I gotta get to work, but I'll reply later on this evening

I think that the defining British culture was an authoritarian one which created a belief in the NEED to have a king, more than anything else.

I get very hesitant before starting to pronounce that the jury system is by definition any better than any other system. We are raised to think it is superior because we use that system. Children born in Europe are taught that the Inquisitive system is better. A bit of parochialism here too.

I just don't think that pointing to the excesses of the French Revolution is really sufficient to make such a claim about the differences in culture. I believe the English had as much of a willingness to commit such atrocities, but they never really had the vacuum of power occur like happened in France.

The other issue that we haven't even looked at is English colonialism (although I concede all great powers are guilty of this). Where did their rights based system evolve when it came to dealing "with the natives"???

I do agree that England has more of an indivicualistic culture, as opposed to the more "collectivist" instincts of Europe. But there are many reasons for that!

Very true.

Not exactly a conscious decision, but it's in their culture. I meant the culture has evolved in such a way that protecting the individual's rights are first and foremost. There's a tradition of protecting the individual's rights that has evolved over time.

As I was saying look at the evolution (apologies if this is out of order) of Magna Carta, habeas corpus, the English Revolution, the writing of John Locke, the writing of JS Mill, etc.

Look at the Whigs. Look at the tradition from which American liberalism originated.

It's all about the rights of the individual and it has evolved over time.

The French haven't got this tradition. They abruptly produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which was brilliant. But then a few years later all the important rights were suspended or abused.

I think ideas of justice and rights differ somewhat in the Commonwealth compared to in continental Europe. Many in France, Scandinavia, etc. cannot understand our jury system. Obviously it varies from country to country in continental Europe but there's a characteristic of more judges and less focus on the jury.

To most of us British, Australians, etc. the idea of having a state-appointed judge (or group of judges) decide everything in a criminal prosecution is anathema. It leaves the individual greatly endangered. We need these rights protected by having a jury of one's peers pass verdict. It can be very difficult to explain this idea to those from other countries. I mean Sweden is one of the fairest, most egalitarian countries in the world. But they do not have the same ideas as found in the UK, Australia, etc. with respect to juries, the right to cross-examination in public, etc. That's not to say Britain or Australia have perfect justice systems. But you get my drift.

Basically, the British idea of a rights-based society (focusing on the individual) is fairly unique and has evolved over a long period of time. Very different scenario in France.

Perhaps, as you suggest, out of circumstance. But equally plausible, imo, is that it is out of culture.

Fair point re the Sheikh - but it is one thing to fund a specific program to address a specific issue, than generally fund religion promoters in all schools. Makes it harder to monitor and leads to the excesses that have come out about it.

That's true. Things like creating channels of communication in the public sphere to educate and, as you say, exposing the motivations of MPs where religion plays a large part in their motivations is a good idea.

I agree that sort of stuff can and should be done. As I say though, it won't effect change immediately. So, it should lead to marriage equality eventually (well I reckon there will be marriage equality eventually, anyway) but not overnight.

On the issue of school chaplains. I'm iffy about religion in state schools. I'm particularly iffy about it just being one particular religion; CofE, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc.

However, I caught a bit of Q&A last night and it got me thinking. One of the main themes was (de)radicalisation in religious extremism. They had this bloke Sheikh Wesam Charkawi on it. Now, I normally don't watch Q&A at all. If it's just Liberal and Labor [sic] people screaming at each other about exactly the same thing week after week (and usually missing the point), I don't bother. I only really watch it when they have somebody like AC Grayling, some foreign affairs expert, etc. But this gent was brilliant. Incredibly articulate and had an extremely good grasp of things. He is a school chaplain (I'm not sure whether in a state school or not).

Apart from the fact that any school would benefit broadly from having him on the staff, he could be crucial to bringing back marginalised kids on a path to doing something horrific. He just seemed to be able to relate to everybody and to be calm and defusing. I'm not sure how bad the situation is with disenfranchised youth becoming indoctrinated by fundamentalist Islamic influences and then potentially joining ISIL. But if it is a problem, this bloke is a huge part of the solution. He has, apparently, been involved in helping out youths who are near the point of doing something terrible.

