An open thread, where at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Please join us in the last couple of weeks leading up to World Water Day at Th!nk5: Water.
Heard Jen Cloher & Toby Robinson’s rendition of Lawson’s ‘Past Caring’ again on ABC RN. Worth a listen. link
Moonageddon is coming on March 19!
Jason Leopold interviews David Hicks who claimed last week, on his first radio interview, that Leopold will release documents next month that will show Howard government complicity in his detention (and torture?) at Gitmo.
http://www.truth-out.org/my-tortured-journey-with-former-guantanamo-detainee-david-hicks67815
Moonaggedeon? I await with interest the end of the world. tigtog, am sending the link around to a few people who will really panic.
US Republicans put up a bill to cut funding for Poison Control centres. “Eliminating nearly all the money for poison control centers would save $27 million — not even a rounding error when it comes to the deficit.” The resultant spending on emergency room care / treating large scale poisoning could be heaps more. As the nYT says, “penny wise and pound foolish”.
It’s a good example of how a lot of the small-government ideology ends up costing ordinary people more (and may cost some people, including children, their lives.)
Would any techy people be able to help @biscuitCIB of Canterbury, NZ?
Anyone know how to help her? http://pickledthink.blogspot.com/p/about.html
Helen, I’ve sent her an email. We shall see if I can suss it out.
Thanks, TT, I thought you or some of the other legends around here might be able to help her. She reports she’s getting a lot of aftershocks today!
Moonageddon? Is that the end of the world, as foretold by cows?
Oh, That song, Feral Abacus, – I can’t even hum it without ending up in floods. It’s good to hear a new version,I loved Mara’s. I see Past Carin’ and the short story, The Chosen Vessel as almost like companion pieces, partly because I heard/read them around the same time.
Su, would that be Mara Kiek? I haven’t heard anyone else’s versions, so I’d like to track it down.
Yes, that’s her FA. Her ensemble,if that is the right word, is called “Mara!”
Thanks su. I guess I associate Mara K so closely with the Bulgarian vocal tradition that I tend to overlook her involvement with other musics.
Mercurius @ 10:
My partner’s a professional astrologer and she reckons it’s all a media beat-up. My cows don’t seem particularly worried either.
On the other hand, my piscatorial colleagues tell me it will be a good time for chasing Murray cod – just like any other full moon.
Well, we have two weeks in which to build a missile large enough to destroy the moon, or we’re all doomed. Let’s call Bruce Willis!
A postscript to your earlier post “Why are the angry so mad?” (responses to which are currently very lengthy and a little off-track so I’ll place it here if that’s O.K).
Crikey had a piece on Friday 4/3/2011 “Anonymous versus the arms dealers of the cyber war” which is worth having a look at for those who are interested in how feelings and issues are whipped up using the tools of cyber security.
There’s some gold in the comments section of the Moonageddon piece. I particularly liked:
I never realised geographers had such power!
Jess, I understand you have never attended Geography 101 tutorials.
While channel-surfing a while back, a little piece of my childhood died.
There was this new episode of Sesame Street on, in which Cookie Monster was telling a group of kids that fruits and vegetables are “all the time food” but that cookies are…wait for it…sometimes food.
Cookies are sometime food!?
Cookie Monster, what happened to you, man? It used to be all about the cookies. You used to be hungry. You’ve changed, man. What would Jim say, if he could see you know?
An interesting little story about the developing scandal in the UK around the links between the London School of Economics and the Gaddafi regime. The comments about the behind the scenes involvement of the Blair Government are particularly disturbing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8362577/The-real-scandal-at-the-LSE.html
mediatracker @17
I just heard from some guy in America a “very interesting thing”. He’s a bit of a social media freak and he was following a spat between “Team Hell” and some Christian (Rob Bell) that reckons there is no hell according to the bubble and has written a book to illustrate his point.
He mentioned Rob Bell (author) on a twitter account immediately got 10 very bot like followers all appearing spouting the same fundie stuff. Funny coincidence is that the troll/sock puppet management software Bernard Keane refers to in that crikey article (the one promoted by Team Themis) is sposed to have a 10 persona per seat limit.
