with the term ‘breeder’ in the scale of offensiveness. Funny that both are almost exclusively used to refer to women.  Women are neither failed harvests or fertile livestock thank you very much!

Star says:

04:57pm | 28/06/10

replace ‘or’ with ‘nor’!  Damn hasty typing!

Mayday says:

12:13pm | 28/06/10

Barren and childless are worlds apart, she links religion to the nuclear family….....thats a stretch as I like many friends and acquaintances are atheists!
Carrie gives the Church too much credence as with other left wing feminists, we are so lucky this country is a secular society and religion is not forced upon us. 
This attitude may explain why the Left are so worried about Tony Abbott becoming PM, for heavens sake (excuse the pun) his personal attitudes will not govern the country as with Kevin Rudd.
Carrie also sounds rather angry, she needs to broaden her outlook and look further than her own needs.  She may be projecting her fears about being childless onto the rest of us by trying to deny the love and joy children bring. 
Not sure what world Carrie lives in but maybe if she spent some time in the park or at the beach and listened to children and families enjoy themselves she may just laugh and lighten up a little?!

Dust Buster says:

03:43pm | 29/06/10

@Mayday,

presumably in the same way John Howard’s personal attitudes didn’t ‘govern the country’? Why don’t you read ‘God under Howard’ by Marion Maddox, to bring you up to speed with the infiltration of the major parties and the parliament by right-wing christians before you offer your ill-considered opinions and sanctimonious ‘advice’?

Mayday says:

08:51am | 30/06/10

@ Dust Buster

Yes we are all governed by religious zealots, ha, ha!
What country are you living in, a time warp perhaps - not sure how old you are but you’d think it was Australia in the 1950’ or Northern Ireland.
Sanctimonious, couldn’t you find a word without religious connotation?

Dust Buster says:

08:41pm | 30/06/10

@Mayday,

I chose the word ‘sanctimonious’ because it accurately describes your attitude… just spin around on the spot and feel the LOVE… now flap your arms like a little birdy… So I’m completely mistaken that the ‘christian’ specifically the ‘christian right’ have gained an ascendancy in this counrty entirely disproportionate to the percentage of people who claim to be ‘practicing christians’, is that correct? Are you aware of christain breakfast meetings in the parliament? Have you ever seen a busload of pale, nerdy, geeks being deposited at a ‘Hillsong’ church? Do the words ‘Exclusive Bretheren’ mean anything to you? Have you ever read ‘God under Howard’ or are readin’ and facts’n'that beneath you?

Richard says:

02:55pm | 28/06/10

But for many people, (including myself) the nature of human being is spread across three planes of existence: physical, mental and spiritual. Now the problem with Gillard is, having disregarded the natural physical urge for procreation, and having spurned the spontaneous spiritual experience of the supernatural, she is totally and utterly consumed by her mental experience of reality. What an imbalanced world view!

DJ says:

11:08am | 29/06/10

couldn’t physical portain to health? who is to say that ‘natural’ is procreating? just because millions of people have done it before you? if they all jumped off a cliff would you follow?

George Custard says:

02:19pm | 28/06/10

I would have thought by ‘irrational vote’ you would have meant ‘the christian right’, i.e people who have ‘imaginary friends’ not people who believe that maintaining a livable environment on this planet is an obligation, not an ‘option’. Next time you read a ‘recent poll’ do yourself a favour and dig until you find who commissioned it. The last ‘disastrous’ poll for Rudd was conducted among 1800 people in marginal (mining) seats in WA & Queensland. Commissioned by? You guessed it! The mining industry.

Steely Dan says:

12:56pm | 28/06/10

@ Lee from WA

How is not having kids selfish?  I don’t have kids, and I’m happily paying taxes that support other people’s children.  And if I don’t have any, I’m actually reducing the potential competition for resources today’s kids will have to face in the future.

But you’re not arguing for the family, are you Lee?  Something tells me you’re arguing for the same thing most people are when they use the term ‘family values’ - removing the rights of those who want to keep their private lives private.

Joan says:

12:56pm | 28/06/10

`The family values ‘bullshit’` - and Gillard milks it for all its worth- lot`s of votes

George Custard says:

01:16pm | 28/06/10

Actually Lee,

‘family values’ bullshit is neo-conservative, right-wing christian code for ‘our values’. Presumably these are very highly valued, by the 8% of Australians who regularly attend chuch… oh and the minority of parents who expect the education system to take responsibility to instill ‘values’ in their children. They are no doubt popular among parents who often ‘choose’ to send their children to federal government subsidised denominational schools. So much for the separationof church and state. Who promotes ‘materialism and selfishness’? I thought we had a whole political party promoting that!

joe says:

02:56pm | 29/06/10

Hi Lee I agree totally with you. No-one is attacking these single women, and then people like this author come out attacking those with families. It’s like they have a chip on their shoulder or something to prove or something. I wonder.

Steely Dan says:

03:22pm | 28/06/10

@ Fred

That’s fine if we use that definition.  But unless you’ve been living under a rock, the term ‘family values’ has been commandeered by the religious right to specifically exclude many of those values you’ve mentioned above.  That’s what Carrie is calling out as bullshit.

Martin G says:

01:52pm | 28/06/10

Better jail all those Christian followers as hate-crimers as well then…

I’m not personally religious, but did you put ANY thought in before typing and then posting that tripe?

rojul says:

02:27pm | 28/06/10

All freedom-loving people in Australia should know that Amanda’s view is no longer on the fringe. People like her have infiltrated, and now dominate, local councils, public school boards, universities, and the media across the Western World. Unless Christians and Muslims find their way into these institutions, all religious people will be purged from mainstream society - and it’s as simply as that.

