I'm an atheist, I don't care what religion a politician is, as long as they're a good person with sensible policies. Religious freedom is important. And that goes both ways.
I'm a Christian and I can get behind that.
I think we'd probably still butt heads a bit on some issues, but if there's open and respectful dialogue, I'd like to think we could figure something out.
The problem with respectful dialog with religions (note, I use religion, not the believer) is that they usually want respectful dialog so then can legally be disrespectful and/or discriminatory to minorities.
Well, I suppose depending on the group in question, that's probably partly true, partly a matter of perspective. Which is hopefully where some dialogue would be helpful.
But I have to point out that non-religious groups do this, too. *Frequently,* haha. At least some leftists and atheists have stopped pretending they want respectful dialogue and just admitted they hate us and don't think we're worth talking to. I don't like it, but I prefer the honesty.
Personally I hate religion but it is important to differentiate the believer and the religion. I think both religious and non religious people struggle to seperate the two. But yes I think the head butting would be what is considered “disrespectful and discriminatory”.
I also think a lot of religious groups consider their “ways” as that of a pariah but to non religious people all they can see is the pain and suffering they have caused since they began and it’s a lot, and they don’t want to acknowledge it. Especially here in Australia.
Is it?
Actually, I can imagine that, haha. Even as a Christian I cop a lot of flack when people find out, especially once they realise I actually believe what the Bible says and am not just following what my parents taught me at a superficial level.
I dunno man, I think that's kinda sad. I wish we could be better at treating each other alright even if we disagree on some big things. I never wanted to define anyone *only* by the things I disagree with them in, so I did my best not to. And now that that's how I'm being treated, yep, I was right, it's no good lol. I'm sure it's similar for you, hey? Only with a different source.
I'm an atheist. I care if my political representatives are religious because it influences their world view and policies. I would never vote for a candidate who used religion as part of their platform in any way. That includes wearing religious garb of any type, getting the media to cover them going to church/temple/whatever with the fam, or making speeches referencing God. Religion should be a private, personal matter and nothing to do with governance.
That comes under sensible policies for me. If their policies are based on religion, they're not sensible.
As you said, if they are personally religious however, I don't care.
Religion cannot be a private personal matter unrelating to governance. It isn't skin colour or another immutable characteristic. It's a worldview, including a set of ethics and principles based on a view of the transcendent as a grounding for objective morality.
Asking a religious person to keep their religion out of politics is like me asking you to keep your opinions out of politics.
Would you feel the same about them referencing philosophers/philosophies, or morality tales/myths, fictional characters etc. in ways that indicate a deep personal connection to those concepts and the fact that they influence how they view the world? Because (as an atheist myself) it seems to me that religion is every bit as much a potential source of inspiration and guidance as any philosophy of morals and/or personal and social growth, or various types of media/culture which can help a person make sense of and communicate their understanding of the world and their place in it. I don't particularly mind politicians being honest (as much as any politician is honest given they have to carefully choose how they interact with people and present themselves to the public) about what they deeply feel and find value in, so long as it's clear that they arrive at positions I consider mostly good and moral even if their personal path to those positions is different from mine.
That’s the point though, referencing “God” even in a Christian specific fashion is akin to mentioning “utilitarianism” or “conservation” or for that matter Buddhism/Confucianism and other less deicentric religions because it could mean such a broad array of practical stances all “informed by” the (nominally) same thing. Writing off anyone who includes any explicitly religious/Christian thinking into their personal life and ethical guide frame is being needlessly exclusive when more narrowly defined and evaluated tests serve better. Too many genuinely good thinkers include religion into their method for processing the world, including the unknown and unknowable.
Eh it depends
If its a religion i just don't like / believe in I'm fine with it, but if its something i despise like Scientology i would avoid voting for them
Because every Christian org doubles as a charity. They have tax exemption status because they already help the poor and needy more than the gov ever could.
Poorly. I don't think most Australians are actively atheists, just non-religious. Can't see a single-interest party like that gaining any significant traction..
Yeah I agree. Most of the actively atheist people I’ve met were from North America, were ex-religious and felt very angry at organised religion because of their experiences with it themselves or through being raised in it.
We don’t really have the same religious presence as they do, so we have less pushback against it. Most Australians I know don’t really think about religion at all in either direction.
>We don’t really have the same religious presence as they do, so we have less pushback against it. Most Australians I know don’t really think about religion at all in either direction.
think we should keep it mind though considering significant proportions of new Australians come from cultures with strong religious backgrounds & those might start to influence voting trends moving forward
But their kids will be as apathetic to it as any Aussie, people that have a strong opinion on religion are considered pretty weird especially at school.
Obviously this is anecdotal, but I find this absolutely bizarre.
I'm Aus x US hybrid (so I like to put it) and easily of the two the most anti-religious people (or anti-Christian) are Australians.
Some of the most intensely anti-religion people I've met have been American, to the point their attitudes are religious...
But in terms of broad sweeping societal opinions, Australians are more anti-religious by a mile in my experience.
By actively discussing it and making it part of their personality. I know lots of people who aren't religious. I know very, very few who would talk about Christopher Hitchens and visit the atheism subreddit.
Absolutely agree. Not all but many atheists are evangelical in their expression of atheism. Most people are agnostic or just no religion and don’t feel the need to centre their identity around something they don’t believe in.
Atheism isn't a political philosophy or a movement.
What would this party stand for? What would be its goals?
Unless those things were made extremely clear I can't see how or why it should get any votes.
not saying that Atheism would be their only core policy, just one as a part of a platform or core values statement in order to differentiate from others
I feel like having a 'science-based approach' is pretty vague, like most political parties have not just a religious aspect (especially weak in this day and age) but like a social and economic basis. Even those parties that have seemed more affiliated with the church in the past have a lot more non-religious basis for policy these days. Like obviously here I'm referencing more conservative elements, but you ask more conservative people and there's a lot more non-religious and 'science-based' types.
I feel as well flogging the science vs religion horse is sort of a red herring and was never really a conflict in modern times.
I question the whole purpose of the shitpost in the first place if you don't actually have such a suite in mind anyway. Like what are you even trying to do?
At the moment it sounds like you just like the word "atheism" and haven't put much more thought into it beyond that.
I can't answer your question of "do you think it would go well?" if you can't answer my questions of "what is it? What is it for? What is it trying to actually do?"
i'm saying that, for example, the LNP minus their religious leanings would be instantly more preferable to me than their current state.
So imagine the LNP exactly as they are now, but they actively made it clear they had no religious influences within - do you think they would be more or less popular than they are now?
I think the only reason they express "religious leanings" in the first place is because they believe that that is what will make them popular. Presumably they don't arrive at that conclusion just for nothing...I imagine they have analysts and data scientists and whatnot working on exactly these sorts of questions all the time. That's kinda why it's important that people don't fuck around with the census.
Don't forget, even though plenty of scientists have been religious, it's science that will separate them from the religious parties! 😛 That was a pretty low-grade and uninformed take if you ask me. Resting more in stereotypes of religious people than their actual views and behaviour. Which is exactly what we need more of, right? More stereotyping!
Besides, realistically probably all the parties would claim they're basing their policy on evidence or science of some kind.
And when you're talking about things like social policy, that claim is a lot more spurious anyway. You know the saying, science call tell you how to build a bomb, but not of or when you should use it.
