Atheism and political apathy
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Yeah, but unless it passes muster at the level of the "expert" it never reaches the stage where a law is required.
And where there is no law there is no problem:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/30/arranged_gay_marriage/
And where there is no law there is no problem:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/30/arranged_gay_marriage/
ah evidence based policy, what a concept
To be honest rudd is pushing evidenced based policy (or at least thats what he claimes) so that the departments rather than the minsters have a greater say in what should be put into law. However it still needs to pass parliment before it BECOMES law.
For an example there is a bill (as part of the buget bills actually) which will increase the tax on those high sugar acholic drinks (here they get called alcopops but dont know how india and the US refer to them). They tend to be the drink of choice for young women especially but also young men just starting to drink. There is a huge problem with binge drinking in the young age group so its hoped that by increasing the tax the consumption will go down
This has been signed off on by both treasury and the health department as good policy.
Yet even so the libs (who currently hold the majority in the senate until july 1) have delayed the bill off to a comity for god knows how long and if just one of those minority parties blocks the bill its dead. Doesnt matter how good the policy is if it cant pass the senate then it cant become law
This is what triggered the consitutional crisis when whitlam was PM, the minor parties and the libs blocked the surplie bill (the most crucial of the buget bills). This ment the goverment couldnt pay its workers and there for couldnt goven
To be honest rudd is pushing evidenced based policy (or at least thats what he claimes) so that the departments rather than the minsters have a greater say in what should be put into law. However it still needs to pass parliment before it BECOMES law.
For an example there is a bill (as part of the buget bills actually) which will increase the tax on those high sugar acholic drinks (here they get called alcopops but dont know how india and the US refer to them). They tend to be the drink of choice for young women especially but also young men just starting to drink. There is a huge problem with binge drinking in the young age group so its hoped that by increasing the tax the consumption will go down
This has been signed off on by both treasury and the health department as good policy.
Yet even so the libs (who currently hold the majority in the senate until july 1) have delayed the bill off to a comity for god knows how long and if just one of those minority parties blocks the bill its dead. Doesnt matter how good the policy is if it cant pass the senate then it cant become law
This is what triggered the consitutional crisis when whitlam was PM, the minor parties and the libs blocked the surplie bill (the most crucial of the buget bills). This ment the goverment couldnt pay its workers and there for couldnt goven
This is also true across the border, although there are some bad apples there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4313210.stm
i wasnt talking about the specific case i was talking about it generally.
to be honest if the law says that at 16 a person is of legal age then its not a crime. Actually in victoria that would be legal anyway (well actually im not sure about the marrage but they could definitly have sex) if that was a oposite sex couple.
I found it more surprising that parkistan was more progressive on this issue than the westen world
to be honest if the law says that at 16 a person is of legal age then its not a crime. Actually in victoria that would be legal anyway (well actually im not sure about the marrage but they could definitly have sex) if that was a oposite sex couple.
I found it more surprising that parkistan was more progressive on this issue than the westen world
You might want to look into the details a bit more closely, before drawing any dramatic conclusions.asguard said:
That wasn't a government-sanctioned, nationally legal marriage. And the status obtained by the "wife" (the young boy) is not quite equivalent to a California marriage accrual.
oh, ops. i didnt read the link and only went off what sam posted (i will claim that quite openly)
i have to say i did find the way married was in "" marks quite strange but if your saying theres more to it that makes sence
ah well, would have been nice to finally see some countries doing the right thing, i aplaud califonia but i find it sad that its a state rather than the whole country legislating this. The marrage act in australia and all the rights there in (including the family court) are federal powers which means that if the cowardly federal parties (both sides i might add) ever get there act together they only have to change one law to compleatly fix the injustice throughout the country. If that happens you can move from state to state with exactly the same rights no matter which state your in. The only problem with the californian act is that as soon as you move over the border you lose those rights (i assume)
i have to say i did find the way married was in "" marks quite strange but if your saying theres more to it that makes sence
ah well, would have been nice to finally see some countries doing the right thing, i aplaud califonia but i find it sad that its a state rather than the whole country legislating this. The marrage act in australia and all the rights there in (including the family court) are federal powers which means that if the cowardly federal parties (both sides i might add) ever get there act together they only have to change one law to compleatly fix the injustice throughout the country. If that happens you can move from state to state with exactly the same rights no matter which state your in. The only problem with the californian act is that as soon as you move over the border you lose those rights (i assume)
Most marriages in India and Pakistan do not require government sanction, only a priest or a qadi and parental or community approval. We haven't moved into the realm of legal and illegal marriage yet, thats only for people moving abroad. That is why while there are so many bigamous marriages and marriages that may not hold up in a court [like gay marriage, homosexuality is officially illegal in India], they are "accepted" as marriage without civil recourse, where legal consequences are concerned [as in the case of children, for example].
