1. Comment #39823 by CloudedHills on May 12, 2007 at 3:49 am

Why oh why did I see this as I was just about to go to bed? Philip Adams is a very interesting person to listen to. Nice to see a bit of Australian stuff here too.

Other Comments by CloudedHills

2. Comment #39878 by Rtambree on May 12, 2007 at 7:10 am

If only this would filter up into the Australian government.

What is it about religion that disproportionately motivates people to enter politics and get into positions of power? Most of the world's leaders are MORE religious than their countryfolk.

England, Australia, and Germany are largely irreligious countries, but have religious Prime Ministers and Chancellors.

Other Comments by Rtambree

3. Comment #39896 by Flagellant on May 12, 2007 at 8:03 am

Australia is so lovely: open-minded, tolerant and a really great place to be. The weather's fantastic, too. I am lucky enough to be able to spend several months there each year. Apart from the odd nutbag imam, comparing women to plates of meat, I haven't come across anything unsettling. However, I agree with Rtambree about the nature of religious leaders. In Oz's case, it never fails to puzzle me how they can put up with a man like John Howard (but look who the Brits are about to choose: a son of the manse). I'm even more puzzled that, although the Australian constitution is secular, they haven't dumped the Queen yet.

Back to the subject: this was an excellent interview, aired nationally, in case you didn't notice. It's a shame that it was conducted remotely: the phone detracts a lot from the dialogue. Overall, though, it was good to get such a long interview with lots of swingeing attacks on sacred cows. But then it's not difficult to find free-thinking interviewers Down Under.

Other Comments by Flagellant

4. Comment #39982 by davyB on May 12, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Hitchens may be looking at the wrong religious paintings. I am not impressed by Da Vinci. Some of my friends would be appalled to know that Rubens leaves me cold. Caravaggio is my main man for relgious paintings. It may be a coincidence that he was a very bad boy by any standard, religious or secular. He carroused nightly, got into bar brawls, killed at least one man, and ran from the law. But man, could he paint!

Other Comments by davyB

5. Comment #39987 by davyB on May 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm

I googled up this recent article by Dallek: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/kissinger200705

Other Comments by davyB

6. Comment #39997 by IQHQ on May 12, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Flagellant,

"The Brits" are not choosing Gordon Brown; he is being foist upon them.

Other Comments by IQHQ

7. Comment #40028 by Y. Bother on May 12, 2007 at 6:23 pm

C.Hitchens says in that interview, that everybody must pay chirch tax in Germany, which isn't true, though most churches can (and do) use the income tax system to collect from their members.

German chirch tax ranges from 1.6-4.0% off income depending on income hight, which led many people to officially abandon the church.

(Shouldn't the symbol for this entry be audio? :o))

Other Comments by Y. Bother

8. Comment #40059 by bouwe on May 12, 2007 at 11:08 pm

I submitted this two days ago, after I had listened to it on my (as Phillip calls it) "wireless", and have been posting the link in other threads. Glad admin listened to someone (not me) and finally posted it.

I have been listening to Phillip, off and on, for many years...had a little correspondence with him about ten years ago too. He is well known as our high-profile atheist in Oz, and it is always good to hear him give some air time to
Dawkins or Hitch (at least on this subject!).

Yes, I was a little surprised when Hitch mentioned that Germans pay some sort of "Church tax". As we say downunder "What THE....????"

If anybody knows any more about this I would like to know. I had never heard of such a thing. Maybe in the past it was the case that everybody had to pay a church tax, and that was what Hitch was referring to (?).

Other Comments by bouwe

9. Comment #40060 by Mikado on May 12, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Regarding Church tax. In Norway all taxpayers pay Church Tax. There is absolutely no way to opt out.

Other Comments by Mikado

10. Comment #40079 by Rtambree on May 13, 2007 at 3:11 am

Church Tax in Europe.

Almost every town and city on the continent has a giant old church in the middle that needs maintenance. As attendances are so low, a church tax pays for the upkeep.

In Germany, you can opt out, but not everyone does, as they still like to get married in a church or buried by the church (or a christening). If you opt out, you forgo these services.

Some of the buildings are 1,000 year old Gothic cathedrals - very elaborate, ornate and always in need of some repair.

In a sense, it's not a religious tax, as it could be viewed as a 'building maintenance tax' that ultimately attracts the tourists. Some cities like Chartres, Cologne, Milan are famous for their cathedrals and I'm sure visitors boost local economies.

