Australian Conservatives Are Using Religious Faith as a Cover for Misogyny

[Elixir]

Not that Au has any monopoly on conservatives using religion as a blunt instrument to abuse women, of course.

Scott Morrison responded to the sexual abuse crisis in Australia’s parliament by making Amanda Stoker, a hard-right Christian and defender of misogyny, assistant minister for women. Stoker’s elevation is part of a right-wing campaign against women under the cloak of Christianity.

In fact it's a little bit consoling that there are some idiots in Australia who are just deluded, cruel and deranged as their American counterparts.

 

[bilby]

Not that Au has any monopoly on conservatives using religion as a blunt instrument to abuse women, of course.

Scott Morrison responded to the sexual abuse crisis in Australia’s parliament by making Amanda Stoker, a hard-right Christian and defender of misogyny, assistant minister for women. Stoker’s elevation is part of a right-wing campaign against women under the cloak of Christianity.

In fact it's a little bit consoling that there are some idiots in Australia who are just deluded, cruel and deranged as their American counterparts.

There has long been a push by churches in Australia to get their people elected, on both sides of politics. The over representation in parliament (both at state and commonwealth levels) of Catholics and various fundamentalist and moderate Protestant sects, as compared to their proportions in the wider electorate is stark, and growing.

Recently this trend has accelerated, and moved sharply towards the fundamentalist churches, notably in the person of Scott Morrison, whose religious faith appears to be a substitute for any kind of personality, empathy, or understanding of issues. He is an empty vessel into which his radical religion has been poured, and as a result is incapable of grasping the responsibilities of his position as PM.

At least Fred Nile is open and honest about his religious positions. The LNP and ALP god squad rarely are, and like to give the impression that their Christianity is a personal thing that has only mild and benign influence on their politics. And then they pass legislation putting a Christian chaplain in every school.

Australian voters don't respond well to overt and explicit religion. The ACL and their ilk have responded by white anting the system, knowing that honestly and openly revealing their agenda would harm their chances at the ballot box.

 

[Lion IRC]

Not that Au has any monopoly on conservatives using religion as a blunt instrument to abuse women, of course.

Scott Morrison responded to the sexual abuse crisis in Australia’s parliament by making Amanda Stoker, a hard-right Christian and defender of misogyny, assistant minister for women. Stoker’s elevation is part of a right-wing campaign against women under the cloak of Christianity.

In fact it's a little bit consoling that there are some idiots in Australia who are just deluded, cruel and deranged as their American counterparts.

A young woman gets a promotion to a government ministry position.
....and that's your evidence of misogyny?

Australian voters don't respond well to overt and explicit religion..

Yeah...that's why they re-elected a right wing conservative Christian.

Scott Morrison wins the unwinnable election.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-unwinnable-election-now-the-hard-part-begins

 

[bilby]

Nah, the most recent evidence of LNP misogyny is that they appointed Barnaby fucking Joyce to the Cabinet group on women's safety and security.

It's far from the only evidence, as you should know if you read the article linked in the OP, or even if you just had a passing interest in Australian government affairs (in every sense of the word).

And the voters elected Scotty from Marketing, the 'ordinary Aussie dad' - a fictional character, played in real life by Scott Morrison, rabid religious nutter.

You can fool some if the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.

 

[Patooka]

Yeah...that's why they re-elected a right wing conservative Christian.

That is such a gross oversimplification, I almost felt compelled to write this out in crayon.

Firstly, Scott Morrison was re-elected into jack fucking shit. The last Liberal Leader who was Prime Minister was Malcolm Turnbull. Who also wasn't re-elected incidentally.
Secondly, in a population of 25 million, 59,895 people "voted for Scott Morrison"
Thirdly, a strong argument can be made that Morrison won the election purely because Labor and Bob Brown from the Greens specifically fucked it up.
Lastly, once Australians started seeing how Morrison runs a government, his popularity has steadily been on the decline. Would you like me to bring up his superb management of the 2020 Bushfires again?

Morrison isn't Prime Minister because he is a fundamentalist Christian; he is Prime Minister in spite of it because most Australians don't give a shit.

And they fucking should.

 

[Patooka]

Nah, the most recent evidence of LNP misogyny is that they appointed Barnaby fucking Joyce to the Cabinet group on women's safety and security.

It's far from the only evidence, as you should know if you read the article linked in the OP, or even if you had a passing interest in Australian affairs (in every sense of the word).

And the voters elected Scotty from Marketing, the 'ordinary Aussie dad' - a fictional character, played in real life by Scott Morrison, rabid religious nutter.

You can fool some if the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.

I for one am curious what Julia Banks is going to say in her book.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah...that's why they re-elected a right wing conservative Christian.

That is such a gross oversimplification, I almost felt compelled to write this out in crayon.

...in a population of 25 million, 59,895 people "voted for Scott Morrison

You mean crayons for all the kids who help make up the 25 million? Are they the non-working, non-voting audience you're aiming at whilst trying to give me a lecture about gross oversimplification of electoral stats?

