Aug. 19th, 2006
Religion Down Under
Aug. 19th, 2006 11:14 amA snotty SMH article by Adele Horin nonetheless contains some interesting facts: recent surveys reveals that only about half of young Australians believe in God. Confusingly, at the last census five years ago, 71% of Australians identified themselves as having some religion (the vast majority of whom said they were Christians). Horin makes a very good point that Australian politicians who chase votes via religion are unlikely to succeed, but she doesn't address an obvious fact: if 80% of Australians support stem-cell research and are pro-choice, and 68% of Australians are Christians, then much (if not most) of the support for stem-cell research and choice must be coming from Christians. By muddling together Christianity, conservativism, and religion generally, Horin is alienating progressive allies because we don't share her beliefs - a commonplace atheist blunder.
(no subject)
Aug. 19th, 2006 11:35 amMore fuel for the fire for those of us suspicious of the war on terrorism...
An alleged Australian terrorist has had his conviction quashed because of how his confession was extracted. According to the news item, after his arrested, he was assaulted, threatened with castration, threatened that his wife would be raped, and essentially told that if he didn't give the Australian police interviewers what they wanted, he'd end up in Guantánamo. The twist in the case is that, in other circumstances, he has pretty much admitted the crimes of which he was accused. A retrial may return him to prison; if it doesn't, then an apparently guilty man will walk free because his interrogation was against the law. What could be more counterproductive?
flyingsauce links to commentaries which cast doubt on the alleged liquid explosives plot. If it's true that liquid explosives would be extremely unlikely to succeed as bombs, then of course the alleged plot could still be for real, and horrific - but not the "unimaginable" threat we were told about.
An alleged Australian terrorist has had his conviction quashed because of how his confession was extracted. According to the news item, after his arrested, he was assaulted, threatened with castration, threatened that his wife would be raped, and essentially told that if he didn't give the Australian police interviewers what they wanted, he'd end up in Guantánamo. The twist in the case is that, in other circumstances, he has pretty much admitted the crimes of which he was accused. A retrial may return him to prison; if it doesn't, then an apparently guilty man will walk free because his interrogation was against the law. What could be more counterproductive?
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)