Here are the screen shots of the 10 probable Team Hell trollbots.
Of course its hard to tell the difference between fundies, especially Xtian ones, and bots and there may not be that much functional difference, but still its an interesting coincidence.
Those trollbots – they’re using photographs which, I assume, are just skimmed from Facebook or somewhere without the owner’s permission. I’m sure many people will be having the unpleasant experience of seeing themselves in a trollbot photo, given the sheer numbers of the things being generated. If I saw a pic of myself with the kind of oleaginous fundie description of those linked to, I’d have steam coming out of my ears.
Mr Denmore at The Failed Estate with an important post on hate radio.
http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/2011/03/hitting-them-where-it-hurts.html
“Anonymous versus the arms dealers of the cyber war”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/04/anonymous-versus-the-arms-dealers-of-the-cyber-war/
Adamite @ 21: Spot-on. Fred Halliday has always shown himself to be a man of principles, even when he is the odd-man-out.
Joe2, I have always thought there was something sus about The holy war on climate change.
It’s scary, Ootz. So dumb but so well organised.
heh, what is even more scarier, is that the nervous nellies @LiberalHQ fell for it^^
The New York times complains of
“In eloquent American English or Arabic with English subtitles, Mr. Awlaki can be seen in videos decrying America’s “war on Islam””. Futhermore it identifies Mr Awalaki “as an important instigator of terrorism” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/middleeast/05youtube.html?hp
A war on Islam is a war on religious freedom. The NYT needs to hire some bloody good lawyers this isn’t just freedom of speech this is out and out defamation.
I’m a born in the wool Athiest/ anti-clericist but I’ve always defended the right for people to follow their religious beliefs where those don’t adversly impact on others’ rights to live their own lives.
I’m sure some/many of LP commenters have copped the slur of being anti-(a particular religion, or a particular ‘race’) when engageing ideas/ideology.
I get run down by this – how do other people cope? I need tips on how to deal with this.
OOTZ @27
Nalliah is – how to put it – not admired in the Fundamentalist community precisely because of his staements on the Victorian bushfires and the Qld floods i.e that they were God’s punishment for abortion.
I go to a Fundamentalist church myself (AOG) and Nalliah’s views have been specifically rejected.
So it is highly unlikely that Nalliah’s website is going to instigate an avalanche of emails. I would imagine that its read by no more than his mailing list.
Mind you, that ‘hate speech’ case against Nalliah was a shameful set up by the Islamic Council Of Victoria which involved manipulation of new converts to generate a complaint and eventual prosecution. Thankfully the conviction was flushed down the legal dunny on appeal but the case had the effect of draining Nalliah financially, which I would estimate to be one of its objectives along with providing a means to intimidate others who would criticise Islam.
Dunno if Waleed Aly was associated with the ICV at that time or had any knowledge of the stratagem, but the ICV deserves to be thoroughly ashamed of itself over that incident.
Harleymc @ 30: “I’ve always defended the right for people to follow their religious beliefs where those don’t adversly impact on others’ rights to live their own lives.”
But practitioners of most, if not all religions, range from the mildest, to the fundamentalists and beyond, and include precisely those who, in the name of their religion, would strive to have an adverse “impact on others’ rights to live their own lives.”
Think about it: if a believer (in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) deeply believes in every word of their holy books, then they may well believe that what it commands must be observed – that the devil (or devils or forces of evil of whatever sort) have ensnared those non-believers, who therefore MUST be converted to the true faith for their own good, or regrettably exterminated, in order to save believers from their contamination.
In other words, very believers in many religions believe so deeply in the words of their books etc., that they sincerely believe that non-believers must be either converted or killed. No other alternatives. They can justify this in their own minds, in fact probably feel that they have become more blessed in the eyes of their god by their righteous acts, including killing.
Crusaders eight or nine hundred years ago may have acted in this way, in fact many Christians would have done right up to the Thirty Years’ War and beyond. Hindu fascists may act like this: after all, one of them killed Gandhi. A Jewish fundamentalist killed Yitzhak Rabin. Al Qaida has institutionalised these beliefs into a huge many-sided terrorist organisation.