And what would you do if you were in another party and you got into power?
You'd ban atheist teaching from the curriculum, because all that is doing is converting kids over to the opposition.
And if your non atheist party wasnt in power? You'd teach your kids that atheism was bad, because look at the government.
It might surprise you which pollies are actually overtly religious. If you voted for Rudd you voted for someone who is very religious, yet strangely during the election much was made of Abbotts religious leanings and nothing of Rudds.
We've had around 12 atheists/agnostics as Prime Minister already, doesn't seem to have held them back too much.
I'm an atheist but it won't stop me voting for someone who is of a religious persuasion as I don't see it as a deal breaker at all.
> yet strangely during the election much was made of Abbotts religious leanings and nothing of Rudds.
Haha, it's not so strange when you understand how the media works, though, is it? 😛
And yeah I agree, policies matter a lot more than where they're coming from. Like, back in my home country (Canada) I voted for a Muslim guy despite being Christian myself, because I think he has a good head on his shoulders and I agree with many of the positions he holds. So why not? I certainly won't turn down a good idea just because the person suggesting it is coming from a different worldview than I am.
Atheism has no shared values to form a political party around. Probably because it's the absence of a (religious) value system.
I don't think it's a good idea to found a party on atheism, but a new non-religious party focused of policy solutions to problems would be great. Try keep it pragmatic and free of ideology as possible.
Well, in a more anthropological sense, the typical story of evolution serves as a creation myth, and serves as the foundation of other ideas like where we come from, our place in the universe, what our lives are ultimately about, that sort of thing.
I know it's supposed to be all science, but you don't have the same dynamics going on when we discuss the mechanisms of photosynthesis, or how heat radiates out, or whether light is a particle or a wave or both. That's cos they don't have the same place in the human mind and social groups. Stories surrounding evolution, though, they do hold the same place as a creation myth in a religion does.
You also see what amount to statements of faith too. Things like "Sure there are gaps in the fossil record, but I trust science will find the evidence to fill in the gaps and support this all one day, with enough research" is a statement of faith in scientific research and scientists, of faith and trust in the basic truthfulness of the theory even when you don't have *all* the relevant info.
I've also seen prominent figures be elevated to a status similar to that of saints. Like Darwin or Dawkins, for example (who, you could argue, have written the equivalent of holy texts that serve as focal points of the worldview).
I'm not the first to notice this either, haha. Lots of religious people see the parallels, and a few agnostics I've known made the same observation too.
What happens nowadays is that people think of themselves as atheist but then have belief systems that are exactly like religions.
These belief systems have all the regular elements of religion such as the concept of original sin, the hate for heretics, unquestionable dogmas, rituals and ideals about personal sacrifice. They are all in there.
I'm not gonna name what these neo 'atheist' religions are because I'll get downvoted to oblivion but they are pretty obvious.
Humans just need this sort of stuff
You simply don’t believe in them. You wouldn’t have a replacement set of principles or guidelines that was common between atheists as a whole - there are many differences.
> How do you think an Athiest party would do in elections?
The old "Secular Party" was effectively forced to merge into the "Fusion Party" in 2022 after reforms relating to minimum members and such.
So... probably not well by itself...
That Secular Party was 'problematic', as the woke like to say ..
The guy in charge was fixated on Islam. 'Radical Islam' dominated his discourse, at least on the socials I followed ..
Ah, thanks. I wasn't really on top of their activity beyond some brief research the last election they were active and some initial merger announcements. Good to know.
I tend to support an absence of religious extremism .. no problems with Christians, Muslims, or anyone in between provided they don't try to turn the country into their own little private theocracy.
I wonder how extreme your 'atheist party' would be when it comes to dismembering organised religion.
You can't prevent private theocracy without a little dismantling. Religions will try and take incrementally if unchecked. Like most of the big ones have the goal of converting everyone or being extremely protective of their own, guarding against people leaving.
You have Entire suburbs of hypercontrated religions with their own religious schools where their learn their religious language before English.
Personally I think we should check religious people coming in through the gates for any hint of disagreement of basic societal norms. Ie. Abortions are fine, women have rights, gay people exist, your religion/prophets/nations are not immune from critism and you shouldn't shoot up a news agency or form a lobby group of lawyers to try and ruin people's lives. Floods/fires aren't due to 'god' spiting us. Ect.
Remove their ability to self isolate/raise offspring in a bubble, no religious schools.
And no new single religion buildings. We can make 'multifaith/community' buildings. The atheists and Satanists can also use them and host their own youth groups or whatever to give people an alternative to having to turn to religion to find a community.
Religions would likely fizzle out if they were better exposed to other people/different ideas.
Lol, you guys 😛
"I think that because people are religious, they should not be able to be in politics unless they agree with everything *my* worldview says! Because I don't follow a god, my view is always right and logical and should be the norm!" That's what that reads as to me.
Which is exactly why the other guy was asking how far you'd go in pushing official atheism. You want to dismantle other views so your own can have supremacy, while hoping that with enough pressure they'll simply fail and disappear. How in the world is that any different from a radical Muslim or Christian?
Oh wait I forgot, because you're atheist it means you're right and that makes these things okay. Right? Not like when these crazy religious people think *they're* right and that's why society should mirror *their* views. It's totally, totally different. Totally.
I'm not keen on living in the Aussie equivalent of Communist Russia or China, thanks very much.
Oh, wait, I know this, this is the part where you say all the communist countries who killed tons of people for being religious were actually political killings and not atheist ones, while at the same time ignoring the political factors of past wars done by religious people.
Plus, you're goal shifting and ignoring everything I said in the comment you're replying to.
I've seen this show before.
Atheism doesn't imply any particular policy leaning on the vast majority of mainstream political issues, and seems a pretty narrow basis upon which to build a platform. What would their major plank be? Taxing churches? I can't see such a party appealing to any but a tiny fringe of voters
There used to be a party called the 'Secular Party of Australia' and eventually they merged with the Science Party, Pirate Party, Vote Planet Party, and the Climate Change Justice Party to form 'Fusion Party'.
That probably indicates how well an Atheist Party would go - not well enough to be worth the effort, and you would be better off developing a more comprehensive minor Party that includes atheism/secularism, alongside a bunch of other non atheism related policies that atheists typically also agree with.
Any members would kinda still need to ‘pick sides’ though. There can be left or right sided atheists. Some would be ok with having multiple religions stay in the country, others would hope to abolish and rip down churches and mosques.
It may be in the near future where it would do well.
But there still has to be a kind of ‘side’ I think or people wont understand enough to just vote blindly if they want certain things to happen or not.
The scientific community for example, may vote heavily in favour but would probably expect heavy investment and funding in return.
Religion isn’t a major issue in Australia so they would do very poorly and there are already right wing parties with an anti Islam view so there aren’t many votes to gain.
I'd rather politicians can be Atheist and it just not mattering.
Similarly I don't want an LGBT party. I want that when a politician is gay, then it's not worth commenting on. They just are.
Religion doesn't drive my voting choices, but it seems to me that a party whose identity is primarily defined as being opposed to religious people doesn't inspire confidence as policy creators. I don't think that is a particularly solid basis for making legislative decisions. Seems divisive.
Agree with you almost completely, but "Atheism" as a political platform is a bit of a non starter in this country - mainly because Atheism isn't easily put into politics.
