Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
From a neutral point of view all that is true is that conditions have been right for life far less often than they have been wrong, so their being right once can well be ascribed to chance, and not seen as calling for any further explanation.
J.L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 141.
I think I despise anti-environmentalists as much as I do anti-evolutionists
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« In which I am compared to Einstein | Main | Hmmm. Maybe I should cultivate some dreadlocks »
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: November 7, 2007 8:00 AM, by PZ Myers
It's too bad that this is for the Secular Party of Australia. I'd like to see the Democrats run an ad like this here. Can you imagine the meltdown in the media?
Find more posts in: 
Politics
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
I'd send this to everyone I know, except that I'd only know two people after that.
Posted by: Saber | November 7, 2007 8:06 AM
Cool! Sadly they're not a major party. But maybe secular aussies can help get them balance of power in the Senate. That's bother the god botherers.
Posted by: Brian English | November 7, 2007 8:11 AM
Wow, I must be pretty ignorant of my own country's politics. How else could it be that the first time I hear of a political party in Australia that I would be interested in voting for happens whilst reading a US blog?
Posted by: Bartlett | November 7, 2007 8:12 AM
Yes, I'm aware of this party and will be voting for them, and directing preferences to the Climate Change Coalition. Yay, pity none of them will ever get in. :)
Posted by: Brendon Brewer | November 7, 2007 8:16 AM
Well, if I were Australian, they'd get my vote for using the music of the truly awesome Muse.
Posted by: andy | November 7, 2007 8:17 AM
Ive found my Senate vote in OZ. So sick to death of these dumbass liberal god loving dimwits. Howard has always pissed me off. oh and i Love Chasers War on Everything. :)
Posted by: Quinx | November 7, 2007 8:49 AM
Huh. John Perkins, president of the Secular Party of Australia, asserts that wearing burqas publically is an unreasonable imposition of muslim religious beliefs upon non-muslims because it enforces a one-way barrier to ordinary communication. Presumably by this assertion he means he wants to stop it. Here's the article
http://www.secular.org.au/articles/PM_wrong2.html
This is a little extreme I think. Given the choice, if muslim women want to wear a great big sheet over their heads, let them. What's really ridiculous though is when they get their I.D photo taken while wearing it, although I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen in Australia.
Posted by: Bartlett | November 7, 2007 8:50 AM
For a real media meltdown, imagine of one the more rational republicans† ran an ad like that?
I'd still want to know what their specific politices and proposals are before voting for them (excepting tactical voting and other such games).
† I haven't live in the States for decades. When I did, there were a few republicans politicians who didn't appear to be batshite, crazy, and/or a lunatic. I assume that is still the case, albeit (from this distance) they are very hard to spot.
Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 8:54 AM
Kucinich really needs to run something like that. I think he may be too busy pretending to be catholic or whatever other religion he pretends to subscribe to.
Posted by: ilya zlatkovsky | November 7, 2007 9:17 AM
While that ad is really poorly produced, I couldn't agree more with its message. Maybe they would have better luck if they hired a pricier ad agency.
What's interesting is that we're discussing "major" and "minor" parties in Australian politics. In American politics, there's one party of jackasses and the other party of slightly-almost-imperceptibly-less jackasses. It doesn't leave the average American voter much to work with, does it?
Posted by: Alex | November 7, 2007 9:31 AM
Bravo. On an unrelated note, did anyone happen to catch Ted Kennedy's speech totally blasting Michael Mukasey? It was priceless.
Posted by: zer0 | November 7, 2007 9:48 AM
Regarding the production quality of the video, it should be pointed out that members have been making these videos themselves, for free.
To Bartlett - it's not that surprising you haven't heard of us, we're still a small party and this is the first time we're running candidates in an election. Wait another three years though and we'll see what kind of position we're in then. That said, if we've got a candidate in your state or territory then there should be an ad somewhere in your local newspaper today.
-Ash (Senate candidate for South Australia, Secular Party)
Posted by: Ash | November 7, 2007 9:50 AM
Because of the potential for misunderstandings I'll just mention that in Australia Liberal means conservative.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | November 7, 2007 10:02 AM
Ah, the "Everyone is a Strawman But Me" party. Classy.