All of them are extremely reactionary, in the old leftist sense; extremely backward, if you like; medievalist, pre-modern, trending towards fascism – and surely the sworn enemies of anybody genuinely ‘left-of-centre’.
So Harleymc, as you are probably aware,it’s not quite as simple as saying “I’ve always defended the right for people to follow their religious beliefs …. ”
unless you add your rider:
” …. where those don’t adversly impact on others’ rights to live their own lives.”
It’s a complicated world
Old Yobbo, your 3rd paragraph is a straw man. So everything else from there is shadow-boxing. Only Christianity and Islam invoke the ‘convert or be eternally damned’ dichotomy you propose.
Harleymc:
Actually, no, I haven’t copped any such slur, and I’ve worked with, for and alongside people from all over the world and Australia.
Here’s what I do…
Show respect. Listen twice as much as you talk.
Adopt an ethnographic approach: Make a sincere and thorough effort to understand the system you are critiquing, on its own terms, not on your terms. Have some intellectual humility about how your own cultural assumptions and biases may undermine your critique.
All human belief systems are self-reinforcing and internally coherent, when seen “from the inside”. Get to the inside and you will be in a position to make an insightful and respectful critique that will be, if not agreed to, at least listened to.
If your critique makes it obvious to the “insiders” that you haven’t done the basic work of learning about and understanding the system, your critique will be rejected as uninformed, missing the point, or hostile. And they will probably label you an ‘anti-whatever’ to boot.
Of course, if all you’re trying to do is make triumphalist pronouncements about the rightness of your own critique to impress other like-minded “outsiders”, you are not constrained by any of the above conduct. But you will have to wear the ‘anti-whatever’ epithets that your conduct will attract.
Oh, and don’t presume that your critique is anything startlingly new or different from what some earlier “insiders” have already put to other “insiders”, and debated around the traps for donkey’s years — and probably argued more eloquently and with greater knowledge and understanding of the system than your own johnny-come-lately critique can manage.
Expensive private schools dont necessarily buy you a better education, its seems. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/doing-well-in-footscray-doesnt-cost-14m-20110304-1bi7r.html
I suspect teir true value is more along the lines of PNG wantoks.
Re being an atheist agnostic and dealing with people of faith.
I have several friends who are devout Catholics; in fact one of them is one of my closest friends. Sure, we discuss religion and related topics like Xtan morality but without the slightest rancour. But I wouldn’t consider them fundies and they quite happily accept my ambivalent attiyude to religion, recognising that over many years I have become pretty widely read on the topic.
OTOH, I have also had the most unfortunate experiencee of having had to associate with hardline Festival of Light types, whose bigotry and intolerance was almost beyond belief for anybody calling themselves Xtan. In that case, to avoid conflict, and I mean bitter arguments I found the best thing to do was just keep my mouth shut. Fortunately such people are no longer in my life and haven’t been for a very long time.
I second Mercurius, I very rarely get accused of being anti-[insert religion here] even though I’m a strong atheist. I think it’s because I don’t open statements of my position with childish debating ploys like “it’s all superstitious rot” and I try to listen to other peoples’ religious theories.
The best guide in my experience is: if a famous atheist polemicist (Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.) uses a given argument, it’s best to assiduously avoid using that argument with actual people.
@Merc,
I replied to you on two occassions on the other thread, ‘Bounds Of Discourse’, but both replies were cast into Moderators Limbo and have not surfaced.
You asked, quite reasonably, if Islam teaches Jihad yet only approx 1 in 8 Muslims say that it does, on what basis do you Baraholka say that Islam does in fact teach Jihad
Basically I said that the example of Mohammed, which is paramount, shows that Islam is Jihadist.
I gave a tiny excerpt of Islamic Jihad from 630 to 638 (2 years prior to Mhd’s death to the Muslim invasion and capture of Jerusalem), added some relevant detail about the mass slaughters involved and some quotes from Mhd himself, which are blood-curdling.