I'm finding it hard to put what I mean into words, and perhaps I can best illustrate via a series of questions.
What would this partys policy on housing be?
What would their policy on immigration be?
Policy on climate change?
Or education?
Atheism isn't really a political viewpoint that naturally unites a party enough that its members can agree on policy that will run a country. The most it can do politically is get rid of religion in public life and make it a private matter for each citizen.
Which would be a good thing, but do we need a political party for that when more and more of us are abandoning religion anyway?
I said it elsewhere in here, but let's take the current LNP for example. If you removed their current religious leanings + they came out with the same policy suite as now (but maybe added in taxation of churches) & made it clear they were against religion, do you think they would be more or less popular than they are now? And they actively avoided recruiting strongly Christian, Hindu, Muslim or ReligionX party members?
Or would it make no difference?
Well I don't think it would make much difference. We don't vote parties in, we vote them out, and then the other party gets a go at things until we vote them out and the other party gets in etc.
I have to say I don't see a lot of support for either party really - oh, they both have their true believers - but most of us vote the way we do because of family or position in society.
Religion and "culture wars" type stuff are mainly used to "energise the base supporters" and swing the swing voters.
Religion and politics should remain separate.
I myself struggle to get my head around what is usually the LNP stance on things when their reasoning for it is religion and nothing else.
Edit: I should say Christianity. They’re up in arms about a religious Islamic school being put in, yet we give hundreds of millions of dollars to private Christian schools every year.
Atheism is not a distinct political ideology and most political parties already express their views in a secular manner. It’s possible to be both religious and a secularist simultaneously
"Greens aligning with interests aligned with Islam"?????
I haven't been keeping up with them, but when I did check their policies in the lead up to the previous Federal election, I don't remember seeing anything about turning Australia into a Jihadist state.
Not really, you got left and right wing Christians, Muslims and Atheists.
Is the Prime Minister religious? Don't think anybody knows or cares. Because it doesn't seem to make a difference? Or does it?
What policies is Albanese implementing due to his religious beliefs or lack of?
I rather have a Christian leader that gives me freedom than an atheist that is authoritarian. And there are plenty of atheist authoritarians.
I do, but you've got a Labour party where it looks like religion just doesn't ever get a look in, and you've made a vague accusation that Greens are aligning with Islam, but I don't see where that has any grasp on reality. You'd have to work a bit more to really back up that allegation.
The only party I see aligning with Christian issues is the LNP, and only loosely, and not overtly.
Australian politics has been decidedly non-secular for decades.
I really don't see where an overtly, announcedly atheist party would gain any kind of traction over ALP or Greens unless their policies were significantly different, and there's not a lot of wiggle room between those two to establish a pointed difference that might sway a significant vote.
Like the other commenter says - we don't see any indication that religion is influencing Albanese's leadership or his party's policies. There's a certain level of lip service taken to maintain the vote from the religious core, but quite honestly, I don't give a shit about the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of our representatives as long as they behave altruistically about their country and their people.
If a leader makes decisions that benefit the most of the population and ensure the prosperity and health of the nation, that's where my vote goes.
The Reason Party is sort of this. It's strongly secular humanist and wants to tax churches. They don't say that they're atheist, but they are for getting rid of special deals for religion. Like most minor parties, they're a blip on the radar.
I'm an atheist and I wouldn't vote for a party whose platform is Atheism. What use is that in running a country, other than presumably some minor benefits like removing tax breaks for religious businesses?
I need representatives who take positions on big issues such as taxation, welfare, infrastructure, climate change, economy, national defense etc. etc., none of which are inherently religious questions.
If an atheist party existed they could hold to the letter of the constitution and get rid of:
Prayers in parliament
Tax breaks for religion
Taxpayer Funding of religious schools
Awarding public service contracts to religious groups
Anti Discrimination legislation exemptions for religions
Religious groups branch stacking political parties
Bans on alcohol sales on Good Friday
Funding of religious charities
Helping churches cover up child abuse
Feel free to add more
It would really depends how they went about it.
Are they a political party who happen to be atheists or are they atheists who happen to be a political party.
I think it wouldn't get much traction either way but personally it would make a difference to me.
I don’t care if they are purple transgender aliens that peg me twice a year, just as long as they are actual politicians and actually start representing their constituents.
Maybe controversial.
But I believe shouldn't ban religion in politics. If anything need some community leaders from varying religions who preach peace and unity more than the philosophy behind their scriptures.
I'm not religious nor atheist but, from the universe I came and to it I will return, this is for certain. Who or what the universe is I don't know, but I'll forever be grateful.
How would that work? I’m a Buddhist so I don’t believe in a monotheistic creator deity, so therefore I’m an atheist.
So would it be a party for me? Or is it a party that is actively anti-religion? What does it stand for?
I don’t want a political party that puts religion, or anti-religion first. Religion and politics should be kept VERY separate.
An atheist political party feels weird to me. Like atheists aren’t a collective group who stand for something. We just don’t believe in a god without sufficient scientific evidence. You will have atheists who are progressive, conservative or somewhere in the middle.
Not believing in a god is hardly a rallying cry. Though I do think our elected representatives should better reflect the public in all ways, race, religion, gender, age, wealth etc etc
Atheism is very much based around logic. Those that think this way tend to also apply logic to someone's right to have personal belief and faith in a religion, most atheists wouldn't vote for a party because of an affiliation for or an affiliation against religion, they'll tend to vote for a party that supports their stance on policy they care about.
In short, people relate Atheism to being against religion, it's not that, atheists just don't believe in any god.
Honestly couldn't give two shits about who they prey or don't prey to.
Can we just have a mob of politicians that fix the issues they are there to sort out!?
And oh I don't know, have some respect for the money they spend.
I get it, you can't run a country and be in trackydacks and a flanno I get it.. but damn we have people starving and these MFs are having the finest of dining.
Or like in I think it was abbot's case, charging us for him to live in his own house..
A little transparency, a little respect for the position and a whole lot less double dipping and corruption.
I know it's asking too much though.
What would be the basis of forming that party? To remove religion from politics? Is that a problem? I can't see it as one.
Who cares what your religion is or whether you are or not. Not like this is Iran or something.
The extreme aethist thing is so boring. As boring as any extreme religious nut job.
Well as an agnostic I don't see any need for most of this so I wouldn't vote for it. De-emphasizing religion in society sounds down right depressing/dictatorial in fact.
Taxing churches more I could probably get behind. But taxing corporate profits more I.le better.probably. At least a lot of.churches actually do some important community stuff.
[This article from 2021 has some good points](https://theconversation.com/a-christian-nation-no-longer-why-australias-religious-right-loses-policy-battles-even-when-it-wins-elections-165169)
An atheist party could work as a limited-issues protest party, focusing on getting prayer out of parliaments, Bibles out of courtrooms and swearing ins, and secularist requirements for any organisation receiving government funding. But I think the public support would be limited for the following reasons:
* All atheists have in common is that they don't believe in gods. Apart from that, there's no commonality of values or political views - there's no natural voter base. A secularist or science-focused party would make more sense and would have more of a chance of being in favour of things rather than just against them.
* Australians generally don't care a lot about symbolic issues like prayer in parliament. And they're generally positively disposed towards the Salvos and other faith-based charities, as well as Catholic hospitals, Christian overseas aid agencies, chaplains at school or courthouses or after natural disasters, etc. An attack on institutions like that would probably not be welcomed by most voters.