And even if they don't commit terrorist acts or fight for ISIL, it's terrible if they become marginalised by society in any case. Every step to be more inclusive and to address mental health issues needs to be taken.

I cannot see how forbidding people like this Sheikh from working in state schools would help anybody at any level.

Regarding the British v French revolution, my point was originally that I disagreed that "the British were all about the subject's rights and, as such, managed to limit the amount of harm done to individuals". You seem to be implying that somehow the british made a conscious choice.

My argument is that it was purely due to the historical details of the time. The French managed to wipe out the monarchy and associated nobility. If they had a more competent monarchy, maybe they would have been able to hold on.

Likewise in the British Civil War, if they had some charismatic leadership opposed to the monarchy, rather than Cromwell, maybe they would have wiped out the monarchical system and had their own reign of terror.

I guess my main point is that in hindsight things seem inevitable, when in actuality it could easily have turned out differently.

The differences between the UK & France were more accidental than anything else in my opinion. But obviously this is always up for interpretation!

Regarding the strawman back-and-forth, I think I have to disagree that things such as "the right for people of various religions to hold office to be restricted"... "would be the only direct response to that which you're complaining about".

I don't think that is necessary. What is necessary is to maintain the separation of church and state - get rid of school chaplains, be more explicit about protecting secular values, exposing the religious motivations of (for example) MPs that are against marriage equality.

There is plenty that can and should be done before implementing something as illiberal as a ban on holding office.

A few things about the French revolution.

Fair to say that elements within the Jacobins betrayed the revolution
We should recall however that they were opposed by other currents within the revolution moderate left Girondins, Centrists around Lafayette etc etc.
The War in the Vendee was to some extent the first total war. One could make the case that the surpression, if not the atrocities, was entirely justitifed.

Of course, it's superficial. I've compared and summarised some of the key points in British and French history in a couple of lines.

You've made some great points that the details are key.



This is quite literally the best thing you could say to prove my point. In August 1789, the more liberal elements of the French produced this ground-breaking document. It was as abrupt a change as you could imagine. From nowhere a document proclaiming all individuals citizens with various, meaningful inalienable rights. Hitherto, the French people had merely been subjects with very few rights and no notions of inequality.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was one of the greatest things ever written. The point is that it is symptomatic of French progress. Unfortunately it was probably far, far, far too rushed. What happened four or five years later? The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were shat on. Those who wrote and promoted that document were turned on by Jacobin, left-wing nuts hellbent on killing everybody of whom they were jealous. People like Robespierre and Marat had no interest in protecting the individual's rights. Thousands of people were beheaded. As I say, men like Lavoisier were sent to the guillotine in the name of things likes justice and equality. It was wanton bloodlust, not a protection of individual's rights. The Vendée region saw some of the most brutal bloodletting of that century.

Before I say anything further about Britain, I'm not suggesting that throughout British history the individual's rights have always been prized as much as they should. I mean just look at Northern Ireland in more recent times. However, Britain has a history of gradual change and protection of the individual's rights (well at least, British individual's rights).

It goes back to 1215. Magna Carta. This was a profound change, but not quite in the same vein as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, imo. Hundreds of years later- habeas corpus. Charles I was executed for many things but among them because he refused to acknowledge the authority of parliament and invoked the divine right of kings; he sought to curtail the rights of others.

So you see Britain has a history of gradual change. The French attempted to do what the British had done over centuries in the space of a few years. Ok, their Rights of Man and of the Citizen was more comprehensive than anything the British had done, or would have been if they had adhered to it.

Do you see what I mean about the British achieving organic change towards a constitutional monarchy and prizing the individual's rights, whereas the French sought to do this very quickly and made a mockery of individual rights (in spite of the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen)?

Ah I gotcha. I can see how you've construed that as a strawman argument. It's still not though. I'm not suggesting you are calling for rights (such as the right for people of various religions to hold office) to be restricted. I'm suggesting this would be the only direct response to that which you're complaining about. Yes, there is certainly a huge difference in caring what people think and suggesting certainly people shouldn't be permitted to hold office. I'm not suggesting you're arguing in favour of the latter. What I am suggesting is that the only way of, directly, addressing (perceived) problems with what people may believe is to place those kind restrictions on rights (such as who can hold office).