If you think it won’t happen read some history, it has occurred time and time again.

Andrew says:

02:41pm | 28/06/10

Spot on! We should have a state based ethics system like, say Noth Korea. Good idea comrade. Let’s get ‘em all.

BobM says:

02:49pm | 28/06/10

@Amanda - suggest you move to China or North Korea then. I’m sure they will welcome a forward thinking person such as yourself with open arms. Name one Western country that has banned religion….....dingbat.

Amanda says:

04:14pm | 28/06/10

Im not saying that we shouldnt have churches it just that they should be regulated by the state. Lets put a cap on religious activities and take away there tax free threashold.  The Greens have a some great policies to stop christianity corrupting out children and our country. Gillard should also be in favour of limiting the christian influence that seems to creep into peoples live. If you honestly believe that there is no God we must stop people from getting sucked in. We need to legislate to stop people from doing thing they dont fully understand. If you are a true socialist you cannot condone the option of an unregulated faith. Gillard will hopefully come good and implement the reduction.

Andrew says:

06:08pm | 28/06/10

Um, so is it just christians or are we limiting the influence of all religions? Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Jehovahs Witness etc.

Yeah that’ll work. Are you familiar with the history of the World. The odd ocassional war has been fought over religion. Still you might be on to something, it would certainly put the breaks on middle east immigration.

I must also thank you for letting me know the Greens have a policy, I was unaware that they had any policies… ever.

Yours may be the dumbest post I have ever read, and trust me that is saying something.

Robert S McCormick says:

10:58am | 29/06/10

Amanda, your suggestion that the churches should be gotten rid of is spot on! Most of the main-line religions, particularly the Catholic & Anglican ones, are amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. They have untold wealth in property, shares & other investments. Their popes, archbishops,cardinals,bishops,priests, nuns etc. have been indulging themselves in child sex for generations. They deny it, they cover it up when it is revealed. They break universal law in refusing to hand their criminals over to the police. When made to pay compensation, usually a pathetic amount, they cry poor. The Anglicans recently wanted to get a charity, Anglicare, to hand over money intended to help the less fortunate, to it so it could pay it’s petty compensations. They should all and long before they are eliminated, now lose there “Tax Free Status”. I believe all of the following religious organisations should be baned immediately: Anglicanism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism their property & assets siezed, sold and put to better use.

Steely Dan says:

11:14am | 29/06/10

@ Amanda

The Greens don’t support state ‘regulation’ or ‘caps’ on religion.  They support the true separation of church and state.  You’ll have to make your own totalitarian nutbag party to push that craziness through.

@ Andrew

“I must also thank you for letting me know the Greens have a policy, I was unaware that they had any policies… ever.”
Ignorance of your democratic options is no excuse.  Go to the Greens website to read them, unless you’d rather just stick your fingers in your ears and yell till the elections over.  The Greens are currently the only major party that has policies they’re not constantly backflipping on.  You don’t have to agree with them or vote for them, but ignoring the policies of third most popular party in the country is - well, ignorant.  Perhaps as ignorant as Amanda.  And as you know, that’s saying something.

DJ says:

02:44pm | 29/06/10

@Dan - the Greens also want to allow people in prisons the right to vote, excuse me but they lost that right when they commited a crime

Barney says:

04:54pm | 28/06/10

It is such a ridiculous argument to say ‘thank god your parents didn’t feel that way about having children’ because you wouldn’t be born and you wouldn’t even know it…so how would you possibly be bitter about being denied the opportunity to exist…nobody asks to be born, do they.

Kathleen Delaney says:

03:38pm | 28/06/10

Alicia -  No children, no religion, wears pants, strength of a man (I don’t know where you got that from} and a “so called” boyfriend who is a hairdresser. I’m all in favour of simplicity of expression, but your point is??

DJ says:

10:35am | 29/06/10

it’s called freedom of speach, you want to say that get a job or launch an online blog with commentary

joe says:

02:39pm | 29/06/10

I think you are trying to say that it is freedom of “speech”!

If its all about freedom of speech why do only the Christian bashers seem to get all the airtime?

DJ says:

03:59pm | 29/06/10

because it’s controversial and will get over 360 responses from all the religious people telling us we’re wrong and us replying that we don’t care, just don’t try to convert people to your way of thinking.

yeah my typing is all over the place today

lonely isn't a given says:

03:53pm | 28/06/10

Why do you assume they go home alone, sleep alone etc etc? Maybe they go home to their fabulous partner (male or female), to sleep (or not….) together in their gorgous bedroom in their great house (with views perhaps you can’t afford?) and spend their weekends nurturing and being nurtured by their close friends and relatives? Where do you get off assuming you know what people’s lives are like?

Star says:

04:50pm | 28/06/10

These women are not feminists.  Nor are they lefties. They just as anti-choice as the most hardened ‘pro-lifer’

SATC says:

05:49pm | 28/06/10

why dont you look at it from another perspective. Maybe they are so fed up with going to weddings and constantly being asked “are you married?” (no) “why?” (how do you answer that?). “Do you have children?” (no) “why?” (once again, what is the answer to this question?)
Attack is the best form of defense.

joe says:

02:45pm | 29/06/10

Yeah Eva they have been sold the feminist lie and are having to try and justify it as sadly it is too late for them now to have a family.