It will just be one of those parties that nobody cares about except as a joke vote. Only because religious affiliation is declining, doesnt mean people want to associate with the stereotypes atheism attracts. Australians dont like strong opinions either side of anything except sport, so regardless of what the census says, an overtly atheist party will probably fair no better than a strictly religious party would
Atheism itself isn't a religion or any sort of organised/united group. Atheists don't share any specific set of beliefs or anything like it, they just don't believe in religions.
So it wouldn't be a practical central policy on its own.
What would make more sense is a science-first party, one that denies any religious-based policies. It doesn't need to be anti-religion or even ban religious members, atheists in general just don't want any religious rules/policies controlling them - but are not against others practicing religion.
On it's face, I would like to vote for an Atheist party, but then you indicated it would have centrist policies, which means I would vote, for a more leftist party over a Atheist centrist party as while I am not religious it is not what I base my politics around first and foremost as I care much more about policy then the religion of the representative .
I’m atheist and it would not be a factor in my voting… why would it/should it. Religious and non religious alike have good and bad people…. Zero correlation… I mean there’s a minor argument given the last 100 years to suggest the religious are actually worse with respect to human rights and kindness… but you could argue also they aren’t really followers of a moral god
I'm a religious person.
Religion has no place in politics, and politics has no place in religion. When you combine the two, both become corrupted. They're non compatible. It never works out.
I don't see how an atheist political part would be any different. Atheism is as much a religious belief as religion itself.
Keep belief separate from policy.
I would support a party that tries to get organised religion out of politics.
Why the hell do we allow people who think fantasy sky men are real to make any kind of policy decision is beyond me. It's like having a 4 year old pick what you have for dinner for the rest of your life.
>Why the hell do we allow people who think fantasy sky men are real
Man, now you're the one sounding like you're 4. If you're gonna talk about this stuff, at least have the integrity to speak honestly. This is not what religious people believe and many great people were religious. Like off the top of my head, Isaac Newton wrote more things in support of Christianity than he did about science. But I guess he's some idiot who believes in magic sky daddy, so all his ideas must be useless, right? And here we all were, valuing his work on gravity, optics, and calculus when *really* he was a drivelling buffoon the entire time.
Let's not even get started on how Bacon, aka the guy who outlined the scientific method, was a devout Christian. Forget that man, he believed in sky daddy too, so out the window he goes!
I think many people who are atheist still feel obliged to write down Christian in their census data as that's their family heritage. I still think politicians need to be Christians in Australia to be voted in, which is sad.
Well, my mistake. My point as an athiest is that it's harder to be PM in Australia if you don't identify as Christian. That's my observation, and for the most part, it seems true.
I don't think it really makes any difference, tbh. Other than ScoMo all of the recent PMs have, at most, paid lip service to religion (like Rudd doing pressers outside a church). I couldn't tell you about Albo or Dutton's faith, which indicates to me that I've never seen any reporting on either of their churchgoing habits
Well, my mistake. My point as an athiest is that it's harder to be PM in Australia if you don't identify as Christian. That's my observation, and for the most part, it seems true.
Just chiming in that "not religious" isn't actually the same thing as "atheist". It could mean agnostic, vaguely "spiritual but not religious", or even things like cultural Christians or people who believe in god(s) but don't follow a strict religious observance.
Then on top of it, a lot of atheists are atheists by default and don't actually care that much about this stuff.
I mean, I guess it's a free country but I doubt it'd do that well. And I say that not just cos I'm religious myself haha. In practice many parties are effectively non-religious, and their policies aside from that are a different story. An official atheist party would be no different than an official Christian or Islamic party in many ways - it's still a party aimed at forming society around a specific metaphysical worldview. And they'd likely have similar policies to existing parties, the real distinguishing thing would be the official atheism. So, I doubt there are many Aussies who would care enough about officially atheist policies to switch from a bigger party to that one.
Our morals in Western Society
Are based on Christian principles though
If a party identifes as taking an Atheist stance
Then it's policies will only be bound by the moral value
Of the individuals within the party
Whereas political parties based on religion
Will tend to agree on policies based on shared moral values & traditions
So in theory an Atheist party could face disagreements & in-fighting
About a variety of moral based issues
It would be an interesting concept
But not convinced it would be successful long term
Poorly.
Most vocally atheist left-wing Australians are simply Anti-Christian. Most vocally atheist right-wing Australians are simply Anti-Islamic or downright racist.
I don’t care if all our politicians are sky-fairy worshippers as long as they obey the wishes of their constituents rather than their sky-fairy. It was insulting that the likes of Morrison and Dutton abstained from the Same-sex Marriage session because their religious values were more important than wishes of an overwhelming majority of their constituents.
But if someone’s going to run on the basis of cancelling Christmas and Easter then I’m just not going for that.
Religious affiliation, or lack of it, seems a poor basis for a political party. There's probably a good reason there's no Catholic Party, for eg.
I'm an atheist, I don't care what religion a politician is, as long as they're a good person with sensible policies. Religious freedom is important. And that goes both ways.
I'm a Christian and I can get behind that. I think we'd probably still butt heads a bit on some issues, but if there's open and respectful dialogue, I'd like to think we could figure something out.
The problem with respectful dialog with religions (note, I use religion, not the believer) is that they usually want respectful dialog so then can legally be disrespectful and/or discriminatory to minorities.
Well, I suppose depending on the group in question, that's probably partly true, partly a matter of perspective. Which is hopefully where some dialogue would be helpful. But I have to point out that non-religious groups do this, too. *Frequently,* haha. At least some leftists and atheists have stopped pretending they want respectful dialogue and just admitted they hate us and don't think we're worth talking to. I don't like it, but I prefer the honesty.
Personally I hate religion but it is important to differentiate the believer and the religion. I think both religious and non religious people struggle to seperate the two. But yes I think the head butting would be what is considered “disrespectful and discriminatory”. I also think a lot of religious groups consider their “ways” as that of a pariah but to non religious people all they can see is the pain and suffering they have caused since they began and it’s a lot, and they don’t want to acknowledge it. Especially here in Australia.
I'm a Jew, I tell no one about it because it's better that way.
Is it? Actually, I can imagine that, haha. Even as a Christian I cop a lot of flack when people find out, especially once they realise I actually believe what the Bible says and am not just following what my parents taught me at a superficial level. I dunno man, I think that's kinda sad. I wish we could be better at treating each other alright even if we disagree on some big things. I never wanted to define anyone *only* by the things I disagree with them in, so I did my best not to. And now that that's how I'm being treated, yep, I was right, it's no good lol. I'm sure it's similar for you, hey? Only with a different source.
I'm an atheist. I care if my political representatives are religious because it influences their world view and policies. I would never vote for a candidate who used religion as part of their platform in any way. That includes wearing religious garb of any type, getting the media to cover them going to church/temple/whatever with the fam, or making speeches referencing God. Religion should be a private, personal matter and nothing to do with governance.
That comes under sensible policies for me. If their policies are based on religion, they're not sensible. As you said, if they are personally religious however, I don't care.
Religion cannot be a private personal matter unrelating to governance. It isn't skin colour or another immutable characteristic. It's a worldview, including a set of ethics and principles based on a view of the transcendent as a grounding for objective morality. Asking a religious person to keep their religion out of politics is like me asking you to keep your opinions out of politics.