As you can see in both cases, the family, friends and priests had no reservations to the marriage. It does not matter what leaders or government says.
As you can see in both cases, the family, friends and priests had no reservations to the marriage. It does not matter what leaders or government says.
The source of brainwashing is the church, or whatever cult you might belong, along with ones parents. Little more makes up and controls the mindset of a child of theist parents.
The US had nothing to do with Musharraf rising to power, they put sanctions on Pakistan as soon as it happened. Only after 9/11 did they develop a working relationship, and that was because the US expects Pakistan to dissolve the terrorists Musharraf and his associates trained, funded and sheltered.
The point stands as before- India has committed more than its share of provocations in the past, ranging from airstrikes on Pakistani soil in retaliation for terrorist attacks of unknown origin, to unilateral nuclear and missile testing. Untold millions have been killed in your regional and civil wars, and post-colonial India finds itself in occupation of numerous ethnic minorities' lands because Britain made India the new colonizers of the region when it left. Don't give me this paternalistic peacenik pap that India is somehow a shining beacon before which all atheists are to be humbled.
Liberate occupied Kashmir and all the other territories brutally occupied and suppressed by the nuclear Indian juggernaut. Then maybe after you finally do that, then you can discuss with others about why your system is so superior to that of atheists, America, Israel, etc. without being a total hypocrite about it.
I'm sorry what does a problem between India and Pakistan, both religious countries btw have to do with political apathy in atheists?
What does American occupation of a foreign country and Jewish occupation of Palestinian lands have to do with it?
We already established (to my own satisfaction at least) that many atheists/agnostics/freethinkers are politically active and are only limited in their participation by the societies they live in. You were trying to hold up India as an example of a superior theistic democracy where people of faith have supposedly shown themselves more capable of civilized governance than atheists. I'm just bringing that myth down with some of the facts India doesn't like to talk about in the open.
proscriptor
Registered Member
Albanian pagan rituals are social events and have always been, they are not "religious" in nature. And they are celebrated as part of the national culture and don't relate anywhere to anything "supernatural", or bowing to stuff. Maybe you see sth else in the word "pagan" than Albanians do. But "paganism" doesn't have a strict universal meaning, it depends each time on the culture it refers to. Around here (Albania) it's there just for a "source Albanian social rite". What's religious about celebrating the Summer and Winter Days, the midwinter and midsummer festivals? Most of them directly relate to the changing seasons and are celebratory in nature, nothing "religious" there. It's ancient naturalism passed on from father to son and that's what the world pagan means around here.
All Albanian regimes since Independence from the Ottoman empire in 1912 suppressed religion and this was sth which never arouse any public protests or otherwise. In fact the groundwork for abolition of religion was set during the regime previous to communism, which was nationalist. Religion in Albania was imposed by foreigners and was an antagonist of the native culture, and as soon as foreigners were gone, their religion was taken down along with them. That's the trend in the country and how most of Albanians see the whole question. Of course there have been leftovers, but they're leftovers, they don't serve to identify Albanian culture.
In fact, implicit atheism in Albania still has the upper hand. And obviously during the constitutional suppression the Albanian society was not only organically, but also officially atheist. And there is sth. else to be taken into account. Religions, given that they were the invader's ideology, have never been accepted as part of Albanian culture, they're seen as contamination from the national point of view. The UN is what constantly babbled and continues to babble about respecting religions and stuff in Albania, and the government nowadays has to comply because of international lunatics. Most people don't believe in any "supernatural beings" nor carry out anything to that respect. Maybe you should read more than wikipedia articles before forming opinions about stuff.
Yes I would think so, due mainly to atheist not concidering people as there enemy, more an oppositional barrier to overcome.S.A.M. said:
I doubt that, if you're weak willed enough to allow someone to enforce their will on you, you deserved to be oppressed. ( oh and don't come back with, "you're enforced to follow laws" this is done because it is the most sensible thing to do.)S.A.M. said:
yes, yes, and no.S.A.M. said:
You can still be politically aware and politically useful. Who do you think protests for peoples rights the most.S.A.M. said:
No, they just don't want the religious to have all the control, that is the most dangerous possible scenario there could be,S.A.M. said: