Join all the boys and girls - all dressed up in dresses and other fancy dress as they dance their way through this carnival week of great atmosphere: Morrie, Tones, Georgie, Ratzie, and all the other gorgeous people, and dazzle the world with the splendour of the event!

Witness also the

GREATEST SHOW IN SYDNEY - "RATZIES IN THE RANKS"

featuring the gayest costumes, the campest actors, a fantastic story about some mythical creature who lives in the sky and tells us all how to live our lives and have the greatest, gayest times imaginable! It also tells us how not to fuck with condoms - they prevent babies being made and HIV being distributed amongst the unsuspecting ignorant. WHAT A SHOW IT IS GOING TO BE!

The show that has cost millions and millions of dollars to produce - YOUR DOLLARS - is another reason not to miss it!

Letter in The Age, 22 February 2008

No place for God in schools

JOHN Howard's idea of a "God Squad" infiltrating schools with his particular ideology has come unstuck before it has even started (The Age, 21/2). Its introduction was an ideologically driven mistake and a wise Kevin Rudd would end it as soon as is possible. Impressionable young minds are not in need of subtle indoctrination with a particular narrow belief system.

Education that goes beyond factual knowledge is a matter for priests and shamans, not secular governments.

David Nicholls, president,

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

Bill Muehlenberg writes a letter to The Age newspaper published on 11 February 2008 about Sharia Law and the comments made in the UK by the Archbishop of Canterbury which have aroused fury from people of all religious persuasions around the world. The Age headlines his letter "Integration is what we need, not isolation".

Here is Meuhlenberg's letter:

"Surely you jest, Rowan Williams ("Archbishop fuels controversy over Islamic law in UK". The Age, 9/2). What version of sharia law would the archbishop like to see enacted? The Saudi Arabian version? Will polygamy be legalised (with men allowed to have four wives)? Will amputation as punishment be legalised? Much of sharia law is incompatible with Western democratic law and humanitarian principles.

Moreover, social and racial harmony comes from ethnic communities integrating into society, not by becoming even more isolated and distanced. All citizens of a nation must be subject to the law of the land. To start granting exemptions for religious or ethnic bodies is to tear apart the rule of law and social cohesion. Instead of integration, we end up with segregation. Dr Williams needs to decide if he is representing the Christian faith or Islam. And he needs to decide whether he thinks a democracy is preferable to an Islamic theocracy."

Muehlenberg's hypocrisy is breathtaking, to say the least! Here is a christian fundamentalist who is part of a religious faith in Australia which is granted exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation so that these organisations can hire and fire who it suits them to according to their religions, who interprets parts of the bible to suit his particular brand of theology so that he can attack gays and lesbians fighting for those equal human rights taken for granted by his christian fraternity, and who criticises one of his own who is trying to show some compassion for a large group of citizens in his own country, to enable them to have rights similar to those of other religions in that country - the UK.

Religions with their fundamentalisms are diminishing around the world, according to statistics of analyses of all religions, with a marked increase in the numbers of those who have no religion and are counted as atheists. As their numbers continue to grow, so, ultimately will religious fundamentalism decrease, and in the end there will be no conflicts around the world on a so-called religious basis.

It can't come soon enough to allow all human beings to enjoy the same human rights everywhere, and to stop the persecution of homosexuals by christians, muslims, jews and other religious fanatics.

Hypocrisy comes no less from Bill Muehlenberg commenting on religions other than his own than from other religious adherents who continue to preach one set of doctrines while practising others!

The Age newspaper - and Mark Rabich - are being disingenuous and not really honest when they don't inform readers of the newspaper that Rabich, who has his letters published regularly in this paper, is a creationist christian fundamentalist with rabid right-wing reactionary views. Readers have the right to know whose views they are subjected to and which are favoured by The Age in preference to left-wing atheistic explanations of the world as it is, and not as they wish it to be, as not favoured by The Age.

Fortunately, we blog, therefore we are free - well, until Senator Conroy and his bunch of right-wing politicans get their grubby little hands on our ISPs.   

15 December 2007  and beyond – from The Age

AND for an encore, Rob Hulls will now legislate against the laws of physics, since biological science is obviously no great hurdle. Incontrovertible proof we have lunatics in office.