Think of the alternate woman in her 50s who had children and now has grandchildren to dote on (and can hand them back), and a husband to travel with to visit their children and the world.

Nicole says:

03:23pm | 28/06/10

@Helga, I for one can’t stand the sight of Ms Gillard, but she chose not to have children or get married and that’s her choice. It doesn’t worry me one little bit. As for the personal attack on her partner, well that’s a really low blow. Don’t bring politicians families in to a debate, it’s extremely tacky and leaves you with no credibility.

Tedd says:

03:39pm | 28/06/10

Helga, your first paragraph is a non-sequitur, yet, all is not lost.

Steely Dan says:

03:43pm | 28/06/10

Amen!  Let’s take all those infidels who dare ask for their private lives to be private to the edge of the town and stone them like unruly children!

Loxy says:

03:44pm | 28/06/10

Helga, personally I think it is people like you with your narrow-minded and judgmental ideas that is undermining and holding our society back. Gillard’s views might be in the minority in the small circle of women you spend time with but I certainly don’t think they are in the minority overall. Less than 50% of people in this country affiliate themselves with a religion and less than 20% actually attend church regularly. Childless women/couples are significantly on the rise and defacto couples are pretty much the norm, with just about all those who marry actually living as de facto for many years first.

Julia signifies a modern and fresh approach to politics that keeps religion separate (as it should be) and embraces diversity rather than only focusing on those who go down the traditional pathway. Whilst not perfect, she will get my vote any day over Abbott and his 1950’s views.

Runs With Scissors says:

05:28pm | 28/06/10

Helga, you obviously haven’t spent time working with children in a low socio-economic area. There are many parents who quite simply should not be parents.

Lorn says:

05:41pm | 28/06/10

You’re probably no longer ‘average’ in your beliefs, even though as an “Australian woman’, you’re certainly in the ‘average’. I challenge you to walk into any public forum (not a selective ‘nuclear family only’ board mind you), and post: “I think we need to not let gays marry, everyone should have kids, careers are unimportant for women, and people need to be Christian.”

I think you will find yourself shouted out of the forum since many people (even ones in a similar life situation) will disagree with your ‘mind set’. So I’m kind of wondering on what basis you made your first comment.

After all, so far we haven’t had much luck with a married with kids man who is religious, anti-gay rights, family-supporting living in the lodge. The statistics say we can’t do much worse.

Ah but we could… Abott would be the extreme of that line, and if that day arrives, anyone not sharing those views of yours will fervently wish they weren’t Australian. That will be a large chunk of the population.

Rosie says:

06:23pm | 28/06/10

Helga I am sure your family values have stood you in good stead as mine have.

Reading the response to your comments I can fully understand where they are coming from. My daughter lost her husband to cancer and is now a single mother of two. Fortunately, because of the family values inherited from our parents we have a strong family unit and with a career that pays well she is capable of taking care of her 2 children. She will tell you that her children are her first priority because if she is not satisfied with the way in which she brings up her children it will take its toil on her career, something she cannot afford. She finds a balance and manages very well. Through her explanations to me I am able to understand and accept the mind set of a minority that wants it all their way. However, she is grateful with the set of family values instilled into her by her parents.

I have always looked forward to seeing for the first time Australia’s Prime Ministers with their wives and children after an election party win, standing on the podium with the PM making his winning speech! As an Australian in this democratic nation of ours it is always a proud moment for me. One of the few simple pleasures that will not take place if Gillard wins because we are living in the 21st century!

Her children attend a private school and fees per year is $16.000. Two months ago the $3million classrooms funded by the Rudd/Gillard Govt was finished. With all our hospital problems I think the money could have been better spent for improving our hospitals. The old classrooms were functional and it is not going to improve my grandchildren’s learning.

Daniel says:

08:11pm | 28/06/10

@Rosie you are completely missing the point. Gay parents are completely capable of having the family values that you talk about. Not believing in God has no relation to moral action, and a womans choice not to have children undermines society in no way at all. Helga is a perfect example of a person using family values as intolerant hate speech.

Lorn says:

05:34pm | 28/06/10

I must comment on this, though I really tried to hold myself back. The way this comment was formulated is so reminiscent of ways many religious ‘teachers’ try to gain popularity and erase wrongdoing, so I’m going to lay out a few truths to counter the dogma. And I’m not ‘picking’ on your religion, I respect people’s right to their beliefs in a higher being. I am however, going to pick apart your attempts at a logical argument.

The belief that Atheism causes strife and instability and insanity is ludicrous and illogical. That is like saying ‘An elephant wearing a green hat went on rampage in a village, therefore green hats make elepants rage.” ... I will say no more on that particular note.

As for how Atheism and religion ties with native peoples… I must say that the missionary hand-outs of small-pox ridden blankets was a particularly merciful touch. And of course, white Christian values at the turn of the century had no bearing what so ever on the treatment of the Aborigines. And traditional families values (Christian values) didn’t drive the politicians to say ‘yay’ to stealing children to rear them as ‘better Christian/civilized people.

I was being sarcastic, if you fail to notice.

Another thing. science has not PROVEN anything about ‘designed universes’. In fact, if you have ever read anything on Quantum physics you will find in fact, we live constantly in a state of chaos. The very ‘things’ that make up the world, the universe, matter are constantly buzzing around in an erratic pattern that is altered by even mere observation. Some order.

So yes, the Aboriginal situation in this country is abhorent, and somehow it needs to be rectified, but please, don’t drag religion into this as if you can sit on a high-horse, spout illogical beliefs as arguments and expect anyone to believe the drivel. Clearly someone has read your ‘article’, and found it as convincing as pigs in flight.