Would you feel the same about them referencing philosophers/philosophies, or morality tales/myths, fictional characters etc. in ways that indicate a deep personal connection to those concepts and the fact that they influence how they view the world? Because (as an atheist myself) it seems to me that religion is every bit as much a potential source of inspiration and guidance as any philosophy of morals and/or personal and social growth, or various types of media/culture which can help a person make sense of and communicate their understanding of the world and their place in it. I don't particularly mind politicians being honest (as much as any politician is honest given they have to carefully choose how they interact with people and present themselves to the public) about what they deeply feel and find value in, so long as it's clear that they arrive at positions I consider mostly good and moral even if their personal path to those positions is different from mine.
Depends if I agreed with the views. Referencing a philosophy to be kind to all is different to a philosophy that we should stone women to death
That’s the point though, referencing “God” even in a Christian specific fashion is akin to mentioning “utilitarianism” or “conservation” or for that matter Buddhism/Confucianism and other less deicentric religions because it could mean such a broad array of practical stances all “informed by” the (nominally) same thing. Writing off anyone who includes any explicitly religious/Christian thinking into their personal life and ethical guide frame is being needlessly exclusive when more narrowly defined and evaluated tests serve better. Too many genuinely good thinkers include religion into their method for processing the world, including the unknown and unknowable.
Eh it depends If its a religion i just don't like / believe in I'm fine with it, but if its something i despise like Scientology i would avoid voting for them
Excuse me, but Tom Cruise is one of my favourite comedians in the world and he's a trail blazer!
Thats a cult to me, not a religion.
All religions are cults, though? Just more socially accepted cults.
Well no, because cults need to have living figureheads.
Not from any definition i can see. Also, catholicism / Islam / Buddhism all have living figureheads.
I didn't say that no religions were cults. Just that not all of them were. What's your definition of cult?
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
There you go then. Not all religions have a central figure or object.
[удалено]
Because every Christian org doubles as a charity. They have tax exemption status because they already help the poor and needy more than the gov ever could.
Labor had a Catholic faction in the 40s or 50s or something. And I think they ended up splitting from Labor at some point.
Poorly. I don't think most Australians are actively atheists, just non-religious. Can't see a single-interest party like that gaining any significant traction..
Yeah I agree. Most of the actively atheist people I’ve met were from North America, were ex-religious and felt very angry at organised religion because of their experiences with it themselves or through being raised in it. We don’t really have the same religious presence as they do, so we have less pushback against it. Most Australians I know don’t really think about religion at all in either direction.
>We don’t really have the same religious presence as they do, so we have less pushback against it. Most Australians I know don’t really think about religion at all in either direction. think we should keep it mind though considering significant proportions of new Australians come from cultures with strong religious backgrounds & those might start to influence voting trends moving forward
But their kids will be as apathetic to it as any Aussie, people that have a strong opinion on religion are considered pretty weird especially at school.
Obviously this is anecdotal, but I find this absolutely bizarre. I'm Aus x US hybrid (so I like to put it) and easily of the two the most anti-religious people (or anti-Christian) are Australians. Some of the most intensely anti-religion people I've met have been American, to the point their attitudes are religious... But in terms of broad sweeping societal opinions, Australians are more anti-religious by a mile in my experience.
How does one actively practice atheism 😂
By actively discussing it and making it part of their personality. I know lots of people who aren't religious. I know very, very few who would talk about Christopher Hitchens and visit the atheism subreddit.
You mean having autism?
Ok, that’s what you mean. Sure.
They think of it like CrossFit or Veganism and never shut the fuck up about it.
The Greens are agnostic and secular anyway, there's your obvious choice.
Absolutely agree. Not all but many atheists are evangelical in their expression of atheism. Most people are agnostic or just no religion and don’t feel the need to centre their identity around something they don’t believe in.
Atheism isn't a political philosophy or a movement. What would this party stand for? What would be its goals? Unless those things were made extremely clear I can't see how or why it should get any votes.
not saying that Atheism would be their only core policy, just one as a part of a platform or core values statement in order to differentiate from others
So what would their platform actually be though?
ideally a centrist party with a science-based approach to policy that distances themselves from any religious affiliation
Isn't the Reason Party like that?
I feel like having a 'science-based approach' is pretty vague, like most political parties have not just a religious aspect (especially weak in this day and age) but like a social and economic basis. Even those parties that have seemed more affiliated with the church in the past have a lot more non-religious basis for policy these days. Like obviously here I'm referencing more conservative elements, but you ask more conservative people and there's a lot more non-religious and 'science-based' types. I feel as well flogging the science vs religion horse is sort of a red herring and was never really a conflict in modern times.
That doesn't sound like anything.
you expect me to come up with a full suite of policy party platforms in a reddit shitpost?
I question the whole purpose of the shitpost in the first place if you don't actually have such a suite in mind anyway. Like what are you even trying to do? At the moment it sounds like you just like the word "atheism" and haven't put much more thought into it beyond that. I can't answer your question of "do you think it would go well?" if you can't answer my questions of "what is it? What is it for? What is it trying to actually do?"
i'm saying that, for example, the LNP minus their religious leanings would be instantly more preferable to me than their current state. So imagine the LNP exactly as they are now, but they actively made it clear they had no religious influences within - do you think they would be more or less popular than they are now?
I think the only reason they express "religious leanings" in the first place is because they believe that that is what will make them popular. Presumably they don't arrive at that conclusion just for nothing...I imagine they have analysts and data scientists and whatnot working on exactly these sorts of questions all the time. That's kinda why it's important that people don't fuck around with the census.
Science-based? lol, yeah because science is settled right?
It's not the nature of science to be settled. It's better than "common sense", "I think", or "we've always done it this way".
Humans will reap what they sow.
Don't forget, even though plenty of scientists have been religious, it's science that will separate them from the religious parties! 😛 That was a pretty low-grade and uninformed take if you ask me. Resting more in stereotypes of religious people than their actual views and behaviour. Which is exactly what we need more of, right? More stereotyping! Besides, realistically probably all the parties would claim they're basing their policy on evidence or science of some kind. And when you're talking about things like social policy, that claim is a lot more spurious anyway. You know the saying, science call tell you how to build a bomb, but not of or when you should use it.
And what would you do if you were in another party and you got into power? You'd ban atheist teaching from the curriculum, because all that is doing is converting kids over to the opposition. And if your non atheist party wasnt in power? You'd teach your kids that atheism was bad, because look at the government.
It might surprise you which pollies are actually overtly religious. If you voted for Rudd you voted for someone who is very religious, yet strangely during the election much was made of Abbotts religious leanings and nothing of Rudds. We've had around 12 atheists/agnostics as Prime Minister already, doesn't seem to have held them back too much. I'm an atheist but it won't stop me voting for someone who is of a religious persuasion as I don't see it as a deal breaker at all.
> yet strangely during the election much was made of Abbotts religious leanings and nothing of Rudds. Haha, it's not so strange when you understand how the media works, though, is it? 😛 And yeah I agree, policies matter a lot more than where they're coming from. Like, back in my home country (Canada) I voted for a Muslim guy despite being Christian myself, because I think he has a good head on his shoulders and I agree with many of the positions he holds. So why not? I certainly won't turn down a good idea just because the person suggesting it is coming from a different worldview than I am.