It's not a tangent. You've care about aboutr what others believe and, I gather, would like to see things change in such a way that certain things are legalised or made more accessible. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Well it entails that the only way of making that happen in the immediate future is to abuse various rights. Not that you're suggesting that should happen.

So it all becomes rather a pointless discussion. It may be upsetting that people oppose euthanasia on religious grounds. But frankly, what can be done about it fix that in the immediate future without curtailing rights? That's my point. I'm not saying you're suggesting we do this, but it's a pointless discussion because that's the only means of fixing what you perceive to be a real problem.

As we're both saying, the only thing is really to continue the discussion and to educate. That's the most rational response and, I think, will lead to the stable, organic change to which I've referred.

Regarding the difference between the English and French revolutions, there is some merit to what you are saying, but I think that viewpoint is incredibly superficial.

In other words - details matter. The specific historical contexts of both the English and French revolutions led to differing outcomes. The point that the british were "all about subject's rights" and the French weren't, is highly debatable.

In fact, I would argue that the british have historically had an authoritarian streak, hence why their "system" really evolved from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. They had a short period of no monarch during the English civil war, but that was clearly an aberration and the participants had very little intention of becoming a republic at the time of the start of the civil war.

So you never had an extended period of a power vacuum.

The issue with the French revolution is that they completely dismantled the old order. There was an extended period of a power vacuum (10+ years) which inevitably led to the Terror as factions tried to gain control.

Internal peace only came with Napoleon.

It was the French that came up with the Rights of Man, so I don't know how you can proclaim that the british were more concerned with subject's rights than the French.

I would argue the difference was that the british never had such a power vacuum because they never really wanted to get rid of their monarchy.

I think we actually largely agree. Again though, you are arguing against something no one has been stating. You have gone on a tangent about not forbidding people from holding office if they have religious beliefs. No one has suggested that.

All that was stated was that we care what people's beliefs are because it can often (naturally) affect their view on concrete issues. You have assumed that means somehow that this is equivalent to saying people shouldn't be able to believe what they want. That is simply untrue. That's an assumption you are making.

There is a vast difference between saying that we care what people's beliefs are and saying people with religious views should be forbidden from holding office etc.

That's my point about strawmen.

On the subject of people of a particular religion voting on certain issues. Just because they are, whatever religion, it doesn't mean their personal beliefs will definitely reflect that issue.

Turnbull is a (converted) Catholic. He is not opposed to abortion (at least not to an unreasonable extent). Same with Blair. Blair didn't officially convert to Catholicism until after he left government. But I suspect this was due to not wanting to anger Ulstermen while he was trying to ensure peace in Northern Ireland. Then the Republic of Ireland is a very Catholic country. They had a successful referendum in favour of same-sex marriage. Same with various South American countries.

I can't, from memory, think of Jewish politicians in any country who strongly oppose the actions of Israel. But, before Israel was created, Sir Isaac Isaacs (Australia's first Australian-born Governor-General) was adamantly against political Zionism. And there are plenty of Jews (albeit not enough) today out there critical of Israel's actions

Perfectly reasonable and similar to my own thoughts (which aren't perfectly defined on this really emotionally complex issue).

I suppose there would be some non-religious people who oppose abortion from conception on the grounds that they view a fetus of a few weeks as a human being. Such a view is less scientifically informed (as the only real characteristics of a human being it has is a complete set of DNA which will determine so much of its life) than opposing abortion from later on.

You'd be surprised. There are people who believe abortion is fine in all circumstances right up until birth. At that point, it becomes ridiculous.

One thing at a time.

Firstly, Munrubenmuz said he cares about other people's religious beliefs. Implicit in this the idea that people shouldn't have the right to believe/say/preach whatever the hell they want. I said that to argue telling people what they can and cannot believe is akin to fascism (no, I'm not calling Munrubenmuz).. That's not a strawman, that's a direct response to what Munrubenmuz wrote.

Secondly, Munrubenmuz has every right to care about other people's private beliefs. That's the beauty of proper liberalism, it allows that. Not that I'm suggesting Munrubenmuz is in anyway similar to this, but if you want to become a 21st Century devotee of Mussolini, you have every right to do so.

