[Merged] Australian Politics - The Morrison Period - Page 22

psionl0 · 14th March 2019, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Mate, I've worked for bookies. I know how they work.

Good. Then I don't have to show how I derived my numbers (I assumed a 5% to 10% vig on all bets made).

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

arthwollipot · 14th March 2019, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Means almost nothing. Keating was unpopular yet won “unwinnable” elections. Well one anyway. Shorten is less popular than Morrison, yet will win. Popularity means little. Perceived competence beats it hands down.

This election can be won by Labor in Victoria alone. It is now Labor’s stronghold. Getting rid of Shorten, which will not happen in any case, would lose Victoria and maybe the nation.

Right, and don't forget that most of us aren't going to be voting for Shorten. We're going to be voting for whoever is standing in our electorates. If enough of us vote for a Labor candidate, then Shorten will be PM. And that's going to happen.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to be being missed.

Dabop · 16th March 2019, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

They should spare everyone the angst. Just schedule every House of Reps member to be PM for one week only. Then EVERYONE gets to be PM!

(looks confused)
I thought we were already doing that?????

lionking · 16th March 2019, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Right, and don't forget that most of us aren't going to be voting for Shorten. We're going to be voting for whoever is standing in our electorates. If enough of us vote for a Labor candidate, then Shorten will be PM. And that's going to happen.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to be being missed.

Yes I understand you. I think preferences will flood to Labor. The only risk is if a heap of rightish independents, like Abbott’s opponent, get up and support the LNP from the cross bench. Can’t see that.

novaphile · 16th March 2019, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dabop

(looks confused)
I thought we were already doing that?????

OK. That really made me laugh.

Things are so confused in the Liberal party at the moment, they're stabbing each other in the FRONT!

Thor 2 · 17th March 2019, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Right, and don't forget that most of us aren't going to be voting for Shorten. We're going to be voting for whoever is standing in our electorates. If enough of us vote for a Labor candidate, then Shorten will be PM. And that's going to happen.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to be being missed.

Wouldn't it be great if the good people of Maribyrnong were to vote Shorty out of office with a landslide victory to Labor elsewhere. I know, I know, I'm a dreamer.

arthwollipot · 17th March 2019, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Wouldn't it be great if the good people of Maribyrnong were to vote Shorty out of office with a landslide victory to Labor elsewhere. I know, I know, I'm a dreamer.

Prime Minister Wong. That has a good ring to it.

fromdownunder · 17th March 2019, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Prime Minister Wong. That has a good ring to it.

I have been saying this for years. Find her a safe seat in the House, elevate her to leader (or PM sometime after Labor wins the election) and that is that. It would not be the first time that a Senator became the Prime Minister.

Norm

Norman Alexander · 17th March 2019, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by novaphile

OK. That really made me laugh.

Things are so confused in the Liberal party at the moment, they're stabbing each other in the FRONT!

Because their faces look like arses.

Thor 2 · 18th March 2019, 02:48 PM

Be interesting to see how the "shoot em up party" does in the NSW polls in the wake of the Christchurch massacre.

arthwollipot · 18th March 2019, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Be interesting to see how the "shoot em up party" does in the NSW polls in the wake of the Christchurch massacre.

With their preference deal with Labor, I'm going to bet they do okay.

rjh01 · 18th March 2019, 07:33 PM

The Liberals are in serious trouble with their Facebook supporters. Read the comments of this post. Some are upset they will be giving their preferences to the Greens and Labor ahead of One Nation.

https://www.facebook.com/scottmorris...BzWQ&__tn__=-R

Looks like One Nation will be getting many votes from ex Liberals.

arthwollipot · 18th March 2019, 07:41 PM

That's worrying.

Norman Alexander · 18th March 2019, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

The Liberals are in serious trouble with their Facebook supporters. Read the comments of this post. Some are upset they will be giving their preferences to the Greens and Labor ahead of One Nation.

Looks like One Nation will be getting many votes from ex Liberals.

Doubt if there will be many, actually. I can just see them now...

C'mon, guys! Liberals are all ****** Let's all go vote for One Nation instead!