All schools of classical Islamic theology agree that offensive Jihad is obligatory on Muslims. Here are the predominant Sunni schools:
Maliki (according to their scholar Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani):
“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”
Shafi (according to their scholar Al-Mawardi):
“The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun…
Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…”
Hanbali (according to their scholar Ibn Taymiyya):
“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who
stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”
Hanafi (according to their Fiqh manual Al-Hadiyah vol 1, written by their scholar al-Marginani)
“If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels,
and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”
The most liberal of the classical schools is the Hanafi. Their teaching on Jihad is summarized above and the Hanfi endorse the scholarly summary of Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, a giant in Islamic scholarship
who noted this:
Ibn Qayyim is summarizing the Islamic Progressive revelation on Jihad which is spelt out in a
n excellent article here
Stage One: (IN MECCA) – NO RETALIATION: While still in Mecca, Mohammad and his followers did not retaliate or fight.
Stage Two: (FIRST INSTRUCTION IN MEDINA) – Defensive Fighting Permitted
Stage Three: (REVISED INSTRUCTION IN MEDINA) – Defensive Fighting Commanded
Stage Four: (AFTER CONQUERING MECCA) – Offensive War Commanded. Dissolution of all treaties; make no more treaties, but kill those who do not receive Islam. People of the Book may choose to live under Islamic domination.
So, as you reasonably ask, why only 10-15% compliance with Jihad if all classical schools teach it ? As I have said before, in my opinion most Muslims are too decent to stomach the unrelenting hostility commanded by Mohammed, so they pick and choose (like nominals of all faiths) what to observe.
You are incorrect that the scholars do not agree that offensive Jihad is standard Islam. On the contrary, they most certainly do. The disjuncture is between them and the ordinary Muslim, most of whom are too decent or not indoctrinated enough or too nominal to be bothered with
such thorough-going brutality.
The teachings of Islam, the Koran, Hadith, the revered biographies of Mahammed, his statements, his orders, his example, the obedience and Jihadist practice of the Muslim armies that enacted Mhd teachings prior to and immediately after his death, the opinions of all respected schools of Islam and their theologians – all agree with me that Islam is Jihadist.
Only the decency of the ordinary Muslim prevents Islamic teaching becoming ordinary practice today. That’s why it is necessary to discriminate between Islam, which is horrendous, and Muslims who are as decent as anybody else.
But it is merely fond illusion to believe that Islam teaches otherwise.
All The Best,
Barra
sg thats a very sensible attitude.
I’m not an atheist.
My father’s family comes from a long line of Hindu priests and priestesses, and he was a practicing Hindu priest as a child, and a young man, tho not in Australia, only in Fiji, where he grew up and was part of that community. And I’ve seen some stuff thats pretty hard to explain (not just surrounding hinduism tho), but thats really irrelevent.
Cept that nothing anyone says (words alone) will ever compete with those experiences or change the meaning they give me. I assume that people whose faith is really strong have had similar experiences where meaning and something kind of unexplainable have made a great impression on them.
So logic probably isn’t going to defeat meaning in those cases.
Yeah thats a great attitude.
Ultimately who gives a rats what people think or believe. Its the imposition of those beliefs on other people who don’t share them thats the real issue, and if you can focus on the actual effects of that in real life, instead of attacking the dogma behind those effects then you can avoid being an “anti – _____”. To a point.
Some people don’t respond to that sort of logic, and then – well if the respond the way Harleymc @31 experienced stuff them.
The only people I’ve copped that off are fundie Christians in Australia, and I’ve found a great response is words to the effect of:
“I don’t want to live under anyone’s version of Sharia Law, yours included.”
My experience of most people in Australia, regardless of their religion or lack of it, is that they prefer a secular state and recognise that its the fairest way from a society with religious pluralism like Australia to administer itself.
If people don’t want to engage with that then … I got raised as a catholic and I’m pretty familiar with the bible, especially the words of Jesus. Its easy enough to find the flaws in their attitude and to present it (throw it back at them) as unChristian.
I have an online acquaintance who lives in the ME (well a few I spose). If a Zionist says something particularly unpleasant about Palestinians she swaps the word “Palestinians” for “Jews”, reprints the piece and presents it and waits for the inevitable reaction. It often invokes cries of “Neo Nazi” and “f#$k off back to Stormfront”, so then she presents the original piece and asks “whats the difference?”.