Mark Rabich, Heathmont

Abortion must always be about choice

Anne O'Rourke
December 18, 2007

THOSE with moral objections to abortions should not have abortions. Neither should they be allowed — in a free and democratic society — to impose their particular moral beliefs on others, nor have those beliefs imposed through the law.

The fundamental point to remember in relation to medical practitioners is that they are regulated by law. They are entitled, and indeed obligated, to use their clinical judgement in consultation with their patient to determine what course of action is in the best interests of the patient. The late-term abortion case at the Royal Women's Hospital was a tragic one, particularly for the woman involved, but there is no evidence that the medical professionals involved acted improperly or immorally.

It is well known that the vast bulk of the Australian public supports a woman's right to choose. The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes undertaken in 1987, 1996 and 2004 indicates that support for a woman's right to choose has grown. Even among religious groups, the majority favoured the right to choose.

In a perverse acknowledgement of public support for the right to choose, the religious right keep running a rearguard action by focusing attention on late-term abortions.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini (Opinion, 14/12) is correct that many Australians are deeply conflicted over the issue of late-term abortions. But it is necessary to put the facts. Such terminations are extremely rare.

According to Jan Dickinson, who reviewed the outcomes for abortion beyond 20 weeks' gestation in Western Australia, between May 1998 and December 31, 2002, only 219 women presented for late terminations. Dickinson found that all pregnancy terminations in these latter stages were for foetal abnormality and those requesting such terminations were statistically older women.

Likewise, associate dean and professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at ANU Medical School, David Ellwood, estimated that across Australia, late-term abortions are somewhere between 0.1% to 0.6% of all births each year. He found that nearly all are at less than 28 weeks' gestation, with the majority less than 24 weeks, and the reason is for severe foetal abnormality that is likely to result in major handicap or perinatal death.

While opponents would like to see late-term abortions made illegal, Dr Lachlan de Crespigny is correct in his view that such laws would be an injustice to women. Because late-term abortions turn on the particular circumstances of the case and in the vast majority involve either a health risk to the mother or severe abnormality, such decisions should be left to the woman or couple and their doctors. It is not the business of third parties to intervene in what is already a highly emotive and stressful situation and inflict their desired outcome on the parents. To make such terminations illegal may in some cases endanger a woman's life.

The fundamental point to remember in relation to medical practitioners is that they are regulated by law. They are entitled, and indeed obligated, to use their clinical judgement in consultation with their patient to determine what course of action is in the best interests of the patient. The late-term abortion case at the Royal Women's Hospital was a tragic one, particularly for the woman involved, but there is no evidence that the medical professionals involved acted improperly or immorally.

It is well known that the vast bulk of the Australian public supports a woman's right to choose. The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes undertaken in 1987, 1996 and 2004 indicates that support for a woman's right to choose has grown. Even among religious groups, the majority favoured the right to choose.

In a perverse acknowledgement of public support for the right to choose, the religious right keep running a rearguard action by focusing attention on late-term abortions.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini (Opinion, 14/12) is correct that many Australians are deeply conflicted over the issue of late-term abortions. But it is necessary to put the facts. Such terminations are extremely rare.

According to Jan Dickinson, who reviewed the outcomes for abortion beyond 20 weeks' gestation in Western Australia, between May 1998 and December 31, 2002, only 219 women presented for late terminations. Dickinson found that all pregnancy terminations in these latter stages were for foetal abnormality and those requesting such terminations were statistically older women.

Likewise, associate dean and professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at ANU Medical School, David Ellwood, estimated that across Australia, late-term abortions are somewhere between 0.1% to 0.6% of all births each year. He found that nearly all are at less than 28 weeks' gestation, with the majority less than 24 weeks, and the reason is for severe foetal abnormality that is likely to result in major handicap or perinatal death.

While opponents would like to see late-term abortions made illegal, Dr Lachlan de Crespigny is correct in his view that such laws would be an injustice to women. Because late-term abortions turn on the particular circumstances of the case and in the vast majority involve either a health risk to the mother or severe abnormality, such decisions should be left to the woman or couple and their doctors. It is not the business of third parties to intervene in what is already a highly emotive and stressful situation and inflict their desired outcome on the parents. To make such terminations illegal may in some cases endanger a woman's life.