....guys?

...hello?

...where did they all go...?

novaphile · 19th March 2019, 03:19 AM

You know, if the Nationals wake up one morning, and actually check their policies and Labor's policies, and form a Coalition with Labor...

... well that would be the permanent end of the Liberals.

lionking · 19th March 2019, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by novaphile

You know, if the Nationals wake up one morning, and actually check their policies and Labor's policies, and form a Coalition with Labor...

... well that would be the permanent end of the Liberals.

Do you really think the ALP would sell their souls to meld with Barnaby Joyce and fellow troglodytes? Not a chance. If it happened, and it won’t, I would change my vote from Labor for the first time in nearly 50 years.

psionl0 · 19th March 2019, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you really think the ALP would sell their souls to meld with Barnaby Joyce and fellow troglodytes?

Maybe not with Gough Whitlam in charge but Shorten is a blatant opportunist.

The Atheist · 19th March 2019, 08:29 PM

Oooh, this is interesting - several journalists claim Morrison made highly questionable remarks about muslims a few years back; Scotty says it's a disgusting lie.

But he's not going to sue...

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...20-p515p7.html

arthwollipot · 19th March 2019, 08:30 PM

I wouldn't be even remotely surprised if he did.

Norman Alexander · 19th March 2019, 09:11 PM

Scotty says what he is told to say. Rupert has him on speed-dial.

rjh01 · 20th March 2019, 12:10 AM

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-...im-row/1947034

Quote:

A Fairfax report says Mr Morrison urged shadow cabinet to capitalise on electorate fears of "Muslim immigration", "Muslims in Australia" and Muslim migrants' "inability to integrate".

This is a news report from 2011.

Not sure there is much difference in attitude between Senator Fraser Anning and Morrison.

arthwollipot · 20th March 2019, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-...im-row/1947034

This is a news report from 2011.

Not sure there is much difference in attitude between Senator Fraser Anning and Morrison.

Well, one difference might be that Morrison has in the meantime learned that it's not a good idea to spout stupid **** in the wake of a tragedy.

rjh01 · 20th March 2019, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Well, one difference might be that Morrison has in the meantime learned that it's not a good idea to spout stupid **** in the wake of a tragedy.

So shed crocodile tears until the next issue arises about immigration. We are going to reduce it by 30,000 a year. https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default...aI0b-qrd8aIj9U

The Atheist · 21st March 2019, 10:20 AM

Looks like the "disgusting lie" contains at the very least a solid element of truth in it, according to Morrison's new story.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chr...sion-interview

Originally Posted by rjh01

Not sure there is much difference in attitude between Senator Fraser Anning and Morrison.

Yep.

Thor 2 · 21st March 2019, 04:59 PM

An interesting article by James Boyce. Scomo's religion should be of concern to us and his apparent insincerity. Personally it concerns me deeply that our PM might think we are in end times. What sort of planning for the future might be appropriate given this?

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/...scott-morrison

Quote:

If for no other reason than this dangerous delusion, Australians deserve to know more about what the leader of our country believes. Pentecostalism might not be a cult, but in terms of what ordinary people have been told about its true teachings, it may as well be. Those charged with scrutinising our politicians should put aside the national discomfort about discussing religion, and do what they would if a political leader subscribed to any other little-known ideology. Morrison must be made to tell us more about the faith that has shaped his life: What does he really think of the Devil?

arthwollipot · 21st March 2019, 05:17 PM

Didn't I already post that? I'm pretty sure I already posted that.

ETA: I did.

Norman Alexander · 21st March 2019, 07:20 PM

There seems to be a propensity for Scomo and his fellow travellers to revile people of other faiths due to their professed beliefs. Maybe about time for the shoe to be on the other foot. The religious and other beliefs of our "fine upstanding" citizens that are our current right-wing (Hanson, Palmer and Anning, I'm looking at you) should be examined publicly and commented on just as much.

arthwollipot · 21st March 2019, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

There seems to be a propensity for Scomo and his fellow travellers to revile people of other faiths due to their professed beliefs. Maybe about time for the shoe to be on the other foot. The religious and other beliefs of our "fine upstanding" citizens that are our current right-wing (Hanson, Palmer and Anning, I'm looking at you) should be examined publicly and commented on just as much.