So what do atheists propose?

1. Sell them off to become carpet warehouses, etc and get private enterprise to maintain them?

2. Tear them down, ignoring their architectural and heritage value? i.e. Whatever the market can afford, and if the market can't make the upkeep financially sustainable, then the asset has become full depreciated and expended.

3. Get the businesses who benefit from tourism to pay a higher rate of tax?

4. Charge an entrance fee to enter the church? St Pauls & Westminster Abbey in London do this now - they feel more like museums than religious institutions.

5. Put it to a vote of the townsfolk?

6. Turn them into monuments, warning of the depravity, irrationality, and violence of bronze-age superstition - a memorial to all those who suffered at the hands of religion. Lest we forget. Exhibit inquisition torture equipment in Catholic churches, weapons used by protestants in Anglican churches, a display of circumcision instruments, a wax figure of a scientist burning at the stake, a recreation of Galileo's trial, representations of the vast gold wealth while the poor starved, a sample "Indulgence", display cases full of Papal Bulls and other Decrees promoting ignorance.

Other Comments by Rtambree

11. Comment #40083 by Flagellant on May 13, 2007 at 3:32 am

Yes, IDHQ (#6) loose choice of "choose", I suppose, in

but look who the Brits are about to choose: a son of the manse

Very loosely, I have to point out that there is going to a be a choice among some electors (Labout MPs only)... LOl. "Foisted?" No, I think not. I should, of course, have said "...look who the Brits are about to get...). Much less controversial.

Now I'm just going out to buy a book called "The Ecumenicalism of Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams." While I'm at it, I'll get a life.

Other Comments by Flagellant

12. Comment #40094 by WeeWullie on May 13, 2007 at 4:56 am

Response to Flagellant.

Er, actually, we are NOT going to choose Gordon Brown. That's the problem. He's going to be foisted on us, with nary so much as a vote. And all because the other senior members of the Labour Party are so craven that they are not prepared to put Democracy before their own petty political ambitions (ie, if they unsuccessfully contest Brown's enthronement, they fear he will hold it against them and remove them from the Cabinet or fail to offer them a job).

Secondly, what is the connection between Australia's secular constitution and not 'dumping the Queen'? What's the connection between religion and republicanism? The Queen is simply a non-executive head of state. Perhaps the Australians (along with the Canadians, New Zealanders, Britons etc) simply prefer a non-intervening head of state that they don't have to have elections for (Me! Me! Vote for Me! No, don't vote for him, vote for Me!)- maybe they don't want a Bush or a Chirac or a Putin (can you hold that against them?). Please, let's not confuse the issue or muddy the waters. We're currently involved in a death-struggle with the religious woo-woos. If you want a debate on republicanism versus constitutional monarchy, then start a thread.

Anyway, good discussion. Good ol' Hitchens.

Other Comments by WeeWullie

13. Comment #40121 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 7:55 am

Church TAX!!!!?? No wonder Europe is becoming more irreligious!!

btw, since this thread relates to an Australian radio program. A reminder for anyone in Oz that next week on ABC compass program, they will be showing Dawkins documentary "The Root of All Evil?"

Other Comments by bouwe

14. Comment #40130 by Flagellant on May 13, 2007 at 8:38 am

Look here (12) Wee Wullie, Australia's secular constitution has nothing at all to do with the Queen except, for example, the following quotes from it

59. The Queen may disallow any law...

60. A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure blah blah... not to mention

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth [of Australia] is vested in the Queen...blah blah...

the point being that H M the Q, has too much to do with Oz.

I'm sure she has too much to do with being head of the C of E and the Church of Scotland, as well. Or has she?

Anyway, I wasn't intending to muddy the waters, merely to pass some comments for our lovely Oz friends and I quite agree that the important objective is ecrasez l'infame. I have no intention of starting a republican thread but I think it might be worth having a thread where one can post useful "soundbites". My contribution is "Religion should only be allowed between consenting adults in private".

Other Comments by Flagellant

15. Comment #40181 by Shuggy on May 13, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I'm sure she has too much to do with being head of the C of E and the Church of Scotland, as well. Or has she?

I think it cuts the other way; the church interferes in the life of the royal family. If the monarch was not also Defender of the Faith, Edward VIII could have married Mrs Simpson and the Duke of York would never have become George VI. Ignoring that, Princes Margaret could have married Peter Townsend and probably been a lot happier and more productive, and Charles could have married Camilla instead of Diana, who would probably still be alive, albeit unknown, and his (plain) sons would be Catholic.