Religious people are free to say and do as they please. As long as it's not directly harmful, it's fine.



It's not a disconnect. I'm drawing the distinction between direct and indirect influence. Ain't much we can do about indirect influence without doing far worse.

You're confusing indirect and direct influence (or harm). What you describe are things which you find offensive having flow-on affects which you consider harmful.

If you haven't already, I suggest you have a read of JS Mills' On Liberty. It's one of the greatest books ever written and informs British notions of liberty and rights which underpin our own laws and customs.

Mills argues that one must draw a distinction between harm and offence. Basically, harmful things should not be allowed, offensive things should. The government has a responsibility to legislate against harmful behaviour, but must permit things which are merely offensive.

If a whole heap of Christian believe that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed, that is not directly harmful. Nobody is, directly, being harmed by that (apart from anything, it's mere belief and expression). That may be offensive in your opinion (and offensiveness is far more subjective) but it's not harmful, at least not directly. Indirectly, it may be harmful (in your opinion) insofar as those individuals may be elected to government and, as they're entitled, act upon their personal beliefs (which are informed by their religious beliefs).

However if we are a society underpinned by liberal values, if we're a rights-based society, then it has to be that way.

Obviously, we need to be secular insofar as churches have no right directly to influence public policy. But secularism does not mean individuals who are religious cannot be involved in policy-making. An example of what is not secular is the fact that Catholics are excluded from the British throne. Secularism means the Catholic Church cannot succeed in getting the government to cancel a vote on legalising euthanasia. This is not the same thing as Catholics in government voting against euthanasia. That's not inconsistent with secularism.

Indirectly, churches may influence public policy. As I say, individuals have personal beliefs. If an individual subscribes to a religious organisation, it's highly likely (although not certain) that his/her personal beliefs will reflect his/her religious beliefs.

But so be it. We can't forbid people of particular religions to hold political office. If the electorate finds a particular belief too distasteful, the individual won't get a sufficient chunk of the vote to be elected. At least, theoretically speaking. And that's what we need to go by.

It's not a foolproof system but it's the best approximation, we've got.

Short of forbidding specific religions and telling people what to think, say and do (basically fascism), there's nothing we can do about it.

Thirdly, lack of marriage equality, taxation of churches and abortion are issues which are influenced, indirectly, by religious belief. But, as I say, that's the way it is. You can't tell people what to think.

All we can do is create dialogue and a culture of reason and wait for it to change. You can lobby, march, etc. That's good, but that's all we can do. Gradually things improve.

It's all about the gradual. Organic change rather than upheaval.

Different topic but contrast British and French political and social progress over the centuries. In the course of a few years, the French achieved what the British had in centuries. But the British were all about the subject's rights and, as such, managed to limit the amount of harm done to individuals. The French achieved a great deal in their revolution. But at what cost? It was a bloodbath. They ended up decapitating the most brilliant scientist of the age in the name of things like reason, justice and equality. How ironically horrific.

I'm not suggesting that those who sweeping changes agree with the excesses of the French Revolution. I'm simply pointing at historical examples of why liberalism and organic change must be championed at the expense of more forceful things.

Guess it's only fair to cheat on one's tax return to reclaim said illogically taxed dollars

Sorry - still think your argument was a bit of a straw man. The point Manrubenmuz was making was not that religious belief in and of itself was a problem, but that because of religious belief there are public policy outcomes. In fact, he listed some of them.

The disconnect here is that you keep arguing peoples beliefs are irrelevant to your life if there is no direct harm, but you think Manrubenmuz is arguing that people's religious beliefs matter in and of themselves.

What I am saying is that we all agree that in a secular society people should be able to believe what they want.

Manrubenmuz and myself are arguing that widespread religious beliefs (even in a secular country like Australia) DO directly affect the lives of many people, and therefore cause direct harm.

Some examples include:

lack of marriage equality
non-taxation of self-proclaimed religious organisations with no auditing of what they spend their money on
illegality of abortion in some states

I can accept that - I took your original point to be that there are some non-religionists that oppose abortion completely. That's what I couldn't understand.

I'd argue that most pro-choice people agree that at a certain point during pregnancy that abortion is no longer appropriate. I don't think anyone would agree with 3rd trimester abortion.