Peter says:

03:08pm | 29/06/10

@ Lorn and Hona.. Just as an interesting side note you’ll be interested in, i heard on BBC radio that they recorded the sound of two sub-atomic particles colliding together and apparantly it had a musical sound to it.. Fascinating i thought…

xyz says:

10:30pm | 28/06/10

Stewart Henstock,

1) I call Godwin’s law for that gratuitous reference to Hitler.

2) Julia’s been in the job for 5 minutes… giver her a chance to introduce her policies.

3) I agree with the concept of ‘freedom of religion’, however I don’t agree with those same religions enjoying a tax exempt status… especially those organisations that only claim to be a religion to get it (e.g. Scientology). I think all religions should lose their tax exempt status… no descrimination here!

fredd says:

09:21pm | 28/06/10

and long noses!

Lorn says:

05:20pm | 28/06/10

That’s a fairly narrow-minded ideal of social relationships there, Peter. For one, it suggests that loneliness can only be combated by having a family, which is a pretty shallow outlook, suggesting that members of the family are there simply to be ‘company’, and that the ‘standard’ is the best for everyone.

What about children who are still abused? Or not lonely at all gay couples who are still not seen as a standard ‘healthy functioning family’? And why are people who choose to be single are automatically branded as ‘lonely’, or ‘unsocial’?

Many people are happy with their families, and in the same token, many are happy not to have a wife, kids and a dog/goldfish (I don’t like kids, and I like cats). It’s unfair to say that encouraging people who choose not to have families are creating social problems. Family people are doing it too (rapists and pedophiles are not exclusively single or gay).

People is the problem, not our chosen social structures. We can’t force everyone to play happy families in the belief this will solve problems. One single mother’s experience does not make the case for ‘everyone needs a nuclear family’. We need better people, not a better family ‘formula’. When people accept others for differences rather than similarities, we’re on the road towards less lonely souls and better families.

DJ says:

10:39am | 29/06/10

Exactly Lorn, I will soon be a single mother BY CHOICE. and I wont be lonely, I am not lonely now as a single, I have parents, siblings and a neice and nephew and a bunch of friends. explain to me how I am lonely

Peter says:

11:19am | 29/06/10

I don’t know how rapists and peodophiles got mixed into this discussion. I agree with Carrie assursion that society is made up of more than just your mum, dad and 2.3 kids, I am not for one second suggesting that if we were all paired off and with kids, that we’d solve all of societies i’ll but the family is what successful societies are built on..

@ DJ, i don’t know under what circumstances your are making a choice to be a single mother, but nice of you to have already decided that your child doesn’t need a father. Someone is being selfish i think…

DJ says:

11:46am | 29/06/10

and yet if I say I don’t want kids I am also selfish? what if I told you my husband was murdered and I don’t want to find someone to replace them? is that selfish? I am assisting in the growth of the nation, who cares how or why? I had sex and the condom broke and have no plans on marrying the man, is that selfish? you don’t know my reasons behind my choice and choice it is, would you prefer I had an abortion?

Peter says:

02:27pm | 29/06/10

@ DJ, of course your not being selfish if you became a widow, or were raped and you had a child etc. That is not what i am saying. What I mean is that if you have determined now that your not going to have a father in your future childs life because that is a lifestyle you have chosen for yourself (not you kid), then yes i do believe there is an element of selfishness there..

Re the broken condom, i don’t expect you to marry the guy, but I would certainly think it would be right if you made room for him in your childs life. He or She would really appreciate knowing their father i would guess…

DJ says:

02:46pm | 29/06/10

Peter - I am not ruling out a father figure and in no way said I was not going to allow the child to know them, by me being a single parent I mean I am not going to marry just because I was knocked up, I am not closing the door on a step father

Peter says:

04:12pm | 29/06/10

@ DJ. Your not ruling out a “father figure” and not closing the door on a step dad.. What about the biological father? If you think the natural father of your children will be worse than the future step dad you chose, why don’t you wait till you meet the step dad first and have kids with him?

Ps. I hope this decision of yours will be self funded??

DJ says:

11:40am | 02/07/10

@Peter, so you are advocating abortion? nice, not going to happen. I am not saying he will have no input I am not closing the door on anything, all I am saying is I amnot participating in an atiquated ritual just because I happen to be up the duff, he and I are still dating and who knows where it will lead

Peter says:

11:12am | 29/06/10

We’ve always had seperation of church and state. If what your suggesting that all MP’s behave like athiests, then we would really have a representative government would we?

Steely Dan says:

11:16am | 29/06/10

Seconded.

Steely Dan says:

11:37am | 29/06/10

@ Peter

“We’ve always had seperation of church and state.”
On paper.  Name a secular reason for disallowing gay marriage, for a start.

“If what your suggesting that all MP’s behave like athiests, then we would really have a representative government would we?”
Not ‘behaving like atheists’ (whatever that means) Peter, just behaving like secularists.  I don’t care what religion our leaders are, just that they keep it away from the act of governing the country.

Peter says:

02:20pm | 29/06/10

@ Steely Dan, there are athiest out there that do not support gay marriage either. I don’t support gay marriage.  I support civil unions and the property rights that come with the usual marriage we have today, but marriage is between a man and woman. They are the breeders, they are the ones that populate our nation for tomorrow, so therefore they are the one’s that should get the breaks from our Government every now and then. Not like Kevin Rudd though, he just made them the only focus of his government. Myself and other married people i know got sick of the term “working families”...

