9 comments on “God of Love, Man of Ignorance

  1. If only we COULD have a political party that was anti-Christian.
    Of all the flavours of Christianity catholicism is surely the most ignorant and stupid. Archbishop Pell and his archaic belief system represents a significant threat to the good health and well being of the Australian people. Such a person can never hope to attract sufficient ridicule…

  2. The man is an idiot, there’s no doubt of that. And i’m sure many christians would agree.

    However, i’m willing to bet that of the people who head up and support Red Cross, Oxfam, UNICEF etc, many *are* Christian… and although these charities are indeed non-secular, i don’t think they’d necessarily agreed to be claimed by the atheist movement either.

    • I agree that being a part of any of these secular organisations does not necessarily mean you’re an atheist. But in some instances – especially Medicines Sans Frontier – they are set up specifically to be non-religious, which to some people is the equivalent of being atheist. It’s also true that working for a religious charity doesn’t mean you’re not an atheist. Pell deliberately says atheists aren’t involved in charity work in order to paint them as bad people – not because they don’t actually do anything.

      • Sorry, but i disagree with those who say that an organisation that is set up specifically to be non-religious can be viewed as atheist.

        Non-religious = agnostic, not atheist, to my way of thinking.

        An atheist says ‘There is no god’ and does not believe in organised religion of any kind.

        An agnostic says ‘I personally do not believe there is a god’ but recognises there is no way to prove conclusively either way, so generally accepts the right of others to believe what they like. i.e. neutral.

        Non-religious organisations are neutral, right? Does their vision statement include “We’ll do good stuff, blah, blah, blah. By the way, there is no God.”? It probably does say that they are not affiliated with any branch of religion. Personally, i think that is taking more of the agnostic line rather than the “There is no God. Period.” line.

      • I am sorry if my opinion seems heavy handed, but i admit that it *really* gets my back up when atheists presume that all things ‘non-religious’ must be automatically ‘atheist’.

        I am a non-football supporter. That does not mean i think those who follow it are wrong to do so and that the influence of football should be removed from our society.

  3. If only we could even just have a political party that was against religious-extremism.

    Like Mackenzie, I respect a person’s right to believe … just as I expect the same courtesy be afforded regarding my choice to not believe.

    “Such a person can never hope to attract sufficient ridicule …”. Great line Michael, perfectly said.

    The fact that there is such a clear link between Abbott and Pell scares me … and screams out that Abbott absolutely has no place putting his feet up in front of the fire at The Lodge.

    Guillard’s athiest admission was a ray of shining hope … such a shame there wasn’t anything else in there behind it.

    For too long something that is really just a personal preference/ lifestyle choice (unlike sexuality!!!) has dominated politics globally.

    I dream of a day when we have secular politics, both nationallly and also globally. I know, I know … wishful thinking, but gosh it is a wonderful thought.

  4. Sorry, Kerri – I didn’t make my meaning properly clear. I didn’t mean to imply that a non-religious organisation = an atheist organisation. I meant to say that there are religious leaders out there who believe that working for a secular organisation tars you with the same brush as an atheist.

    I agree that there is a big difference in something being non-religious and something being actively atheist. I am a member of the Australian Secular Party. They are not an anti-religion party, nor an atheist party. They are simply a party which would like to see a proper separation of church and state – and as such, has a large number of religious people as both members and supporters.

    Unfortunately, there are religious leaders out there who assume that secularism means anti-religion and that anti-religion also means atheist. As you say, they’re not the same and those leaders should grasp the difference.

  5. Pingback: 2010 in Review « Open Letter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s