There is also a lot of mythology about the physical and mental health threats of abortion. Numerous studies in the United States and by the National Academy of Sciences over 20 years have found that there is no basis for supporting the argument that abortion causes severe physical or mental health threats. A two-year study on the psychological effects of abortion found that the majority of women do not experience any mental health problems or regrets two years after an abortion. A third study undertaken in 1991 found that up to 98% of women who had abortions had no regrets and would choose the same course of action again.

The American Psychiatric Association, despite the repeated assertions of anti-choice proponents, does not recognise the so-called "post-abortion syndrome".

Similar research undertaken in Australia by Melbourne psychologist Dr Susie Allanson supports the conclusions of the international studies. It is misleading to suggest that the majority of women suffer harm as a result of having an abortion. The evidence does not support that position.

The insistence that women be required to undergo compulsory counselling is also a distraction. Mandatory counselling and waiting periods assume that all women are unable to reasonably determine what is best for them and are unable to rationally reflect on their decision. This assumption is demeaning to women and undermines their autonomy.

In addition, making counselling mandatory would achieve little, other than become a focus of anger and a cause of distress. Abortion providers and hospitals, private as well as public, already offer counselling services to women seeking terminations.

Criminalisation of abortion is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. If there is to be a law governing abortion, then it must start from the position of respecting women's full human rights, including liberty and security of the person, and the right to determine when and if they have children.

Abortion law reform must also be backed up by a comprehensive sexual and reproductive health program that provides high-quality, professional and unbiased information on family planning, pregnancy and terminations, in a timely, affordable and accessible manner. This means that services should be localised; rural women need women's medical centres in regional cities.

The Victorian Parliament should have the courage to follow the example set by the Australian Capital Territory Government and refrain from acting as a watchdog over women's reproductive choices.

Anne O'Rourke is a vice-president of Liberty Victoria, a lawyer and a lecturer at Monash University. Liberty Victoria's submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission inquiry can be found at www.libertyvictoria.org.au

A small modification …

19 December 2007 – from The Age

JUST a slight rewrite of Anne O'Rourke's opening statement: "Those with moral objections to slavery should not own slaves. Neither should they be allowed — in a free and democratic society — to impose their particular moral beliefs on others, nor have those beliefs imposed through the law." We are in profoundly deep trouble as a civilisation when we cannot recognise the massive logical inconsistencies inherent in popular ideas, and, worse yet, actually campaign to further erode the most basic of human rights: that of drawing one breath after another. Notwithstanding your obfuscation, Anne, abortion is still wrong.

Mark Rabich, Heathmont

Declare war on woolly thinking

THAT a young Australian would opt to support religious-backed terrorism in the 21st century is remarkable and says volumes about the power of charismatic leaders such as Osama bin Laden over naive, gullible and ignorant members of society. Hicks' story hammers home the need to provide all Australians (and everyone else) with sufficient training in critical thinking and science to have the capacity to see through the irrational claims made by cults and religions about future non-earthly rewards and used to motivate the foot soldiers of terrorism. If the war on terror is seen as a war on irrationality we will win most ground, long term, with education rather than with military muscle or fridge magnets.

I look forward to Hicks' apology but rather than attend a police station three times a week as part of his control order, perhaps he could attend some science and philosophy classes instead.

Marc Hendrickx, Berowra Heights, NSW

 Religion and power are a bad mix

JOHN Roskam once again rewrites history and ignores obvious facts with his article on religion and politics (Opinion, 2/1). The influence that extreme (and less extreme) religious groups had on the Howard government was a disgrace. Howard quietly introduced huge, crippling fines for even discussing possible methods of euthanasia. He also introduced legal and huge tax exemptions for the Exclusive Brethren and their non-religious businesses in exchange for their large political contributions. Brendan Nelson wanted to introduce teaching of the very non-scientific intelligent design theories into our schools. Then there was the very murky, political RU486 debate. The list goes on. But Roskam wipes this aside with his revisionist nonsense that Howard's critics struggled to provide examples of this pernicious influence of religion. No, John, they struggled to be heard! Teaching intelligent design is not about morality. Nor is giving tax concessions to all non-religious businesses of the Exclusive Brethren. Separation of church and state starts to disappear as soon as a church donates funds to a political party.