Also in my origninal comment i meant to say “then we wouldn’t” rather than would”..

Steely Dan says:

02:53pm | 29/06/10

@ Peter

“there are athiest out there that do not support gay marriage either.”
And they’re welcome to try and find a non-religious argument against it.

“but marriage is between a man and woman.”
That’s the legal definition, Peter. Well done.  So let’s change the legal definition.  Voting used to be a wealthy white male’s institution.  So we changed the legal definition.  The religions can keep their definition of marriage (spiritual, not legal) for their own purposes.

“They are the breeders… so therefore they are the one’s that should get the breaks from our Government every now and then.”
Then shouldn’t we just give the breaks to those with children, rather than just those who are legally married?  You don’t have to be married to have kids, and you don’t need to want kids to be married.

“Also in my origninal comment i meant to say “then we wouldn’t” rather than would”..”
Either way, whether the government is all-atheist, all-Christian, all-Buddhist or all-Raelian doesn’t matter - so long as they’re secular.  The head of one of the largest secular campaign groups in the world - Americans United for the Separation of Church and State - is headed by a Reverend!

Peter says:

04:23pm | 29/06/10

@ Steely Dan, i wouldn’t want a Government shoving religion down your throat as I wouldn’t have an athiest do it to me..

My non-religious arguement against gay marriage is they are not a man and woman, they do not have kids, they do not contribute to the future population of a nation. They make no sacrifices (as parents do) for the future wellbeing of our kids and they should not be entitled to the legal status of marriage. In essence, gay couple just live off the fat of the land while married straight couples are working for their kids. That’s my perception…

My religious argument would be similar to the above, and also it goes against my belief (religious) system.

Having said that, we live in a democracy. If one day in the future the majority of people supported it then is suppose we have to live with it.

DJ says:

04:38pm | 29/06/10

Peter - Lesbians can go to fertility clinics and Gays can get a surragate it’s not that hard

Steely Dan says:

05:14pm | 29/06/10

@ Peter

“My non-religious arguement against gay marriage is they are not a man and woman…”
Obviously. How is this a problem?  (Secular answers only please) 

“…they do not have kids…”
Some do, actually.

“…they do not contribute to the future population of a nation…In essence, gay couple just live off the fat of the land while married straight couples are working for their kids.”
So gay couples don’t pay taxes that benefit the nation’s children? Gay people don’t teach our nation’s children?  Gay people don’t serve in our police and military forces that protect our nation’s children?  This isn’t a secular argument against legalising gay marriage at all. It’s not even a religious argument against gay marriage!  It’s just a fact-free flight of homophobic fancy. 
And what about infertile heterosexual couples?  What about heterosexual couples who don’t have kids?  Should they declare their child-making intentions and abilities before they sign the marriage certificate?

“Having said that, we live in a democracy. If one day in the future the majority of people supported it then is suppose we have to live with it.”
The rights of minorities to have the same rights as others should be guaranteed.  No working society should ever discriminate on the grounds of numerical superiority.  That’s called the tyranny of the majority, Peter.

Peter says:

10:23pm | 29/06/10

@ Steely Dan, your way off the mark calling me homophobic. There are gay people out there who don’t agree with gay marriage or denying kids a mother and a father. Yes, some gay people do have kids, whether its lesbians accessing fertility clinics or having a friend do them a “favour”, or gay men who have had kids in previous relationships before coming to terms with their sexuality…. these things happen.

My personal belief (lets use adoption as an example) , is that a kid should go to a male and female. If there were a shortage of hetro couples willing to adopt, i would definitely consider a gay couple in a loving relationship.. All im saying our priority should be on the “traditional” model of the family and not on something else that just serves selfish people only thinking of themselves and not what the child might want…

“So gay couples don’t pay taxes that benefit the nation’s children? Gay people don’t teach our nation’s children?  Gay people don’t serve in our police and military forces that protect our nation’s children?  This isn’t a secular argument against legalising gay marriage at all. It’s not even a religious argument against gay marriage!  It’s just a fact-free flight of homophobic fancy.” .. Yes gay people do all these things just like hetro people do in much greater numbers. Mate, a child deserves a mother and a father, it doesn’t deserve someone else’s ideology…

Also, i wouldn’t expect a hetro couple to sign a form of their intention to have kids, however if I worked at the registry office and had 2 men coming in to sign the same form, i would let them and wish them luck in trying…. Sometime things just aren’t meant to be. It’s cruel, it’s unfair, but that’s life… Life sometime deals us a cruel hand, ive had it, and im sure you’ve had your fair share… No need to start changing laws though…

Steely Dan says:

09:37am | 30/06/10

@ Peter

“Steely Dan, your way off the mark calling me homophobic.”
Until you put forward a rational argument against gay marriage I think it’s reasonably safe to assume you are.  Sorry.

“There are gay people out there who don’t agree with gay marriage or denying kids a mother and a father.”
And what’s their reasoning for disallowing others equal rights?  If they have some special insight into the situation they should share it.

“All im saying our priority should be on the “traditional” model of the family”
Why? I know it’s your ‘personal belief’, but if you can’t back it up with a reasoned argument, you should seriously reconsider your position. 