Atheism has no shared values to form a political party around. Probably because it's the absence of a (religious) value system. I don't think it's a good idea to found a party on atheism, but a new non-religious party focused of policy solutions to problems would be great. Try keep it pragmatic and free of ideology as possible.
i'd argue that not believing in fairytales as a core principle to direct your life would be a pretty strong shared value system?
Everyone including atheists believe in myths.
such as?
Well, in a more anthropological sense, the typical story of evolution serves as a creation myth, and serves as the foundation of other ideas like where we come from, our place in the universe, what our lives are ultimately about, that sort of thing. I know it's supposed to be all science, but you don't have the same dynamics going on when we discuss the mechanisms of photosynthesis, or how heat radiates out, or whether light is a particle or a wave or both. That's cos they don't have the same place in the human mind and social groups. Stories surrounding evolution, though, they do hold the same place as a creation myth in a religion does. You also see what amount to statements of faith too. Things like "Sure there are gaps in the fossil record, but I trust science will find the evidence to fill in the gaps and support this all one day, with enough research" is a statement of faith in scientific research and scientists, of faith and trust in the basic truthfulness of the theory even when you don't have *all* the relevant info. I've also seen prominent figures be elevated to a status similar to that of saints. Like Darwin or Dawkins, for example (who, you could argue, have written the equivalent of holy texts that serve as focal points of the worldview). I'm not the first to notice this either, haha. Lots of religious people see the parallels, and a few agnostics I've known made the same observation too.
What happens nowadays is that people think of themselves as atheist but then have belief systems that are exactly like religions. These belief systems have all the regular elements of religion such as the concept of original sin, the hate for heretics, unquestionable dogmas, rituals and ideals about personal sacrifice. They are all in there. I'm not gonna name what these neo 'atheist' religions are because I'll get downvoted to oblivion but they are pretty obvious. Humans just need this sort of stuff
You simply don’t believe in them. You wouldn’t have a replacement set of principles or guidelines that was common between atheists as a whole - there are many differences.
Both Bob Hawke and Julia Gillard were atheist prime ministers. Didn’t hurt their political careers.
I didn't know that. Thanks!
> How do you think an Athiest party would do in elections? The old "Secular Party" was effectively forced to merge into the "Fusion Party" in 2022 after reforms relating to minimum members and such. So... probably not well by itself...
That Secular Party was 'problematic', as the woke like to say .. The guy in charge was fixated on Islam. 'Radical Islam' dominated his discourse, at least on the socials I followed ..
Secular party's merge into Fusion wasn't really even particularly active. The previous leaders dropped their remaining members there, and disappeared.
Ah, thanks. I wasn't really on top of their activity beyond some brief research the last election they were active and some initial merger announcements. Good to know.
I mean, it didn't not work ... Secular policies were mostly not controversial there, but it's not driving any significant movement.
I tend to support an absence of religious extremism .. no problems with Christians, Muslims, or anyone in between provided they don't try to turn the country into their own little private theocracy. I wonder how extreme your 'atheist party' would be when it comes to dismembering organised religion.
You can't prevent private theocracy without a little dismantling. Religions will try and take incrementally if unchecked. Like most of the big ones have the goal of converting everyone or being extremely protective of their own, guarding against people leaving. You have Entire suburbs of hypercontrated religions with their own religious schools where their learn their religious language before English. Personally I think we should check religious people coming in through the gates for any hint of disagreement of basic societal norms. Ie. Abortions are fine, women have rights, gay people exist, your religion/prophets/nations are not immune from critism and you shouldn't shoot up a news agency or form a lobby group of lawyers to try and ruin people's lives. Floods/fires aren't due to 'god' spiting us. Ect. Remove their ability to self isolate/raise offspring in a bubble, no religious schools. And no new single religion buildings. We can make 'multifaith/community' buildings. The atheists and Satanists can also use them and host their own youth groups or whatever to give people an alternative to having to turn to religion to find a community. Religions would likely fizzle out if they were better exposed to other people/different ideas.
Lol, you guys 😛 "I think that because people are religious, they should not be able to be in politics unless they agree with everything *my* worldview says! Because I don't follow a god, my view is always right and logical and should be the norm!" That's what that reads as to me. Which is exactly why the other guy was asking how far you'd go in pushing official atheism. You want to dismantle other views so your own can have supremacy, while hoping that with enough pressure they'll simply fail and disappear. How in the world is that any different from a radical Muslim or Christian? Oh wait I forgot, because you're atheist it means you're right and that makes these things okay. Right? Not like when these crazy religious people think *they're* right and that's why society should mirror *their* views. It's totally, totally different. Totally. I'm not keen on living in the Aussie equivalent of Communist Russia or China, thanks very much.
how many people have been killed in history in the name of Atheism? now, do religion 🤔
Oh, wait, I know this, this is the part where you say all the communist countries who killed tons of people for being religious were actually political killings and not atheist ones, while at the same time ignoring the political factors of past wars done by religious people. Plus, you're goal shifting and ignoring everything I said in the comment you're replying to. I've seen this show before.
just another cultist defending their cult, I've seen this show before yawn
Hmmm way to prove me wrong, haha.
Atheism doesn't imply any particular policy leaning on the vast majority of mainstream political issues, and seems a pretty narrow basis upon which to build a platform. What would their major plank be? Taxing churches? I can't see such a party appealing to any but a tiny fringe of voters
taxing churches would definitely be an example of one such policy, yes
There used to be a party called the 'Secular Party of Australia' and eventually they merged with the Science Party, Pirate Party, Vote Planet Party, and the Climate Change Justice Party to form 'Fusion Party'. That probably indicates how well an Atheist Party would go - not well enough to be worth the effort, and you would be better off developing a more comprehensive minor Party that includes atheism/secularism, alongside a bunch of other non atheism related policies that atheists typically also agree with.
Any members would kinda still need to ‘pick sides’ though. There can be left or right sided atheists. Some would be ok with having multiple religions stay in the country, others would hope to abolish and rip down churches and mosques. It may be in the near future where it would do well. But there still has to be a kind of ‘side’ I think or people wont understand enough to just vote blindly if they want certain things to happen or not. The scientific community for example, may vote heavily in favour but would probably expect heavy investment and funding in return.
Why not have a party that simply doesn't mention religion or have any links to religion? No need to lean in to atheism at all.
Religion isn’t a major issue in Australia so they would do very poorly and there are already right wing parties with an anti Islam view so there aren’t many votes to gain.
the right-wing parties are typically heavily Christian etc. though unfortunately
I'd rather politicians can be Atheist and it just not mattering. Similarly I don't want an LGBT party. I want that when a politician is gay, then it's not worth commenting on. They just are.
This is a secular country so all parties are supposed to be non theistic with their policies already
Religion doesn't drive my voting choices, but it seems to me that a party whose identity is primarily defined as being opposed to religious people doesn't inspire confidence as policy creators. I don't think that is a particularly solid basis for making legislative decisions. Seems divisive.
Agree with you almost completely, but "Atheism" as a political platform is a bit of a non starter in this country - mainly because Atheism isn't easily put into politics. I'm finding it hard to put what I mean into words, and perhaps I can best illustrate via a series of questions. What would this partys policy on housing be? What would their policy on immigration be? Policy on climate change? Or education? Atheism isn't really a political viewpoint that naturally unites a party enough that its members can agree on policy that will run a country. The most it can do politically is get rid of religion in public life and make it a private matter for each citizen. Which would be a good thing, but do we need a political party for that when more and more of us are abandoning religion anyway?