Graeme Scarlett, East Malvern

Teach about delusion

MARC Henrickx's analysis (Letters, 31/12) is accurate and we should consider some strategies in order to arrest the imposition of irrational thoughts and teachings on children too young to defend themselves.

A good starting point might be to place Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion on all school syllabuses. It would encourage our youth to think clearly and scientifically, not to swallow traditional superstitions, prejudices and inaccuracies.

Maybe such enlightenment would filter down and prevent any brainwashing of the very young by religious institutions. It was Voltaire who wrote: "If you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities."

Tom O'Connell, Pascoe Vale

Debating Dawkins

IF TOM O'Connell (Letters, 2/1) wants Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion on school syllabuses, then may I suggest, in the interest of stimulating enlightenment, two opposing points of view, namely The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, and The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths by a Scottish pastor, David Robertson.

If Dawkins' book was full of such aspirations to think "clearly and scientifically", Tom, you'll have nothing to fear from that, will you? Or is "brainwashing" OK, so long as it's your brand of imposition? From David Hume to Madalyn Murray O'Hair and now Dawkins, various opponents of Christianity will come and go, along with their ideas. There's a reason for that.

Mark Rabich, Heathmont

Now I understand

WHEN I read Marc Hendrickx's elevation of philosophy as the antidote to religion and fanaticism (Letters, 31/12), I wondered how he could believe this when there have been so many philosophers who were believers and so many others who have endorsed foolish and fanatical ideologies. Thanks to Tom O'Connell (Letters, 2/1) for providing the key: "philosophy" and "education" actually mean indoctrinating children to accept Richard Dawkins.

Andrew Moody, Blackburn South

MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISM SPOOKS THE WORLD!!!

These two items arrived in the same week – one by email from the UK and the other in an article in The Age newspaper. It now seems that Muslim sensitivity has to be protected at the expense of everybody else’s – Jews, Christians, Gays, Lesbians, Transgenders, People living with HIV/AIDS! Ah, yes, and let us not forget the sacking of Norman Finkelstein in the USA by De Paul so-called University – the zionists mustn’t be offended either – despite the fact that Israel has offended everybody else as well!

Hague museum pulls offensive Muslim art

December 3, 2007 - 10:59PM

The city museum of The Hague has decided not to include in an exhibition a work of art that may offend Muslims, it was reported on Monday.

The picture, made by Iranian artist Sooreh Hera, is entitled Adam and Ewald and shows two gay men wearing masks of the Muslim prophet Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali.

It is part of a photoseries the Gemeentemuseum has included in the 7up exhibition due to open on December 15.

The Gemeentemuseum's director Wim van Krimpen told reporters the museum is interested in purchasing Hera's complete series, which he called "high quality works of art".

However, he added he will not exhibit Adam and Ewald in the next few years because "certain people in our society might perceive it as offensive".

Hera responded she was "disappointed" and added "apparently a Muslim minority decides what will be on display in the museum".

Liberal-rightist Freedom Party (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, condemned the museum's decision, adding it was "based on fear".

Wilders has requested a reaction on the matter from Education and Culture minister Ronald Plasterk.

Meanwhile Siebe Weide, director of the Museum Association, told reporters "all Dutch museums are free to choose what they exhibit and what not".

© 2007 AAP

The following item was received by email on 11 December 2007 from the UK. What next???

It appears 'Ike' was right

It is a matter of history that when Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.  

He did this because he said in words to this effect: "Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

In Memorial

This week, the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offended" the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.

This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.

This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated while the German and Russian peoples looked the other way! (NOT TO MENTION THE GAY AND LESBIAN MURDERS IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS NOT INCLUDED, WITH MANY OTHER CATEGORIES ALSO OMITTED – editor)

Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth," it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!

Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

Don't just delete this.  It will take a minute to pass this along.

And in my innocence I thought the world condemned Neville Chamberlain because in 1938/1939 he appeased the Nazis and condemned the world to the Second World War! 

It is a fact of Australian life that many religious organisations still have exemptions from all sorts of issues which the rest of non-religious organisations are unable to obtain.

Exemptions covering discrimination in employment, paying taxes, to mention but a few.

This is a secular society in a secular country, and nominally the governments are secular too.

However, religion has been creeping more and more into the 2007 federal election campaign with religious lobby groups doing their best to influence the main political parties, whose leaders all profess a profound belief in thie own particular brands of religion. Not that their actions bear this out - but that is another matter! 