“and not on something else that just serves selfish people only thinking of themselves and not what the child might want…”
In an adoption scenario, the child may want to return to their biological parent/s (if possible), or they may want to stay with the parents who have raised and loved them.  To assert that all children want a mother and a father is naïve.  Ask the child of a gay couple if they’d like to be taken away from their family to a ‘traditional’ couple instead.  If there are a number of couples vying for adoption, the preferences of the child (if they’re old enough to have any) should be taken into consideration.  They’re going to be more comfortable with some couples than others for a variety of reasons.  Some may prefer to be with a gay couple.  A blanket ban on gay couples adopting is pure bigotry.

“Yes gay people do all these things just like hetro people do in much greater numbers.”
Replace the word ‘gay’ in that sentence with ‘black’ and ‘hetero’ with ‘white’.  Sure, both sentences are factually correct, because there are definitely more white people and more hetero people in Australia than there are gay and black people.  But that doesn’t diminish the contributions of gay or black people, does it? 

“Mate, a child deserves a mother and a father, it doesn’t deserve someone else’s ideology…”
Children deserve love, Peter.  I don’t think that’s an ‘ideology’.  And neither is sexual preference.

“Also, i wouldn’t expect a hetro couple to sign a form of their intention to have kids”
So marriage is not about reproduction.  Was that so hard to say?

“however if I worked at the registry office and had 2 men coming in to sign the same form, i would let them and wish them luck in trying…”
So why not let them do that? Why not let them have all the rights that the natural world allows?

“It’s cruel, it’s unfair, but that’s life… No need to start changing laws though…”
You’ve got it backwards, Peter.  All people should have equal rights immediately; you can then apply exceptions to that rule when necessary.  If you want to discriminate, you have to show reason for the discrimination.  In some cases, discrimination is necessary, legal, and unmotivated by ideological bigotry.  You can’t sue an airline for not hiring you as a pilot if you’re blind – there’s a sensible example of discrimination.  Would you have told an aboriginal man or woman in the early 1960s that ‘you can’t vote, but life’s not fair, no need to start changing laws though…’

Carrie Miller says:

06:29pm | 28/06/10

I am guessing (perhaps incorrectly) that your name is a reference to the philosopher Antony Flew (not Anthony). Perhaps I’m wrong.  Nevertheless, I do not agree with your assessment that the notion of ‘relativity’ - by which I assume you mean ethical or perhaps epistemic relativism or both - is equivalent to Nietzsche’s concept of ‘perspectival truth’. This is a discussion for the pub not The Punch, however.

Thanks for being interested enough in my work that you would attempt to critique it. I appreciate all feedback.

Cheers, Carrie Miller

NEFFA says:

05:52pm | 28/06/10

this just goes to prove what the feminists are fighting against. this ill formed and rather archaic view that women who haven’t procreated are sad and miserable cat ladies who are full of bitterness at the world.
The fact is you make you own happiness, not a husband or children.

The Redman says:

08:28pm | 28/06/10

Thing is, from what I can see, if Gillard needs an open minded audience, she’s going to have to emigrate.

V I Lenin says:

06:36pm | 28/06/10

Calm down, Pete! She’s not a ‘Liberal’ prime minister, so I think you’ll find the Labor party is still in charge of the country. There may even be a couple of cathoilics left in the government, so ‘good old fashion values’ won’t be corroded too much… then again… you DO still count paedophilia and incest as ‘family values’ don’t you?

DJ says:

10:54am | 29/06/10

Hi IQ parents do not guarantee high IQ kids. who are you to say that the kids born to lower society wont be the ones who go on to University and cure cancer? you don’t know, you don’t have a crystal ball, discriminating against one level of society is pathetic. Van Gogh was a mad man and lived alone but he changed the face of art, Einstein worked in a patent office, not a real high profile job was it? stop assuming or show me your crystal ball where you KNOW absolutely where these kids will end up.

Carrie Miller says:

07:03pm | 28/06/10

Thank you ??. More precisely, we need policies that are inclusive of the broad range of social choices that people make in a so-called multicultural society. I’ve always thought there was a reason that the word nuclear is only used as an adjective in two contexts: war and family.

Lance Link says:

08:10pm | 28/06/10

Unelectable? Oh!... You mean Tony Abbott!

DJ says:

11:13am | 29/06/10

she has until April to call an election, give her a chance to prove herself

Shane From Melbourne says:

07:39pm | 28/06/10

I sincerely doubt that you are actually Carl Sagan because he wouldn’t write such rubbish. An ordered universe doesn’t provide evidence of a creator or intelligent design, merely that the universe has developed along certain lines. It could have developed in a million different other ways from the big bang and only blind chance has led its present state.

Carrie Miller says:

07:41pm | 28/06/10

The idea that the choice is between either a transcendentally grounded, ordered universe and a contigent and therefore, necessarily, a non-ordered and absurd one is not only a false dichotomy, it’s a misrepresentation of the atheist position and its difference from a believer’s one. Just like your friend Ant(h)ony Flew making a reductive and false dichotomy between absolute truth and epistemic relativism.

But thanks for taking an interest in my work, Carl. I appreciate it.

iansand says:

08:39pm | 28/06/10

Gosh.  Carrie went to a first year philosophy lecture.

Lance Link says:

12:59am | 29/06/10

@iansand,

a first year level response was more than sufficient to eviscerate the ‘argument’ presented by Carl. I imagine she’d have to have attended at least one first year philosophy lecture, to gain her first class honours degree. Afterall, it’s not an MBA: it can’t just be ‘phoned in’.

Mayday says:

08:40am | 30/06/10

Hi Carl, thought I’d take the opportunity to tell you that Contact was one of the most disappointing movies of all times for me.  Towards the end of the movie my partner and I looked at each other and spoke out loud, in unison “oh no not the god thing!” 
So if atheism is the domain of the ignorant what the hell is religious belief?