Generally speaking I think most people would accept that either:

1) Once a foetus can survive outside the womb; or
2) Once the nervous system is developed to the point that the foetus can experience pain

that abortion is no longer feasible.

If a hypothesis is proven by a peer reviewed scientific paper thats a lot better than a fictional story book about magical adventures. :)

Thanks for proving you have no understanding of science, your inability to differentiate between a hypothesis and a fact shows that your belief in what you mistakenly call science is actually just faith. Quick flick explained the difference for you, read that a few times.

Edited by crusader: 2/10/2015 12:13:26 AM

The non-religious argument for holding a pro-life position is that a fetus doesn't magically become a human being when it is born. This stance relies on scientific information to inform a moral opinion. It says, hey I think this is in an actual human being, it's wrong to kill human beings, so abortion amounts to killing human beings and oughtn't to be legal. The question is at what point does it become a human being (or close enough to that point)?

Although, if one holds that view that, at 20-24 weeks or so, abortion ought't to be allowed because one believes a fetus, at that point, has enough distinct similarities with a born human being, it's hardly pro-life or pro-choice. The extreme elements of the pro-life people will call that pro-choice. While the extreme elements of the pro-choice people will call that pro-life.

It might interest you to know that Christopher Hitchens expressed views which (to what many would regard as a large extent) opposed the right to abortion. That is not to say he opposed the right to abortion outright. I would never dream of misrepresenting his views so I cannot conclusively say what his opinion of Australian laws with respect to abortion. Suffice it to say, based on his comments on the subject in general, I would imagine he would have thought they were more than tolerant enough. Hitchens, imo, was one of the most brilliant, rational, erudite, objective polemicists of the last century.

Edited by quickflick: 1/10/2015 11:39:50 PM

Fair enough.

And in the liberal society which we ought to be, you're allowed to care.

I'm simply pointing out to AzzaMarch that I've not constructed a strawman argument. I was responding directly to what you wrote.

My point is that, while you're allowed to care what others believe, the tenets of JS Mills liberalism (the best thing ever thought up) hold that, unless there is direct harm involved, others can say or do as they please. They can believe in offensive things and even say and do offensive things. Providing there's no direct harm involved, so be it.

Religious organisations having undue influence on the direction of public policy is another matter. That's not secular and that is something which proper liberals oppose.

You said "who cares?" I care because it affects my life. If it didn't I wouldn't.

It's not a straw man argument. Have a read of Munrubenmuz wrote. I said I couldn't care less about the personal beliefs of my neighbours. Munrubenmuz says he does care. As such, it's no straw man argument.

As for the other issues... I'll reply properly when I get home

I don't think anyone has suggested people shouldn't be able to believe what they want - bit of a strawman there...

Just because abortion is only nominally illegal (in some states) it doesn't mean that this is ok. It's a medical procedure that (in my opinion) should be treated like any other. In regards to the non-religious anti-abortionists that you know, what is their argument for holding that position?

In regards to euthanasia - I can see valid non-religious arguments to oppose it. But religious arguments often cloud the public debate. And the religious opinions of many MPs are why it doesn't get debated in parliament.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Your grammar is confusing.

If a creator made the world and all in it, would you expect those (with half a brain, Southern Americans don't count) beleive in them to beleive in science? The very method of explaining the world around us...

John Dickson amongst many other has well and truly put the 'God vs Science' debate, to bed.

What you describe is a different matter. You describe a lack of secularism.

No rational liberal (in the real sense of the word, not the silly Australian sense) opposes secularism.

However, that doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't be able to believe whatever the hell they want (another principle tenet of liberalism) or that religion has no place in society (it simply has no place in directing public policy in Australia).

Secularism is not the same thing as getting pissed off that your neighbours are religious. They have every right to be. To suggest otherwise is akin to fascism.

As for those specific issues. Abortion is only nominally illegal. It's not difficult to get one, within the constraints of the law. It is predominantly religious groups who oppose the rights to abortion. For what it's worth I know non-religious, intelligent people who are against abortion.

Euthanasia. Same. Should be allowed but strictly regulated. It is a complex issue (unlike something like same-sex marriage)

And gay marriage will, thankfully, be allowed shortly.

PS- I'm an agnostic.