Absolutely. Especially when our politicians let their religion drive their policy.

psionl0 · 21st March 2019, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/...scott-morrison

That article is full of nothing except speculation.

Why should a politician's religious beliefs take precedence over say their allegiance to multinational corporations?

arthwollipot · 21st March 2019, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

That article is full of nothing except speculation.

Why should a politician's religious beliefs take precedence over say their allegiance to multinational corporations?

You said you weren't going to read it.

Norman Alexander · 21st March 2019, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

That article is full of nothing except speculation.

Why should a politician's religious beliefs take precedence over say their allegiance to multinational corporations?

Because they are usually one and the same thing.

arthwollipot · 21st March 2019, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Because they are usually one and the same thing.

Which if you think about it isn't particularly surprising. If someone has a belief system that they turn to about questions about morality, of course that's going to influence their policy decisions. Someone who believes that homosexuality is bad isn't going to support policies that promote diversity and inclusion, unless they can put their personal views aside in favour of a majority. But really, is a politician really going to support something that they strongly believe is immoral?

Hey, remember Ruddock's religious freedom review? Whatever happened to that? Did that just get quietly buried?

arthwollipot · 21st March 2019, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Hey, remember Ruddock's religious freedom review? Whatever happened to that? Did that just get quietly buried?

Turns out it kind of was, but the details were leaked and the 20 recommendations were published in the SMH.

Recommendation 17 is interesting in the current state of affairs.

Norman Alexander · 21st March 2019, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Which if you think about it isn't particularly surprising. If someone has a belief system that they turn to about questions about morality, of course that's going to influence their policy decisions. Someone who believes that homosexuality is bad isn't going to support policies that promote diversity and inclusion, unless they can put their personal views aside in favour of a majority. But really, is a politician really going to support something that they strongly believe is immoral?

Hey, remember Ruddock's religious freedom review? Whatever happened to that? Did that just get quietly buried?

I was thinking more about the fact that most of the religious organisations that our leading politicians adhere to operate more like multinational businesses than as religions. And that some multinationals require and receive "religious" followers. Take Fox Media for example.

psionl0 · 21st March 2019, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You said you weren't going to read it.

I said that I would pass on "reading all three articles in full". I still haven't. A quick glance at the article shows that it was a pure opinion piece.

The notion that politicians shouldn't be trusted because we don't know what they truly believe is trivially true. Religious views are just a small subset of what a politician believes in and most are ready, willing and able to abandon their beliefs in the pursuit of votes.

arthwollipot · 21st March 2019, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

I was thinking more about the fact that most of the religious organisations that our leading politicians adhere to operate more like multinational businesses than as religions. And that some multinationals require and receive "religious" followers. Take Fox Media for example.

I wouldn't say "most". Most of our politicians have been Catholics or Anglicans.

arthwollipot · 21st March 2019, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

I said that I would pass on "reading all three articles in full". I still haven't. A quick glance at the article shows that it was a pure opinion piece.

Well, yes. What gave you the impression that it wasn't? In what way would this subject be appropriate for a pure facts-based news report? News organisations have published opinion pieces since forever. Also, you should still read all three articles in full.

Originally Posted by psionl0

The notion that politicians shouldn't be trusted because we don't know what they truly believe is trivially true. Religious views are just a small subset of what a politician believes in and most are ready, willing and able to abandon their beliefs in the pursuit of votes.

I don't think that's true at all. Otherwise they would have all supported marriage equality.

Norman Alexander · 21st March 2019, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I wouldn't say "most". Most of our politicians have been Catholics or Anglicans.

That was my point.

arthwollipot · 21st March 2019, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

That was my point.

Yeah, I just realised what I said there.

psionl0 · Yesterday, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't think that's true at all. Otherwise they would have all supported marriage equality.

Don't be silly. Hypocrisy is the number one requirement for a successful politician. Do you think that all the MPs who voted for the SSM legislation are atheists?