Its provocative all right, and doesn’t always achieve much. But sometimes it does.
If you’ve made clear that your objection is about the consequences of someones beliefs on other people and thats still the response it is ok to say words to the effect of:
“Well stuff you then.”
It usually helps if you follow up by saying something like:
“I’m anti fascism/oppression and if you want to use your beliefs as an excuse to indulge in that garbage I’m anti your beliefs and proud.”
Its easier to do face to face I find, but also that last line sometimes “works miracles”, sometimes it doesn’t and I come across as an aggro jerk.
I make a habit of expressing no religious sentiments because thereby I avoid offending whichever of several thousand claimants is actually the real god.
Mortals…..
“I think it’s because I don’t open statements of my position with childish debating ploys like “it’s all superstitious rot” and I try to listen to other peoples’ religious theories.”
I don’t think there’s any real problem with pointing out that belief in intangible yet all powerful deity is ludicrous, well for adults anyway. You might as well believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy (praise her).
“Ultimately who gives a rats what people think or believe. Its the imposition of those beliefs on other people who don’t share them thats the real issue”
Prayers in Parliament anyone. How about Kevin Andrews and Euthanasia or Tony Abbott and RU486 or the Groupers? The “imposition of those beliefs” can be insidious and affect more people adversity than all the witch burnings of the Inquisition. It is imperative that this sort of irrational thinking be marginalised in much the same way that smoking has. Sure it has to be tolerated but it should be strongly discouraged.
I heard a Christian theologian talking with Phillip Adams the other night – can’t remember names. He was pointing out that the early church was tolerant of the beliefs of others and also pacifist, but that all changed when Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion in 311. Christians from then on served in the army, and the state was used to oppress non-Christians (other than during the short reign of Julian). I don’t know quite why that’s relevant, except to say that it’s an object lesson in not letting religions anywhere near control of the state.
I hope you’re talking about the actual interfering in people’s lives via anti-euthanasia legislation, all the stuff about abortion and Ru486, Howard changing the marriage act, the wowserism that drives people to marginalise smoking or prohibit recreational (and religious) drug use, etc etc.
I have no problems with prayers in parliament (so long as everyone in parliament has an opportunity to hear the prayers of their religion, and there are days of no prayers for the atheists too), welcome to country or any other irrational rituals people want to indulge in.
I have a massive problem with the influence of groups like the Brotherhood or the Family or exclusive bretheren orwhatevertf they are called, Opus Dei and Nulliah’s ministries exerting the influence they do over our politicians. Or the influence of the Salvos over the Howard govt when it came to drug policy etc etc.
I don’t see separation of church and state as much of an issue with direct bearing on most religious arguments. Especially in countries like Australia, where the idea of merging the too is generally frowned on. Prayers in parliament is pretty crap, but you have to look at it in the context of an otherwise fairly robust separation of church and state.
I’m more concerned about the role of church providers in providing social welfare services, which is a much stealthier and more sinister mingling of church and state.
I am with Casey.
Baraholka @32, glad you brought that up, did not know that. Still leaves the question who was behind those thousands of emails coordinated with the on-air convection of the mock socks, it cannot be real people.
Bots, zombies ….. surely you are not … Casey!?
I’ve seen the future and it’s very clean…
I’ve seen the present and its full of ad bots.
I’d like to force my fundamentalist animist beliefs on 4wdrivers. What do you think the great Mudskipper in the intertidal zone in the sky gave you legs for, lazy bleeping nest-crushing, crab-mushing, fauna destroying arses.
Another case of people dictating their views to others
The Age reported that the Q Society, based at Altona Gate wants to stop a Muslim prayer group meeting in St Kilda. Altona gate is 20km and up to an hours drive from the prayer group, which you wouldn’t find wandering through the St Kilda tourist strip.
A quick Google indicates Q Society are probably fundamental Christians
@43
The reason it’s relevant is because most Christians are completely unaware of how contested the doctrine of their early church was. Christianity for most adherents is ahistorical. For them the bible we have today is the bible we have always had. For them Mary has always been the mother of god and Christ has always been a soldier. It’s great to go and find this stuff out, the level of argument is legalistic and so in contrast to the type of rhetoric used by a Pell or other fundamentalist clergy (Jensens). It completely undermines the spurious superstition of faith and revelation. I recommend “Charles Freeman, A new History of Early Christianity”.
