August 24, 2007
Posted at 8:02 pm by Richard and tagged atheism, australia, election, frank-gomez, freedom, help, membership, politics, religion, secular, vote. Popularity: 26% [?]
Update (26/08): Thanks to all of you who are spreading the word, with any luck they’ll get their required members through this post alone! Two points to clarify:
- This post was in no way authorised or endorsed by the party - it’s just my way of trying to help out.
- If you’re not eligible to vote in Australia, don’t try and join up, but help spread the word if you know other Aussie Atheists.
Hey all you Aussies out there (if you’re not an Aussie, keep reading, you might still be able to help by spreading the word),
I recently received an email from Frank Gomez of the Secular Party of Australia (previously the Freedom from Religion Party), which I wanted to get your help with. Members of the Secular Party are hoping to run in this year’s election, but as the party doesn’t have enough members yet, they’ll need to run as independents, giving them a much lower chance of success.
All you need to do, if you want to help, is to fill out and mail (yes, snail mail) in the form below to join the party - membership is free. For 20 seconds of your time, and the cost of a 50c stamp, you could help Atheists get a stronger voice in Australian parliament.
Perhaps if you’re not an Aussie yourself, but might have Australian readers on your own blog, or know of some Aussie Atheists? Please help get the word out there, either direct them to this blog, or post something on your own blog if you can!
If anyone’s interested, I’m posting the full text of the email below.
Hi members and supporters,
The party’s executive has decided to contest this year’s Federal election. However, as we do not have the numbers yet to register as a party, candidates will have to run as independents. This means that we cannot use the words “Secular” or “Freedom From Religion” on ballot papers.
I am writing to all of you because we need your membership of the party to be official so that it can count for registration.
I have attached a membership form, and for those of you for whom I have a postal address you will receive (or may have already have received) these in the mail also.
I urge you all to complete and send back the attached form to the below address.
I also wish to ask you whether you know someone else who would be interested in joining.
We currently have around 300 members and need only 200 more in order to register as a party for this year’s election. Registering the party would mean being able to use the party’s name and abbreviations in how to vote cards and ballot papers, and would increase out vote many fold.
If every member of the party sent back two forms - their own and for someone else - then we would reach the 500 we need in a matter of weeks.
Otherwise we need to wait another 3 years to contest as a registered party. That’s another 3 years of more religion in politics - whoever wins the election. MAKE A DIFFERENCE !!
FRANK GOMEZ
SECULAR PARTY www.secular.org.au
NATIONAL VICE-PRESIDENT
19 Fishers Reserve
Petersham NSW 2049
Permalink
Share This
July 19, 2007
Posted at 4:58 pm by Richard and tagged atheism, australia, bob-maquire, father-bob, freedom, john-safran, politics. Popularity: 12% [?]
Given that most of the Atheist blogs I read are from the USA, I realise that discrimination against Atheists and the religious influences on politics are much greater there than in Australia. That said, we’re not entirely free from these problems.
I’ve been catching up on some podcasts recently, and caught an interview of Frank Gomez, the leader of the newly formed Freedom from Religion Party on John Safran’s weekly radio show “Sunday Night Safran“. For those of you who aren’t aware of the show (I’m aware there’s only a few Aussies who actually read this blog), on his show, Safran interviews many people alongside Father Bob Maguire. I’ve found a clip of the relevant part of the show (the full show is available here) - it’s a 16 minute interview, but it’s quite interesting.
Either way, looks like I might be voting for a new party come the next election…
(the 5mb MP3 is available for download here, in case the embedded player doesn’t work)
Safran vs Gomez [16:07m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Permalink
Share This
June 23, 2007
Posted at 12:23 am by Richard and tagged conflict, dr-phil, freedom, hijab, philosophy, politics, religion, richard-dawkins, science, stupidity, university. Popularity: 14% [?]
Dawkins (we all know him, right?) is suggesting that, while we all are aware of the threat to science by creationists and religious fundamentalists, there are other threats which must also be taken seriously.
“I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”
Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “personal truth”) were to ever disagree, I’d side with science - no question.
That said, I found the link to Dawkins’ quote from Atheist Revolution, who seems to take Dawkins’ argument to some strange extreme. I started reading:
For a more current example of Dawkins’ concerns, we turn to Philadelphia where police officer Kimberlie Webb sued her department for their refusal to allow her to wear a hijab while on duty…
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually concluded that the police department had violated Webb’s rights by prohibiting her from wearing Muslim garb while on duty.
Fortunately, federal judge Bartle had more sense
Now, the judge’s reasons might have some validity - he suggests that (and this is me paraphrasing) by disallowing “religious symbols and attire” puts officers in a better position to deal with varying cultures/religions of people who they have to interact with.
But, I digress. My issue is not with the judge’s decision, as I clearly don’t know enough about the facts to disagree with him. I do, however, take issue with the comments made on Atheist Revolution:
Why must freedom to practice one’s religion become freedom to practice one’s religion in public?
Isn’t that exactly the point of the legal right to practice one’s religion freely? Things that we do in the privacy of our own home are protected by the mere fact that the government cannot enter our homes without a warrant. The only practical benefit of providing a legal freedom to practice one’s religion is to allow people to freely do this in public.
Permalink
Share This
Posts