The Redman says:

08:24pm | 28/06/10

If your family can live on one income, you don’t need Government assistance. Clearly, if you are not eligible for Family Tax benefits, your husband’s income must exceed at least $100,000. If not, then you are definately entitled to Family Tax Benefit A. If you are not eligible for Family Tax Benefit Part B, then your husband’s income must exceed $150,000. Ergo, you do not require Government assistance. If you find money a bit tight, then here’s a novel idea. Go and get yourself a part time job and stop complaining. By the way, if you are a stay at home mother who doesn’t work, you don’t pay any income tax at all. Therefore, I most certainly pay more tax that you.

Peter says:

02:54pm | 29/06/10

@ Lisa, if you want to be royally screwed by the tax man, try being single with no kids. Then you pay for everyone else’s life…

Lance Link says:

08:18pm | 28/06/10

It depends how much power they are able to amass and wield, according to the dictates of their party and whether or not they would allow their religious ‘beliefs’ to influence policy direction. For example, a Jesuit is expected to ‘swear black is white’ if the pope/church tells him to. Scarily self-evident why it matters, don’t you think? The ‘Liberals’ really dug themselves a hole when they shacked up with the religious- right, lunatic-fringe as exemplified by the unelectable ‘mad monk’.

Steely Dan says:

11:22am | 29/06/10

@ Peasant

I’m ok with some churches not paying tax, so long as they can show us their books to prove they’re a charitable organisation. 
But I agree that the automatic tax-free status for religions is entirely unjust.

Lance Link says:

01:13pm | 29/06/10

•  There’s absolutely nothing ‘radical’ about being a christian with conservative views, absolutely nothing at all. Deluded? Yes! Radical? No way! Your position is that an immaculately conceived Judean jew, who was zealous for the (Judaic) Law and therefore a ‘zealot’ or ‘Nazarean’ made a new covenant with his dad, ‘god’ , thereby creating a new religion? Yes? His loving (but jealous and vengeful) dad went on to who allow him to die on the cross? Yes? But don’t worry, he was ‘resurrected’ a couple of days later? Yes? Oh! I almost forgot… his dad made the entire universe, in the dark, made everything on earth, out of nothing, but needed Adam’s rib to make a woman? And I need faith to NOT believe that? You’re a perfect example of just where the ‘smug superiority’ actually resides in our society: among the clinically deluded, like you.

Bob says:

01:01pm | 30/06/10

@ Pauly,

That is correct. The agreed upon term is now Sky Fairy. I prefer it as it more accurately describes what theists believe. It’s also non-demoninational, which is nice in a multi-cultural society.

DBJ says:

08:07am | 29/06/10

Check the stats, JimH. Childless households are set to outnumber the so-called tradition family by 2014.

Steely Dan says:

03:54pm | 29/06/10

@ Mistress D

“Nothing gives me a greater laugh than a fundamentalist atheist who thinks their world view should be respected equally while calling others ‘bullshit’.”
Seems like you don’t understand the distinction between freedom of speech and pushing your religion on others.  I think Tony and Kevin’s religion is kook-tastic.  But I’m not going to say a Catholic can’t lead because they’re Catholics.  As long as they govern for all I’m fine with it. 

Oh, and can one be a fundamentalist non-stamp collector?

Chris L says:

08:32am | 29/06/10

Using that logic we can have a hearty laugh because the Jesus cult was built on (and deeply entrenched in) the worship of Horus from Egyptian polytheism, not to mention a good dose of Vishnu from Hinduism.

Judas says:

09:57am | 29/06/10

I think that perhaps you have confused democracy with theocracy Hols.

Pauly says:

09:59am | 29/06/10

The Horus/Jesus connection is a myth (ironically) debunked long ago.  It’s up there with the “Elvis is Alive” adherants.

Steely Dan says:

11:40am | 29/06/10

@ Hols

“Never mind the fact that our democracy is built on ( and deeply entrenched in) Christian morals.”
I think the Greek polytheists who invented the concept of democracy would take exception to your ignorance, Hols.

Mistress D says:

11:49am | 29/06/10

A large number of spiritual/religious beliefs have a ‘Jesus’ figure that dies and comes back. The similarities between most beliefs are strikingly similiar to one another.  Don’t know how the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster fits in to all of that, but it’s worth the mention.

But I am all for Zombie Jesus.

Peter says:

10:31pm | 29/06/10

@ Mistress D.. I don’t believe in the flying speghetti monster, i believe in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one shots and that’s just the probability of one bit of bacteria appearing out of nothing, let alone everything else..

Until i hear something more believable, i’ll take my chances with a creator…

Steely Dan says:

09:48am | 30/06/10

@ Peter

“that’s just the probability of one bit of bacteria appearing out of nothing.”
Out of nothing?  That’s spontaneous generation, Peter, nobody thinks that happened.  You should look up ‘abiogenesis’.

“i’ll take my chances with a creator”
How is that more believable?  Wouldn’t the best course of action be to say that we don’t know the exact origins of life, the universe and everything until there was some evidence one way or another?

Mistress D says:

11:37am | 29/06/10

A fundamentalist Christian and a Christian still believe in Christ as the saviour of mankind. There’s no believing ‘more’  between the two but there is a difference in rigidity of what they believe after that fact, how it relates to the world around them and how they act within that world. It’s a matter of extremes.