16th March 2019, 07:48 PM	#843
Dabop Muse Join Date: May 2015 Location: Oz Posts: 833	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander They should spare everyone the angst. Just schedule every House of Reps member to be PM for one week only. Then EVERYONE gets to be PM! (looks confused) I thought we were already doing that?????
Dabop Muse Join Date: May 2015 Location: Oz Posts: 833	__________________ It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader 'When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.' George Carlin

16th March 2019, 07:55 PM	#844
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 43,168	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Right, and don't forget that most of us aren't going to be voting for Shorten. We're going to be voting for whoever is standing in our electorates. If enough of us vote for a Labor candidate, then Shorten will be PM. And that's going to happen. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to be being missed. Yes I understand you. I think preferences will flood to Labor. The only risk is if a heap of rightish independents, like Abbott’s opponent, get up and support the LNP from the cross bench. Can’t see that.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

16th March 2019, 08:22 PM	#845
novaphile Quester of Doglets Moderator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,585	Originally Posted by Dabop (looks confused) I thought we were already doing that????? OK. That really made me laugh. Things are so confused in the Liberal party at the moment, they're stabbing each other in the FRONT!
	__________________ We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.

17th March 2019, 07:34 PM	#846
Thor 2 Illuminator Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 4,671	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Right, and don't forget that most of us aren't going to be voting for Shorten. We're going to be voting for whoever is standing in our electorates. If enough of us vote for a Labor candidate, then Shorten will be PM. And that's going to happen. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to be being missed. Wouldn't it be great if the good people of Maribyrnong were to vote Shorty out of office with a landslide victory to Labor elsewhere. I know, I know, I'm a dreamer.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

17th March 2019, 08:11 PM	#848
fromdownunder Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,287	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Prime Minister Wong. That has a good ring to it. I have been saying this for years. Find her a safe seat in the House, elevate her to leader (or PM sometime after Labor wins the election) and that is that. It would not be the first time that a Senator became the Prime Minister. Norm
	__________________ Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain

14th March 2019, 04:26 PM	#842
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by lionking Means almost nothing. Keating was unpopular yet won “unwinnable” elections. Well one anyway. Shorten is less popular than Morrison, yet will win. Popularity means little. Perceived competence beats it hands down. This election can be won by Labor in Victoria alone. It is now Labor’s stronghold. Getting rid of Shorten, which will not happen in any case, would lose Victoria and maybe the nation. Right, and don't forget that most of us aren't going to be voting for Shorten. We're going to be voting for whoever is standing in our electorates. If enough of us vote for a Labor candidate, then Shorten will be PM. And that's going to happen. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to be being missed.

17th March 2019, 07:36 PM	#847
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Wouldn't it be great if the good people of Maribyrnong were to vote Shorty out of office with a landslide victory to Labor elsewhere. I know, I know, I'm a dreamer. Prime Minister Wong. That has a good ring to it.

17th March 2019, 08:20 PM	#849
Norman Alexander Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,698	Originally Posted by novaphile OK. That really made me laugh. Things are so confused in the Liberal party at the moment, they're stabbing each other in the FRONT! Because their faces look like arses.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

18th March 2019, 02:48 PM	#850
Thor 2 Illuminator Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 4,671	Be interesting to see how the "shoot em up party" does in the NSW polls in the wake of the Christchurch massacre.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

18th March 2019, 04:47 PM	#851
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Be interesting to see how the "shoot em up party" does in the NSW polls in the wake of the Christchurch massacre. With their preference deal with Labor, I'm going to bet they do okay.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

18th March 2019, 07:33 PM	#852
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 24,402	The Liberals are in serious trouble with their Facebook supporters. Read the comments of this post. Some are upset they will be giving their preferences to the Greens and Labor ahead of One Nation. https://www.facebook.com/scottmorris...BzWQ&__tn__=-R Looks like One Nation will be getting many votes from ex Liberals.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

18th March 2019, 07:41 PM	#853
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	That's worrying.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