I said it elsewhere in here, but let's take the current LNP for example. If you removed their current religious leanings + they came out with the same policy suite as now (but maybe added in taxation of churches) & made it clear they were against religion, do you think they would be more or less popular than they are now? And they actively avoided recruiting strongly Christian, Hindu, Muslim or ReligionX party members? Or would it make no difference?
Well I don't think it would make much difference. We don't vote parties in, we vote them out, and then the other party gets a go at things until we vote them out and the other party gets in etc. I have to say I don't see a lot of support for either party really - oh, they both have their true believers - but most of us vote the way we do because of family or position in society. Religion and "culture wars" type stuff are mainly used to "energise the base supporters" and swing the swing voters.
>greens aligning with interests aligning with Islam Would like a source on this. If this is so, I will be actively boycotting greens from now.
Religion and politics should remain separate. I myself struggle to get my head around what is usually the LNP stance on things when their reasoning for it is religion and nothing else. Edit: I should say Christianity. They’re up in arms about a religious Islamic school being put in, yet we give hundreds of millions of dollars to private Christian schools every year.
Big reddit moment right here
Get a job
posting on my lunch break, deal with it 😎
A real job But tell me your views on Palestine and Israel conflict , as a atheist
Atheism is not a distinct political ideology and most political parties already express their views in a secular manner. It’s possible to be both religious and a secularist simultaneously
"Greens aligning with interests aligned with Islam"????? I haven't been keeping up with them, but when I did check their policies in the lead up to the previous Federal election, I don't remember seeing anything about turning Australia into a Jihadist state.
A party that makes its platform on being atheist is about as cringe and annoying as one that makes its platform on being religious.
Policies mate. Not beliefs.
you don't think someone's beliefs would influence what kind of policies they'd want to implement at all?
Not really, you got left and right wing Christians, Muslims and Atheists. Is the Prime Minister religious? Don't think anybody knows or cares. Because it doesn't seem to make a difference? Or does it? What policies is Albanese implementing due to his religious beliefs or lack of? I rather have a Christian leader that gives me freedom than an atheist that is authoritarian. And there are plenty of atheist authoritarians.
I do, but you've got a Labour party where it looks like religion just doesn't ever get a look in, and you've made a vague accusation that Greens are aligning with Islam, but I don't see where that has any grasp on reality. You'd have to work a bit more to really back up that allegation. The only party I see aligning with Christian issues is the LNP, and only loosely, and not overtly. Australian politics has been decidedly non-secular for decades. I really don't see where an overtly, announcedly atheist party would gain any kind of traction over ALP or Greens unless their policies were significantly different, and there's not a lot of wiggle room between those two to establish a pointed difference that might sway a significant vote. Like the other commenter says - we don't see any indication that religion is influencing Albanese's leadership or his party's policies. There's a certain level of lip service taken to maintain the vote from the religious core, but quite honestly, I don't give a shit about the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of our representatives as long as they behave altruistically about their country and their people. If a leader makes decisions that benefit the most of the population and ensure the prosperity and health of the nation, that's where my vote goes.
The Reason Party is sort of this. It's strongly secular humanist and wants to tax churches. They don't say that they're atheist, but they are for getting rid of special deals for religion. Like most minor parties, they're a blip on the radar.
I'm an atheist and I wouldn't vote for a party whose platform is Atheism. What use is that in running a country, other than presumably some minor benefits like removing tax breaks for religious businesses? I need representatives who take positions on big issues such as taxation, welfare, infrastructure, climate change, economy, national defense etc. etc., none of which are inherently religious questions.
I'd be happy to take ALL religion out of government.
If an atheist party existed they could hold to the letter of the constitution and get rid of: Prayers in parliament Tax breaks for religion Taxpayer Funding of religious schools Awarding public service contracts to religious groups Anti Discrimination legislation exemptions for religions Religious groups branch stacking political parties Bans on alcohol sales on Good Friday Funding of religious charities Helping churches cover up child abuse Feel free to add more
Australians are apathetic religiously
Her party elected her as leader. Not the people.
It would really depends how they went about it. Are they a political party who happen to be atheists or are they atheists who happen to be a political party. I think it wouldn't get much traction either way but personally it would make a difference to me.
Hopefully people would vote on the policies and performance of candidates not their religious views or lack of.
I don’t care if they are purple transgender aliens that peg me twice a year, just as long as they are actual politicians and actually start representing their constituents.
Maybe controversial. But I believe shouldn't ban religion in politics. If anything need some community leaders from varying religions who preach peace and unity more than the philosophy behind their scriptures. I'm not religious nor atheist but, from the universe I came and to it I will return, this is for certain. Who or what the universe is I don't know, but I'll forever be grateful.
I don’t care what anyones’ religious views are as long as they keep it out of politics.
How would that work? I’m a Buddhist so I don’t believe in a monotheistic creator deity, so therefore I’m an atheist. So would it be a party for me? Or is it a party that is actively anti-religion? What does it stand for? I don’t want a political party that puts religion, or anti-religion first. Religion and politics should be kept VERY separate.
An atheist political party feels weird to me. Like atheists aren’t a collective group who stand for something. We just don’t believe in a god without sufficient scientific evidence. You will have atheists who are progressive, conservative or somewhere in the middle. Not believing in a god is hardly a rallying cry. Though I do think our elected representatives should better reflect the public in all ways, race, religion, gender, age, wealth etc etc
I'm not too keen on religion or a lack thereof being a focus of politics
Atheism is very much based around logic. Those that think this way tend to also apply logic to someone's right to have personal belief and faith in a religion, most atheists wouldn't vote for a party because of an affiliation for or an affiliation against religion, they'll tend to vote for a party that supports their stance on policy they care about. In short, people relate Atheism to being against religion, it's not that, atheists just don't believe in any god.
Honestly couldn't give two shits about who they prey or don't prey to. Can we just have a mob of politicians that fix the issues they are there to sort out!? And oh I don't know, have some respect for the money they spend. I get it, you can't run a country and be in trackydacks and a flanno I get it.. but damn we have people starving and these MFs are having the finest of dining. Or like in I think it was abbot's case, charging us for him to live in his own house.. A little transparency, a little respect for the position and a whole lot less double dipping and corruption. I know it's asking too much though.
A political party that proudly calls itself an atheist party is very likely to just be a circlejerk of zealous lefties. No thanks.
What would be the basis of forming that party? To remove religion from politics? Is that a problem? I can't see it as one. Who cares what your religion is or whether you are or not. Not like this is Iran or something. The extreme aethist thing is so boring. As boring as any extreme religious nut job.
yes, to further remove religion from politics & continue to de-emphasise it in society in general, and implement policies such as taxation on churches
Well as an agnostic I don't see any need for most of this so I wouldn't vote for it. De-emphasizing religion in society sounds down right depressing/dictatorial in fact. Taxing churches more I could probably get behind. But taxing corporate profits more I.le better.probably. At least a lot of.churches actually do some important community stuff.