There may have been other interferences between 1936 and Henry VIII without which the present day royal family (if any) would be unrecognisable.

Other Comments by Shuggy

16. Comment #40203 by Shuggy on May 13, 2007 at 8:20 pm

I think the point about religious architecture, art and music is an interesting one. Without religion we might not have Chartres or St Pauls (but you'd almost think Il Sagreda Famiglia [sp] in Barcelona was being built regardless of religion) or St Matthew's Passion or the Pietá, but who knows what wonderful things we might have instead? It's hard to believe that if they weren't inspired by religion, creative people would stop being creative.

Other Comments by Shuggy

17. Comment #40205 by Shuggy on May 13, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Interesting that both of them, when condemning religion's condemnation of sex, use euphemisms to say what they're talking about: 35 mins in
Adams; "hanky-panky"
Hitchins; "birth canal"
If they'd noticed what they were doing, I'm sure they'd have been more explicit.

Other Comments by Shuggy

18. Comment #40232 by Rtambree on May 14, 2007 at 12:44 am

17. Comment #40205 by Shuggy

Many of the phrases that Adams' employs are world-weary, ironic ones. He's been around.

In any case, Steven Pinker's next book will address the issue why sex is often referred via euphemisms e.g. would you like to come upstairs for a coffee?

Other Comments by Rtambree

19. Comment #40643 by WeeWullie on May 14, 2007 at 4:04 pm

That's very kind of you, Rtambree! Thank you very much! It would be churlish to refuse! And, after coffee, would you fancy a spot of 'slap and tickle'?

Actually, I rather like euphemisms - makes things more 'saucy', more, sort of ........naughty! Understated seems more erotic.

Maybe its just cos I'm English!

Other Comments by WeeWullie

20. Comment #40650 by the great teapot on May 14, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Weewullie

You have just brought to mind the greatest of all the expounders of the euphemism and back handed complement Humphrey Littleton.
He had taken the double entendre to such great heights that on sunday afternoons on the beeb he could actually forget to disguise the sexual conatation completely and even Mary Whitehouse would have laughed (well maybe not her but she would be the only one)

Other Comments by the great teapot

21. Comment #40653 by Bonzai on May 14, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Speaking of euphemism here is a mathematician's invitation to sex: "My dear, do you mind if I substitue my generating function into your kernel?"

Other Comments by Bonzai

22. Comment #40751 by Veronique on May 14, 2007 at 10:37 pm

bouwe

I have posted on a different thread that The Root of All Evil is being aired on the ABC next Sunday. Oh! and Compass is starting ½ an hour earlier that night. I hope that the ABC's viewership will rise above the normal 8% at least for that night!! And admin has acknowledged you:-)

And no! I didn't realise that some Europeans have no choice but to sequester some of their taxes to a bloody church. That is outrageous. Here the churches are tax exempt and they tithe for their dosh as well as receive donations. Do the churches tithe (as well) in Europe? They must also be tax exempt, yes? They are, after all, receiving tax or already taxed money.

Flagellant and with apologies to WeeWullie

Australia is, at this stage, an Act of the British Parliament. We are still part of the colonial structure of Britain. And it was not a very nice beginning at all. We were all convicts - rejects from the British legal system.

I think the main reason the debate on a Republic for Australia failed in 1998, was because the Republian model proposed gave the Prime Minister massive and outrageous power over and above what he has now. The Convention held over the issue had some wonderful speeches and are well worthwhile a read.

If a different model (one not vesting even more power in the PM) had been proposed, the Republic may well have been acceptable and gone to Referendum.

The majority of Australians see little point in being tied to the apron strings of England and their Queen. We have our own High Court and no longer have to rely on the British Privy Council. That went soon after Gough Whitlam was dismissed as PM in 1975 by our Governor General who is the agent of the Queen. We do, rarely, have our own Constitutional crises.

It will change, but no one in his/her right mind would give a head of state more power.

To the rest of you, Phillip Adams is good value and you can find his interviews on www.abc.net.au/rn which is where this one comes from.

Cheers - gee I'm lucky. I am not sure why but I can edit my posts many, many times to correct errors (I don't get them all, obviously) and add bits before the post is set in stone, as it were.
V

Other Comments by Veronique