@44
“I hope you’re talking about the actual interfering in people’s lives”
Er … yes, what else would I have meant? I cold add the damage that Bush did with his “faith based” programs in Africa. Appalling.
Anyone else surprised that Gillard is making time to have lunch with Murdoch during her ‘whirlwind’ tour to the US?
Patrickb @53
“It is imperative that this sort of irrational thinking be marginalised in much the same way that smoking has.”
That comment had me wondering. You could be talking about the irrationality of imposing your beliefs on others via law in a secular state.
I agree that should be marginalised. And I hope thats what you meant.
However if you’re referring to irrational thinking on its own then marginalising it (and smoking for that matter) is no different to marginalising people cos of their sexuality or their lack of a religion.
One of the denialist memes is that the green movement is a religious one, but how do these denialists respond to the fact that the most ardent political lobbyists against global warming mitigation are the extreme Christian groups like Catch the Fire Ministries?
I used to think that Christian Fundies opposed action on climate change, or any sort of environmental action, because when Christ returns, He will restore the Earth to its paradise state; so it doesn’t matter how much damage we do to the planet. Now I find that the New Fundamentalists oppose action on climate change because we cannot destroy the planet – only God can destroy the planet, and that is what He will do when Christ returns.
Different Christs, but the result is the same – we don’t need to save the planet.
@55
Nothing to wonder about. Smoking does immense harm to ones health. Not a good thing, shouldn’t do it but it’s up to you. Religion does immense harm to ones mental well being, shouldn’t do it but it’s up to you. Roll ad campaigns encouraging laying off the religiosity. Perhaps followed up by some tax reform and curbs on public displays.
Silkworm @57
I am a Fundy and have never heard anyone express that view you ascribe to Fundies in general, though no doubt someone somewhere has said it.
from regular consorting with Fundies I can tell that that belief in Climate Change is split largely along demographic lines with the 50+ age group being largely Coalition supporters and Climate Change Skeptics with the under-30′s comprising a significant Green/Labour vote and supporting the AGW thesis. Same as in the general community.
Last time I looked into this I found that it was US Fundy groups aligned with the Republican Party that produce the theological apologia for Climate Change skepticism. Some of this does indeed filter back to Oz Fundies but your characterisation of ‘New Fundies’ and Climate Change is off-track.
“Smoking does immense harm to ones health. Not a good thing, shouldn’t do it but it’s up to you. Religion does immense harm to ones mental well being, shouldn’t do it but it’s up to you.”
Maybe patrick…
Personally I found Taoism did wonders for my well being back in the day.
I got this characterization from the article that Ootz @ 27 linked to. That article described the lobbying of the Salt Shakers, whose justification for opposing action on climate change is:
Specifically, the Biblical justification for this stance is that global warming science tells us that the oceans will rise. Many Fundies take this as a threat of a global flood in the same vein as Noah’s Flood. However, according to the Bible, God promised that He would not destroy the Earth by Flood again. (Instead, He would destroy it by fire.) Since the science of global warming shows that man’s actions are threatening to destroy the world by water, contrary to God’s promise, Fundies conclude that the science of global warming must be wrong.
This is a clear case of how strong religious beliefs get in the way of scientific understanding and appropriate political action.
Another little gem from Saint Phoebe, with generous air and ground support courtesy of Mother Superior Linda.
Always say, Boy Howdy!
The following link shows just how disgusting the NSW Libs and any other Lib is. Warning: I found the content offensive in the extreme but I think it needs to be exposed.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44714.html
A very, very good reason not to vote Liberal at the NSW election. If one needs one.
silkworm @61
So Salt Shakers speak for all Fundies ?
Silky, a theological treatise written by someone in the Salt Shakers does not ipso facto represent the actual attitudes to Climate Change held by the typical Pentecostal.