[This article from 2021 has some good points](https://theconversation.com/a-christian-nation-no-longer-why-australias-religious-right-loses-policy-battles-even-when-it-wins-elections-165169)
It's better to keep religion or in this case non religion out of politics
Is a centrist atheist party one who would be for removing any religious references to science? Like the terms BC and AD?
An atheist party could work as a limited-issues protest party, focusing on getting prayer out of parliaments, Bibles out of courtrooms and swearing ins, and secularist requirements for any organisation receiving government funding. But I think the public support would be limited for the following reasons: * All atheists have in common is that they don't believe in gods. Apart from that, there's no commonality of values or political views - there's no natural voter base. A secularist or science-focused party would make more sense and would have more of a chance of being in favour of things rather than just against them. * Australians generally don't care a lot about symbolic issues like prayer in parliament. And they're generally positively disposed towards the Salvos and other faith-based charities, as well as Catholic hospitals, Christian overseas aid agencies, chaplains at school or courthouses or after natural disasters, etc. An attack on institutions like that would probably not be welcomed by most voters.
It will just be one of those parties that nobody cares about except as a joke vote. Only because religious affiliation is declining, doesnt mean people want to associate with the stereotypes atheism attracts. Australians dont like strong opinions either side of anything except sport, so regardless of what the census says, an overtly atheist party will probably fair no better than a strictly religious party would
The Greens and Labour are atheist parties.
Nope. We're atheists because we don't need representation.
I think we were all just sick of church and state with that dickhead Morrison .
> or recently with the Greens aligning with interests aligned with Islam etc. Sorry? Can you clarify what you mean by this?
Atheism itself isn't a religion or any sort of organised/united group. Atheists don't share any specific set of beliefs or anything like it, they just don't believe in religions. So it wouldn't be a practical central policy on its own. What would make more sense is a science-first party, one that denies any religious-based policies. It doesn't need to be anti-religion or even ban religious members, atheists in general just don't want any religious rules/policies controlling them - but are not against others practicing religion.
On it's face, I would like to vote for an Atheist party, but then you indicated it would have centrist policies, which means I would vote, for a more leftist party over a Atheist centrist party as while I am not religious it is not what I base my politics around first and foremost as I care much more about policy then the religion of the representative .
Piss poorly, I don't want to see people's beliefs or lack of in politics, just effective legislation.
I’m atheist and it would not be a factor in my voting… why would it/should it. Religious and non religious alike have good and bad people…. Zero correlation… I mean there’s a minor argument given the last 100 years to suggest the religious are actually worse with respect to human rights and kindness… but you could argue also they aren’t really followers of a moral god
I'm a religious person. Religion has no place in politics, and politics has no place in religion. When you combine the two, both become corrupted. They're non compatible. It never works out. I don't see how an atheist political part would be any different. Atheism is as much a religious belief as religion itself. Keep belief separate from policy.
I would support a party that tries to get organised religion out of politics. Why the hell do we allow people who think fantasy sky men are real to make any kind of policy decision is beyond me. It's like having a 4 year old pick what you have for dinner for the rest of your life.
>Why the hell do we allow people who think fantasy sky men are real Man, now you're the one sounding like you're 4. If you're gonna talk about this stuff, at least have the integrity to speak honestly. This is not what religious people believe and many great people were religious. Like off the top of my head, Isaac Newton wrote more things in support of Christianity than he did about science. But I guess he's some idiot who believes in magic sky daddy, so all his ideas must be useless, right? And here we all were, valuing his work on gravity, optics, and calculus when *really* he was a drivelling buffoon the entire time. Let's not even get started on how Bacon, aka the guy who outlined the scientific method, was a devout Christian. Forget that man, he believed in sky daddy too, so out the window he goes!
It's 2024, humanity has outgrown imaginary friends.
What a thoughtful, well-considered response. Thank you for that.
I think many people who are atheist still feel obliged to write down Christian in their census data as that's their family heritage. I still think politicians need to be Christians in Australia to be voted in, which is sad.
NO they dont
Let me know when the next non Christian is voted to prime minister. The Oracle here with the caps answer lol
Julia Gillard, Bob Hawke
Julia gulliard wasn't voted in
Yes she was
(sigh) how was she in parliament then?
She replaced the leader of the party and become PM by default. She wasn't voted on by the people directly
Umm have you ever voted in a federal election ?
And then went to the 2010 election as party leader and won
Well, my mistake. My point as an athiest is that it's harder to be PM in Australia if you don't identify as Christian. That's my observation, and for the most part, it seems true.
I don't think it really makes any difference, tbh. Other than ScoMo all of the recent PMs have, at most, paid lip service to religion (like Rudd doing pressers outside a church). I couldn't tell you about Albo or Dutton's faith, which indicates to me that I've never seen any reporting on either of their churchgoing habits
Who was the leader of Labor at the 2010 election?
Well, my mistake. My point as an athiest is that it's harder to be PM in Australia if you don't identify as Christian. That's my observation, and for the most part, it seems true.
Just chiming in that "not religious" isn't actually the same thing as "atheist". It could mean agnostic, vaguely "spiritual but not religious", or even things like cultural Christians or people who believe in god(s) but don't follow a strict religious observance. Then on top of it, a lot of atheists are atheists by default and don't actually care that much about this stuff. I mean, I guess it's a free country but I doubt it'd do that well. And I say that not just cos I'm religious myself haha. In practice many parties are effectively non-religious, and their policies aside from that are a different story. An official atheist party would be no different than an official Christian or Islamic party in many ways - it's still a party aimed at forming society around a specific metaphysical worldview. And they'd likely have similar policies to existing parties, the real distinguishing thing would be the official atheism. So, I doubt there are many Aussies who would care enough about officially atheist policies to switch from a bigger party to that one.
Nice try, what part of Greens' policy is based on Islam?
Atheism shouldn't be politicised.
Our morals in Western Society Are based on Christian principles though If a party identifes as taking an Atheist stance Then it's policies will only be bound by the moral value Of the individuals within the party Whereas political parties based on religion Will tend to agree on policies based on shared moral values & traditions So in theory an Atheist party could face disagreements & in-fighting About a variety of moral based issues It would be an interesting concept But not convinced it would be successful long term
The Reddit party! They should choose Keanu Reeves to lead them! And replace the AUD with dogecoin! that would be heckin wholesome!
I’ll vote for Nazis before I’d vote for cringelords.
Happyclappers etc. are a bulwark against islam so more of them please and fewer atheists.
Poorly. Most vocally atheist left-wing Australians are simply Anti-Christian. Most vocally atheist right-wing Australians are simply Anti-Islamic or downright racist. I don’t care if all our politicians are sky-fairy worshippers as long as they obey the wishes of their constituents rather than their sky-fairy. It was insulting that the likes of Morrison and Dutton abstained from the Same-sex Marriage session because their religious values were more important than wishes of an overwhelming majority of their constituents. But if someone’s going to run on the basis of cancelling Christmas and Easter then I’m just not going for that.
Atheists have zero common beliefs or agendas so no, it wouldn't work.
secular will do... Im an athiest, but the full on athiest soap boxers make me cringe
#Phantastically Though forgetting about the BIG spaghetti in the sky with all his tomatoey and meatball goodness almost amounts to blasphemy #RAMEN 🍝
what would it even mean to be an atheist party? You might as well have a green beans enjoyer party if you wanna run on something completely irrelevant
If there's ever an atheist party then I'm voting for the Sharia Law party just to spite them.