Are crayons needed for folks who can't tell the difference between re-electing a Prime Minister and the number of votes cast for an individual candidate in his own electorate?

You don't need crayons to understand that The Liberal-National Coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, won a majority in the House of Representatives with 77 of the 151 seats and 51.5 per cent of the national two-party preferred vote. That's 51.5% of 15 million voters - not 25 million. (Coz you seem confused)

There seems to be some confusion about what Aust voters think.

Australian voters don't respond well to overt and explicit religion...their agenda would harm their chances at the ballot box

...most Australians don't give a shit

Perhaps you should make a crayon picture to explain which is correct.

 

[Metaphor]

Nah, the most recent evidence of LNP misogyny is that they appointed Barnaby fucking Joyce to the Cabinet group on women's safety and security.

Is Barnaby Joyce somehow oppositional to women's safety and security? Or do you consider allegations sufficient to exclude him?

 

[Metaphor]

Firstly, Scott Morrison was re-elected into jack fucking shit. The last Liberal Leader who was Prime Minister was Malcolm Turnbull. Who also wasn't re-elected incidentally.
Secondly, in a population of 25 million, 59,895 people "voted for Scott Morrison"

This, Patooka, is a bullshit misleading statement and you know it. The Prime Minister in Australia is the leader of the party who controls the House of Representatives. Every single person who voted for a coalition candidate for their electorate did it in the context of knowing Scott Morrison was the leader of the Liberal party at the time.

 

[Patooka]

You mean crayons for all the kids who help make up the 25 million? Are they the non-working, non-voting audience you're aiming at whilst trying to give me a lecture about gross oversimplification of electoral stats?

You know what? You're right. That was an oversimplification on my part.

Are crayons needed for folks who can't tell the difference between re-electing a Prime Minister and the number of votes cast for an individual candidate in his own electorate?

In my opinion, yes. I don't subscribe to the Great Man Theory, and I also dislike tribal politics and that is pretty common in Australian politics. I can think of plenty of people who decide how to vote in a State Election by what is happening on a Federal level and I can think of a hell of a lot more people who vote in a Federal election solely because of who they want as Prime Minister.

You don't need crayons to understand that The Liberal-National Coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, won a majority in the House of Representatives with 77 of the 151 seats and 51.5 per cent of the national two-party preferred vote. That's 51.5% of 15 million voters - not 25 million. (Coz you seem confused)

I wasn't confused, I was being lazy. Thank you for clearing up the 25 million figure. And like most elections throughout the world, the 2019 Federal election wasn't won by any one thing. You seem convinced there was a collaborative effort amongst Australian voters to elect "a right wing conservative Christian". Not only that isn't the case, Morrison being a right wing conservative Christian was utterly meaningless in regards to the outcome. Labor taking the victory for granted and Bob Brown doing his fucking idiocy at the 11th hour in FNQ were much more significant factors. To provide an analogy to non-Aus forum members - Biden didn't so much win the election as Trump gave it to him for being such a colossal fuckup. Biden could've been a literal plank of wood with a smiley face on it and it would have shifted the final outcome maybe half a percentage point.

There seems to be some confusion about what Aust voters think.

Fuck, yeah. People can be confusing sometimes.

Australian voters don't respond well to overt and explicit religion...their agenda would harm their chances at the ballot box

...most Australians don't give a shit

Perhaps you should make a crayon picture to explain which is correct.

Not only that, I can provide a scenario where both statements are correct. Australians don't care about someone's specific religion unless they explicitly use it campaigning and for formation of policy.

 

[Patooka]

Firstly, Scott Morrison was re-elected into jack fucking shit. The last Liberal Leader who was Prime Minister was Malcolm Turnbull. Who also wasn't re-elected incidentally.
Secondly, in a population of 25 million, 59,895 people "voted for Scott Morrison"

This, Patooka, is a bullshit misleading statement and you know it. The Prime Minister in Australia is the leader of the party who controls the House of Representatives. Every single person who voted for a coalition candidate for their electorate did it in the context of knowing Scott Morrison was the leader of the Liberal party at the time.

Fair enough. It was a dickish point I was making.

 

[Lion IRC]

You know what? You're right. That was an oversimplification on my part.

In my opinion, yes. I don't subscribe to the Great Man Theory, and I also dislike tribal politics and that is pretty common in Australian politics. I can think of plenty of people who decide how to vote in a State Election by what is happening on a Federal level and I can think of a hell of a lot more people who vote in a Federal election solely because of who they want as Prime Minister.

You don't need crayons to understand that The Liberal-National Coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, won a majority in the House of Representatives with 77 of the 151 seats and 51.5 per cent of the national two-party preferred vote. That's 51.5% of 15 million voters - not 25 million. (Coz you seem confused)

I wasn't confused, I was being lazy. Thank you for clearing up the 25 million figure. And like most elections throughout the world, the 2019 Federal election wasn't won by any one thing. You seem convinced there was a collaborative effort amongst Australian voters to elect "a right wing conservative Christian". Not only that isn't the case, Morrison being a right wing conservative Christian was utterly meaningless in regards to the outcome. Labor taking the victory for granted and Bob Brown doing his fucking idiocy at the 11th hour in FNQ were much more significant factors. To provide an analogy to non-Aus forum members - Biden didn't so much win the election as Trump gave it to him for being such a colossal fuckup. Biden could've been a literal plank of wood with a smiley face on it and it would have shifted the final outcome maybe half a percentage point.