The ‘Noahs Ark == No AGW’ argument is an attempt to graft theology onto pre-held conservative (anti-Green, anti-Leftist) political biases, not an attempt to inductively determine from the texts themselves what the Bible says about the AGW hypothesis. I covered that quite extensively in the post I linked to above.
The attitude to Climate Change amongst Christians, including Fundamentalists, is correlated to their demographic and voting patterns, same as in the general community.
I know because I’m a Christian myself and talk to quite a lot of them
.
Silky, your basic hostility to God, Jesus and the Bible leads to to line up your Fundy punching bag at every opportunity, so of course you’ve jumped on the Salt Shakers article like a Seagull after a hot chip. Your “Salt Shakers == All/Most Fundies” is a basic logical fallacy.
I personally have heard the ‘Noahs Ark == No AGW’ argument espoused by exactly one person. The large majority of younger Penties are AGW friendly. If you don’t believe me go down to your local Hillsong and do an impromptu survey; ask what they think and who they vote for.
For your interest, a quick theological rebuttal of ‘Noahs Ark == No AGW’ is that Anthropological Global Warming is not caused by God.
So the driver for the Salt Shakers argument may well be political not theological. Of course, they may sincerely hold that theological position independent of political allegiance, but whatever the case their views are out of sync scientificially, theologically and politically with those of the typical younger Pentecostal.
Church-goers views, Fundy or otherwise, on Climate Change correlate with the same demographic in the wider community.
Paul, what ever that was, it’s taken down already!
Description?
Helen, you can find an earlier version Paul B’s link here. NSFW
If Lou Reed and Ray Davies somehow had a mid-air collision, well, Ah guess it would prolly sound sumfin like…
Hey, wait a minute, it actually sort of happened in a way (metaphorically, that iz), and it goes a little sumpin like this…
Apologies for thet awful screencap though. Life is hard. And yeah, I know most of you prolly already know this tune, but it’s nice to hear it again in the early A.M. (or is it late P.M.?) when you weren’t expecting it, roit?
I was really looking for Genya Ravan’s weird, lovely “Jerry’s Pigeons” which apparently can’t be found on youtube, or at least not by primitives like me. But she did I believe sing backup on Lou’s “Wait” from Street Hassle. Wuz gonna post that’un, but damn it’s just a little too weird. And Street Hassle makes me go off on too many irrelevant tangents, so, stick wif the hits…
Doot-doot,
Doot-doo,
Ahhh, you bring it back to me…
Eh, screw it, here’s “Wait”, too…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF2_PdPj080
Sorry if it’s too weird for words. Gessyahaddabethere. I still think it would play better if they had brought the ‘Hey-ronday-rondays’ at the end up more forward in the mix, but FDB will have to be the judge of that.
Helen.
Been buried in letters of Maria Proctor Collins. Sorry I’ve taken so long to get back to you. The link FA provides gives the story, perhaps in more detail, though the Drum article was quite hard-hitting and certainly not something the NSW Libs would like broadcast. Interesting the ABC took it down. Wonder who complained in the higher echelons of the Libs to the ABC?
God help NSW once we end up in the hands of these troglydites.
thanks FA @ 66.
Thanks for alternate link. It seems the NSW Libs have learned nothing since the days of John Brogden. What on earth do their parents teach them about attitudes to women, race, etc?
You’re welcome Paul. I must say I’m not surprised the Drum withdrew the piece. The allegations are quite serious, but I don’t think the author made a compelling case. A few too many long bows being drawn. So I can understand the ABC having second thoughts.
OTOH I’d hope that somewhere a diligent journalist is checking to see whether the claims have substance.
Why Labor’s/Gillard’s obsession wiith maintaining a budget surplus is a death sentence for some people.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/new-drug-aid-subject-to-savings/story-e6frg6nf-1226018660942
Japerz, as ever I’d love to broadcast the benefits of my considerable insight to all and sundry, but owing to a territorial copyright arrangement (how quaint!), Sony clips don’t play here no more.
Drawing a long bow to report that NSW Liberals would make misogynistic sexual jokes about female opponents? You think they would be too polite?
Subtlety, J_P_Z. You want to bring it home with a memory of the Crystals and Shirelles songs and their variations on the theme, but you don’t want to overplay it.