  The following letter from The Age newspaper of 17 November 2007 illustrates the points above:

No taxes, please. I'm an atheist

THE FULL bench of the Federal Court has ruled that churches and charities can run businesses and claim tax exemption for these businesses as long as the profits are entirely used for the charity and to advance religion (The Age, 16/11).

In this day and age, why is religion being given tax exemption? Charities I agree with, but why religion? Obviously I should establish the church of atheism and claim tax exemption for the spreading of atheism.

A definition of religion is something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience or a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

Please explain why my taxes allow religions to receive an advantage over other businesses? Isn't it time to remove this archaic benefit to religion? Which century are we living in?

Paul Gosling, Langwarrin

"The goal wasn't about the money, it was to set a precedent so other people could do the same thing," he said.

Appearing on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, Sndyer said that while his son was fighting for freedom for Iraqis, "my son did not fight for hate speech.

"And that's basically what it is," he said of the church's protest. "Everybody's under the impression that the First Amendment gives them the right to do anything, say anything any where, any time. And along with the First Amendment also comes responsibility."

Snyder said that on the day of the funeral, he didn't see the protesters or their signs, only the tops of the signs. "But a lot of people at the church did see it," he said. "And it was splattered all over the newspapers the next day."

It's unclear whether Snyder will be able to collect the damages.

The assets of the church and the defendants are less than a million dollars, mainly in homes, cars and retirement accounts, defense attorney Jonathan Katz said. The church has about 75 members and is funded by tithing.

Craig Trebilcock, one of Snyder's lawyers, had asked jurors to question the truthfulness of the defendants' financial documents, one of which show Phelps-Davis having only $306 in the bank. He noted that Phelps-Davis is a practicing attorney, who could afford to travel to spread the church's message.

"Rebekah Phelps-Davis has $306? She must be using Priceline.com. It doesn't make any sense," Trebilcock said.

The attorney had urged jurors to award damages that would send a message to the church: "Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."

Trebilcock later called the verdict "Judgment Day for the Westboro Baptist Church."

"They're always talking about other people's Judgment Day. Well, this is theirs," he said.

Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles.

They are confident the award will be overturned on appeal, Phelps said.

"Oh, it will take about five minutes to get that thing reversed," he said.

Another of Snyder's attorneys, Sean Summers, said he would tirelessly seek payment of the award. "We will chase them forever if it takes that long," he said. A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. Snyder's lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman. (Alex Dominguez, AP)

Bloggers of the world, delight!

They're on the run, the religious right!

It'll take some time for all to be out,

but in the end there'll be a rout!!

DeeCee needed to ensure that we understand who is Lord of the Manor in this household, and in order to consolidate his claim, he has taken possession of the bed.

"This is mine, so take it or leave it! I am very comfortable here and have no intention of allowing anyone to dispossess me!"

A world of believers?

World population figures as at 19 May 2006 were given as 6.515 billion. The chart below, when all the figures are added up, gives a total of 7.0179 billion. Give or take a few hundred thousand here and there, the number of atheists/secular/non-religious/agnostic is given as 1.1 billion.

During the 1930s, when the USSR was again becoming a major player in the world field, the USSR was called The Socialist Sixth of the World.

The chart below would indicate that the number of atheists (and related thinkers) around the world is about 1/7 of the world in the context of religion.

This means that, over time, religion is at last losing the stranglehold it has had over the minds of populations, and more and more people are realising the fallacy of believing in "something" with unrealistic expectations that that "something" is capable of solving the wrongs visited upon the earth by all those nasty people who get into positions of power and control.

The religious right are actually fighting a losing battle, but are so desperate to hold on that they will stoop to any of the lowest levels possible to ensure that they go down screaming. Those who scream loudest are not always the most successful, and ultimately all religions will die as more and more people come to realise the error of the ways of belief that have been pressed down on them from those in control.

So, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and the light is getting brighter day by day. Just look at what is happening in the USA where the brightest of lights are those that show that support for George W Bush is sinking and sinking. John W Howard not yet, but his days of lying and chicanery can't go on for ever either, and as the sun sets on the Bush horizon, it will also set on the Howard and Blair horizons. The Blair sun is also now setting quite rapidly, so hope springs eternal---------!