An Atheists isn’t immune to being too extreme in their view, it’s not like you get an extra booster shot to stop you being a smug ‘holier-than-thou’ (excuse the term) prat, that can happen to anyone whether they believe in God or not.

DJ says:

11:02am | 29/06/10

I am pretty sure most shoes have soles now.

and get a grip, just because people are single and childless doesn’t mean that they have no family values, parents, siblings and neices and nephews are family as well, why don’t we bring back public flogging and hanging and you can sort out the people who don’t agree with you.

tell me are you an organ donor? do you have a sense of community by helping to save a life once you are gone?

Observer says:

09:37am | 29/06/10

“...we need to keep freedom of speech”

Only if we had it in the first place. It in not enshrined in our Constitution and the High Court has determined that Australians have an implied right to politcal free speech.

Against the Man says:

10:03am | 29/06/10

Julia is a public servant with an awful track record and as much loyalty as a can of tuna. Trusting her would be crazy. Voting her out would be heaven.

Against the Man says:

10:04am | 29/06/10

Julia is a public servant with an awful track record and as much loyalty as a can of tuna. Trusting her would be crazy. Voting her out would be heaven.

The Redman says:

10:33am | 29/06/10

Noone voted for Julia Gillard? I think her constituents in the seat of Lalor might take exception to that. About 57,000 of them.

Bust Duster says:

04:27pm | 29/06/10

@Against the Man,
OK. So the christians have exclusive rights to the ‘morals’, the ‘Liberals’, have exclusive rights to the ‘loyalty’ (funny, I ‘ve heard it described as cowardice…but John & Pete were SUCH good mates…) and Julia Gillard has an ‘awful track record’? How many projects are involved in the school building programme? And how many complaints have there been? Trusting her would be ‘crazy’? What about trusting a man (well, government) that lied about the ‘never, ever GST’ or ‘children over-board’ or ‘wheat-for-oil’ or ‘weapons of mass destruction’...? ‘Heaven’ is a place where people you’d think would know better imagine they’ll go if they’re smug and conceited enough in this life… a fantasy land for the truly deluded.

Flava-Wave says:

01:18pm | 29/06/10

What sort of numbers of ‘boat people’ (or do you prefer ‘illegal refugees’?) do you anticipate ‘sailing into Sydney’s West’? Anyway, don’t you need a cheap labour force ‘out there’ to build those ‘Hilsong’ church thingys?

Peter says:

02:09pm | 29/06/10

That’s not good, as Christians we are not supposed to judge peoples life choices. Nice to hear that Julia said that she respects the beliefs of religious people as well… That’s how the world should work, but it doesn’t unfortunately…

K-Tel says:

03:14pm | 29/06/10

@Peter,

I thought the late JC’s dad, did the ‘judging’... or was it the governator? I always get those two confused.

Sirro says:

03:57pm | 29/06/10

Its the Right Wing of the ALP who does the judging ... cmon, get with the program!

Peter says:

04:27pm | 29/06/10

@ K-Tel.. It’s seems like you’ve already started the job… I suppose the living JC’s dad will get around to it in his own good time…

K-Tel says:

07:22pm | 29/06/10

@Sirro,

That’d be why the prime minister is from the ‘left’. Silly me! Great big new tax, great big new tax, graet big new tax… Is that the programme you mean?

K-Tel says:

07:24pm | 29/06/10

@Peter,

Oh yeah… where’s JC living? In a Kombi, up the North Coast?

fredd says:

07:25pm | 29/06/10

Sirro, polytheism based on the ALP right??  Thy’re Greek, or Roman??  or pagan??

DJ says:

05:07pm | 30/06/10

I have no objection to the concept of a deity but am baffled by one that takes attendance

Lance Link says:

05:08pm | 30/06/10

And just whose ‘god’ should we ‘be of kin to’? Do you not see that ‘spirituality’ is a universal human experience, which has a multitude of expressions, which any one church, denomination, religion, sect, cult, order etc, etc, etc cannot in any meaningful sense have priviledged access to? This ‘my god’s better than your god’ nonsense that has characterised so much of human history, lamentably right up to the present, is simply no longer tolerable in the face of centuries of enlightened thinking, particularly given the undeniable misery inflicted on millions of innocents over the ages in the name of ‘god’.

Carrie Miller says:

10:31am | 30/06/10

Couldn’t have put it better myself, Terry. You can write the article next time.

Bust Duster says:

04:54pm | 30/06/10

No, no, no, Shelley! You remember, Howard promised to govern for all of ‘US’, as opposed to ‘THEM’ (those peolpe not like ‘US’) the people he could comfortably marginalise with the consent and complicity of the ‘relaxed and comfortable, mainstream’? The ‘Liberal’ party have a long tradition of preferencing the objectives of the ficticious ‘forgotten Australians’, ‘middle Australia’, ‘mainstream’, ‘moral majority’ who are, in fact, over-represented, overly-vocal, statistical minorities. They are, in fact, one of the ‘special interest groups’ that ‘Howard Liberals’ seemed to hate so much. Paradoxical, don’t you think?

Lance Link says:

07:00pm | 30/06/10

Ah… I think you’ve mistaken her for a ‘liberal’ prime minister, there Max… John Howard, to be precise. julia Gillard doesn’t have Howard’s ‘always-the-last-one-picked-for-sports-teams’ lust for ‘revenge’ on dimly perceived enemies.

Lance Link says:

08:42am | 01/07/10

...another dimension of space, another dimension of time… meanwhile, back on earth…