There seems to be some confusion about what Aust voters think.

Fuck, yeah. People can be confusing sometimes.

Australian voters don't respond well to overt and explicit religion...their agenda would harm their chances at the ballot box

...most Australians don't give a shit

Perhaps you should make a crayon picture to explain which is correct.

View attachment 34361

Not only that, I can provide a scenario where both statements are correct. Australians don't care about someone's specific religion unless they explicitly use it campaigning and for formation of policy.

Dickish? Meh.
Trolling? Nah.

The quality of the discussion comes from robust contention and asserting/defending your position. It's a two way street. Muzzling one side of the discussion is the thing which disrupts threads. Asymmetric rules of engagement is what "degrades the quality of discussion".

I'm a big boy. I can take as good as I give. It takes more than crayon sarcasm or angry sweary posts to trigger me.

 

[Elixir]

I'm a big boy. I can take as good as I give. It takes more than crayon sarcasm or angry sweary posts to trigger me.

Hmmm. You never recognized that the conclusion of the article you represented indicates that pain sensation in a fetus cannot begin prior to 24 weeks, and that article's summar conclusion strongly states that the pain pathways very likely don't awaken until after birth.
Science isn't something you seem able to "take" at all, even when you reference it yourself before reading what you cite.

Just sayin', all this talk about constructive discussion and worthwhile dialog is all very well, but you have to walk the walk or talk is just talk.

 

[Tigers!]

Not that Au has any monopoly on conservatives using religion as a blunt instrument to abuse women, of course.

Scott Morrison responded to the sexual abuse crisis in Australia’s parliament by making Amanda Stoker, a hard-right Christian and defender of misogyny, assistant minister for women. Stoker’s elevation is part of a right-wing campaign against women under the cloak of Christianity.

In fact it's a little bit consoling that there are some idiots in Australia who are just deluded, cruel and deranged as their American counterparts.

If I wanted an intellectually rigorous, comprehensive and coherent account of the 'cloak' of Christianity in Australia the Jacobin rag, sorry mag, would not be my first port of call.

 

[Elixir]

Not that Au has any monopoly on conservatives using religion as a blunt instrument to abuse women, of course.

Scott Morrison responded to the sexual abuse crisis in Australia’s parliament by making Amanda Stoker, a hard-right Christian and defender of misogyny, assistant minister for women. Stoker’s elevation is part of a right-wing campaign against women under the cloak of Christianity.

In fact it's a little bit consoling that there are some idiots in Australia who are just deluded, cruel and deranged as their American counterparts.

If I wanted an intellectually rigorous, comprehensive and coherent account of the 'cloak' of Christianity in Australia the Jacobin rag, sorry mag, would not be my first port of call.

What would be your first choice for a source on the subject?

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm a big boy. I can take as good as I give. It takes more than crayon sarcasm or angry sweary posts to trigger me.

Hmmm. You never recognized that the conclusion of the article you represented indicates that pain sensation in a fetus cannot begin prior to 24 weeks, and that article's summar conclusion strongly states that the pain pathways very likely don't awaken until after birth.
Science isn't something you seem able to "take" at all, even when you reference it yourself before reading what you cite.

Just sayin', all this talk about constructive discussion and worthwhile dialog is all very well, but you have to walk the walk or talk is just talk.

Cherries are delicious though, and that is how you pick them.

 

[Tigers!]

If I wanted an intellectually rigorous, comprehensive and coherent account of the 'cloak' of Christianity in Australia the Jacobin rag, sorry mag, would not be my first port of call.

What would be your first choice for a source on the subject?

A variety of sources. I didn't say i would not look at Jacobin, just that it would not be my only or first source.
Talk to the MPs in question, talk to Christian organisations, secular etc.

Always remembering Matt 7:16 and the Russian proverb "Trust but verify"

 

[Patooka]

That's a very eloquent non-answer. Did you even read the article? It's on par with what has been reported throughout Australian media. The one thing it didn't cover was Linda Reynold's shitty handling of Brittany Higgins' claim. Or how much of a vile cunt George Christensen really was before he fucked off into oblivion. Apart from that, what it reported was accurate.

 

[J842P]

Just so y'all know, I'm earnestly trying to follow along. But my only frame of reference for this discussion is:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JQK4bH0J-o[/YOUTUBE]

 

[bilby]

Just so y'all know, I'm earnestly trying to follow along. But my only frame of reference for this discussion is:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JQK4bH0J-o[/YOUTUBE]

That's pretty accurate. That local MP is now leader of the National Party, and Deputy PM; And no Australian drinks Fosters - our PM would drink Tooheys New* but otherwise, it's close to perfect.





Though allegedly he doesn't drink quite as much since a notable unfortunate mishap at Engadine McDonalds during the '97 NRL Grand Final