18th March 2019, 07:43 PM	#854
Norman Alexander Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,698	Originally Posted by rjh01 The Liberals are in serious trouble with their Facebook supporters. Read the comments of this post. Some are upset they will be giving their preferences to the Greens and Labor ahead of One Nation. Looks like One Nation will be getting many votes from ex Liberals. Doubt if there will be many, actually. I can just see them now... C'mon, guys! Liberals are all ****** Let's all go vote for One Nation instead! ....guys? ...hello? ...where did they all go...?
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

19th March 2019, 03:19 AM	#855
novaphile Quester of Doglets Moderator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,585	You know, if the Nationals wake up one morning, and actually check their policies and Labor's policies, and form a Coalition with Labor... ... well that would be the permanent end of the Liberals.
	__________________ We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.

19th March 2019, 03:24 AM	#856
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 43,168	Originally Posted by novaphile You know, if the Nationals wake up one morning, and actually check their policies and Labor's policies, and form a Coalition with Labor... ... well that would be the permanent end of the Liberals. Do you really think the ALP would sell their souls to meld with Barnaby Joyce and fellow troglodytes? Not a chance. If it happened, and it won’t, I would change my vote from Labor for the first time in nearly 50 years.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th March 2019, 09:33 AM	#857
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 13,981	Originally Posted by lionking Do you really think the ALP would sell their souls to meld with Barnaby Joyce and fellow troglodytes? Maybe not with Gough Whitlam in charge but Shorten is a blatant opportunist.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

19th March 2019, 08:29 PM	#858
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 21,742	Oooh, this is interesting - several journalists claim Morrison made highly questionable remarks about muslims a few years back; Scotty says it's a disgusting lie. But he's not going to sue... https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...20-p515p7.html
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

19th March 2019, 08:30 PM	#859
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	I wouldn't be even remotely surprised if he did.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

19th March 2019, 09:11 PM	#860
Norman Alexander Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,698	Scotty says what he is told to say. Rupert has him on speed-dial.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

20th March 2019, 12:10 AM	#861
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 24,402	https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-...im-row/1947034 Quote: A Fairfax report says Mr Morrison urged shadow cabinet to capitalise on electorate fears of "Muslim immigration", "Muslims in Australia" and Muslim migrants' "inability to integrate". This is a news report from 2011. Not sure there is much difference in attitude between Senator Fraser Anning and Morrison.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

20th March 2019, 12:27 AM	#862
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by rjh01 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-...im-row/1947034 This is a news report from 2011. Not sure there is much difference in attitude between Senator Fraser Anning and Morrison. Well, one difference might be that Morrison has in the meantime learned that it's not a good idea to spout stupid **** in the wake of a tragedy.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

20th March 2019, 01:40 AM	#863
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 24,402	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Well, one difference might be that Morrison has in the meantime learned that it's not a good idea to spout stupid **** in the wake of a tragedy. So shed crocodile tears until the next issue arises about immigration. We are going to reduce it by 30,000 a year. https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default...aI0b-qrd8aIj9U
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

21st March 2019, 10:20 AM	#864
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 21,742	Looks like the "disgusting lie" contains at the very least a solid element of truth in it, according to Morrison's new story. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chr...sion-interview Originally Posted by rjh01 Not sure there is much difference in attitude between Senator Fraser Anning and Morrison. Yep.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

21st March 2019, 04:59 PM	#865
Thor 2 Illuminator Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 4,671	An interesting article by James Boyce. Scomo's religion should be of concern to us and his apparent insincerity. Personally it concerns me deeply that our PM might think we are in end times. What sort of planning for the future might be appropriate given this? https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/...scott-morrison Quote: If for no other reason than this dangerous delusion, Australians deserve to know more about what the leader of our country believes. Pentecostalism might not be a cult, but in terms of what ordinary people have been told about its true teachings, it may as well be. Those charged with scrutinising our politicians should put aside the national discomfort about discussing religion, and do what they would if a political leader subscribed to any other little-known ideology. Morrison must be made to tell us more about the faith that has shaped his life: What does he really think of the Devil?
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

21st March 2019, 05:17 PM	#866
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Didn't I already post that? I'm pretty sure I already posted that. ETA: I did.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him Last edited by arthwollipot; 21st March 2019 at 05:19 PM.

