McBell
Resident Sourpuss
No, it is not my claim.
It is a question asking for you to clarify YOUR claim.
and you are STILL wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
1 in 14 priests accused of abuse
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
It is a question asking for you to clarify YOUR claim.
Personally, no, but the story I linked to earlier was from the Melbourne Herald-Sun. It's owned by Murdoch, and is the Melbourne equivalent of the Sydney Morning Herald, basically.
I'll grab a Sydney story at some point too, but flavour will be the same.
Just FYI, there are far better sources for news though, even if it's conservative viewpoints you're after. These are just tabloids.
If you're looking for decent quality journalism with a largely unbiased perspective, the best mainstream sources in Australia are the ABC and SBS. I linked to an ABC story earlier. Effectively, I linked to a centrist and a (mildly) right wing source to support my views in this thread.
It's a bit strange to Americans, but the conservatives are the Liberal Party of Australia (as in freedom I suppose or maybe it's because they're down under). Liberal party meanshere, so that's why it's strange when they call themselves that over there.
Yeah, I get that. Makes sense though, if you look at it as the alternative to socialism, which is the origin of the party's founding.
Labour, the other main party, was founded largely by trade unions, hence the socialist slant (traditionally, at least) and name.
Both are centrist on many issues now though.
Last edited:
I'm more atheist and less socialist (nevermind communist) than I was at uni.
Trust in media: ABC still leads, Telegraph takes a hit - Crikey
Daily Telegraph is well known for it's level of bias, btw.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I think I did.
Atheists are ones who are usually wrong because they do not listen. Did you not read Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto? Did you not read Vladimir Lenin? The lowest level of atheists are the hypocrites if you ask me. Marx said, "Religion is the opium of the people." And that "Communism begins from the outset with atheism." Interestingly, he then said, "but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction." An abstraction, but it still leads to Communism.
Marx
Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844
Lenin
Lenin: The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion
james bond
Well-Known Member
Crikey. Isn't this changing now with the Liberal Party taking over? Before it was the leftists that took over.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not according to surveys, as atheists tend to have a higher educational level than theists.
Not really, and I'm not an atheist, btw. These are different systems, one religious and the other a political/economic system based on the teachings of Marx. Yes, Marx was an atheist, but only one of myriads of them. I personally know some atheists, and not one of them identifies themselves as being Marxist.
I mean, all news sources tend to pot the government to some degree. It's human nature, and also a very Australian thing to do. But honestly, we (Australians) are less likely to think of politics in terms of 'left' and 'right' when it comes to the two main parties. We're more likely to see them as being as bad as each other.
If you said left out here, people would probably look at the Greens, and right is more likely to be Pauline Hanson/One Nation. Neither of those parties are anywhere near challenging the two main ones, and won't be in the forseeable future. However, our electoral system does give them a degree of power if they can take some seats in either house, and the two main parties are closish in terms of electoral results.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Wow.
Just when I thought you have reached the lowest possible, you come back with somethig like this to prove me wrong.
Meh, don't worry. It feels kinda refreshing to suddenly be a cartoon character, and not an actual person, don't you think?
james bond
Well-Known Member
I think the idea is for parts of Eastern Europe and countries that will have financial turmoil near Russia's sphere will be the targets it tries to take over with despotic Communism. If a country's people have become atheist, then they aren't as easily joined to fight Communism. They'll be for democratic Socialism already versus conservative Christians and religions when financial conditions and a country's economy force their hands. With China, we're looking to see if it will indeed become a People's Republic or be under the iron hand of the Communists. Mao killed the most people in his Great Leap Forward. China was able to increase their capital the most under globalization policies of the leftist elite while their corporations reaped the benefits. Any move by Russia such as that of their incursion into the Ukraine will cause a stir in the West. With Trump's victory, we have a return to capitalism and protectionism, so the balance will be restored again and hopefully the economies turn around for the capital-based companies. It will start with manufacturing returning from dominant countries like China.