21st March 2019, 07:20 PM	#867
Norman Alexander Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,698	There seems to be a propensity for Scomo and his fellow travellers to revile people of other faiths due to their professed beliefs. Maybe about time for the shoe to be on the other foot. The religious and other beliefs of our "fine upstanding" citizens that are our current right-wing (Hanson, Palmer and Anning, I'm looking at you) should be examined publicly and commented on just as much.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

21st March 2019, 07:23 PM	#868
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander There seems to be a propensity for Scomo and his fellow travellers to revile people of other faiths due to their professed beliefs. Maybe about time for the shoe to be on the other foot. The religious and other beliefs of our "fine upstanding" citizens that are our current right-wing (Hanson, Palmer and Anning, I'm looking at you) should be examined publicly and commented on just as much. Absolutely. Especially when our politicians let their religion drive their policy.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

21st March 2019, 09:05 PM	#869
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 13,981	Originally Posted by Thor 2 https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/...scott-morrison That article is full of nothing except speculation. Why should a politician's religious beliefs take precedence over say their allegiance to multinational corporations?
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

21st March 2019, 09:07 PM	#870
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by psionl0 That article is full of nothing except speculation. Why should a politician's religious beliefs take precedence over say their allegiance to multinational corporations? You said you weren't going to read it.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

21st March 2019, 09:08 PM	#871
Norman Alexander Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,698	Originally Posted by psionl0 That article is full of nothing except speculation. Why should a politician's religious beliefs take precedence over say their allegiance to multinational corporations? Because they are usually one and the same thing.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

21st March 2019, 09:15 PM	#872
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander Because they are usually one and the same thing. Which if you think about it isn't particularly surprising. If someone has a belief system that they turn to about questions about morality, of course that's going to influence their policy decisions. Someone who believes that homosexuality is bad isn't going to support policies that promote diversity and inclusion, unless they can put their personal views aside in favour of a majority. But really, is a politician really going to support something that they strongly believe is immoral? Hey, remember Ruddock's religious freedom review? Whatever happened to that? Did that just get quietly buried?
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

21st March 2019, 09:24 PM	#873
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Hey, remember Ruddock's religious freedom review? Whatever happened to that? Did that just get quietly buried? Turns out it kind of was, but the details were leaked and the 20 recommendations were published in the SMH. Recommendation 17 is interesting in the current state of affairs.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

21st March 2019, 09:32 PM	#874
Norman Alexander Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,698	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Which if you think about it isn't particularly surprising. If someone has a belief system that they turn to about questions about morality, of course that's going to influence their policy decisions. Someone who believes that homosexuality is bad isn't going to support policies that promote diversity and inclusion, unless they can put their personal views aside in favour of a majority. But really, is a politician really going to support something that they strongly believe is immoral? Hey, remember Ruddock's religious freedom review? Whatever happened to that? Did that just get quietly buried? I was thinking more about the fact that most of the religious organisations that our leading politicians adhere to operate more like multinational businesses than as religions. And that some multinationals require and receive "religious" followers. Take Fox Media for example.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

21st March 2019, 09:49 PM	#875
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 13,981	Originally Posted by arthwollipot You said you weren't going to read it. I said that I would pass on "reading all three articles in full". I still haven't. A quick glance at the article shows that it was a pure opinion piece. The notion that politicians shouldn't be trusted because we don't know what they truly believe is trivially true. Religious views are just a small subset of what a politician believes in and most are ready, willing and able to abandon their beliefs in the pursuit of votes.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

21st March 2019, 09:55 PM	#876
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,834	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander I was thinking more about the fact that most of the religious organisations that our leading politicians adhere to operate more like multinational businesses than as religions. And that some multinationals require and receive "religious" followers. Take Fox Media for example. I wouldn't say "most". Most of our politicians have been Catholics or Anglicans.
	__________________ Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him Last edited by arthwollipot; 21st March 2019 at 09:59 PM. Reason: Added quote for clarity