Myers, you're selling your credibility cheap, my friend.
Posted by: wnelson | November 7, 2007 10:28 AM
Because of the potential for misunderstandings I'll just mention that in Australia Liberal means conservative.
I believe it has something to do with the Cariolis effect. It affects the way politicians spin.
Posted by: HP | November 7, 2007 10:41 AM
Muse? Why golly gee, I thought it was Radiohead!
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 7, 2007 10:43 AM
It may seem hard to believe, boys and girls, but once, a long time ago, trolls occasionally made some token effort to appear as if they were making a coherent argument.
Strange, but true.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 10:56 AM
Possibly the funniest thing I've read in a long while!
Posted by: TH | November 7, 2007 11:15 AM
Hey Ash, if you are still reading comments here can you clarify for us what the Secular Parties stance on Muslim women choosing to wear their burqa's in public is?
Posted by: B.B | November 7, 2007 11:18 AM
Do you happen to know the name of the song? I must have it.
Posted by: syntyche | November 7, 2007 11:54 AM
Nope, it's MUSE - Apocalypse Please.
Posted by: Michael | November 7, 2007 12:06 PM
Nancy Pelosi would introduce a condemnation resolution against anyone who dared show an ad like this in America.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | November 7, 2007 12:23 PM
Not at the moment, not really. I should point out two things - Although I have the full support of the Secular Party, technically I am running as an independent as the Party is not yet a registered political party, so I am allowed some independence from the party's view,
Secondly, it's 3.30am here so I can't really get in touch with the party bigwigs and ask them to explain themselves in more detail.
Personally, I don't care what anybody chooses to wear or for what reason. We wouldn't tell people they couldn't wear a burqa or veil or anything else because they wanted to, so we can't do the same just because it's for religious reasons. It could be seen as a difficult problem however, if one person thinks beliefs are being imposed on them due to someone wearing a burqa, hence violating their religious freedom, does that make it ok to violate the other's freedom by forcing them to remove the burqa? (I would say no, personally)
It's a bit too late at night for me to make much more sense than that. There's a related article on religious attire and school uniforms here: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/etc/Submissions/dress_codes/secularpartyofaustralia080607.pdf
"The wearing of crosses, hijabs, yarmulkas, or turbans, by adults, are necessary expressions of religious freedom"
Make of that what you will. I will try to get a more official answer once the sun is up.
In case it isn't obvious by now I'm new to the politics game, but I guess I should state that everything here is my own opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the party's view, or something like that.
Posted by: Ash | November 7, 2007 12:28 PM
Nancy Pelosi should be bonked a thousand times with a clue-by-four and then tossed out on her ear. First female Speaker, blah blah blah, but she clearly despises the very people who got her into office (the democratic base). Kick her out.
Posted by: stogoe | November 7, 2007 12:52 PM
If there's anyone from Sydney around here, don't be shy and come along to some heathen meetups...
Sydney Atheists: atheists.meetup.com/524
Skeptics in the Pub: skeptics.com.au/events/inthepub.htm
These groups don't have anything to do with the Secular Party, but Ian Bryce and John August (the two Secular candidates for NSW) are often in attendance so it's a great way to get your questions answered. Either way, they are always fun nights!
And thanks for giving Australian secularism some publicity PZ :)
Posted by: Mike Inside | November 7, 2007 1:00 PM
I recently heard a Q&A with the Dalai Lama and when asked what the first thing he'd do were he given the power to create the modern Tibet said that he'd ban religion from government as each one can only lessen the other. It's clear that a fervent belief in a divinity does not require that there be no wisdom. Let's hope sentiments like that take wing.
Posted by: doug l | November 7, 2007 1:03 PM
I wish I was Autralian :-)
Posted by: Kris Verburgh | November 7, 2007 1:19 PM
You know, I don't like it. I mean, I'd vote for 'em if I had the option (not in my area, sadly), but why do parties I like have to pick a name that basically screams "one-issue, don't take me seriously"? Why can't you be a real party that also happens to be rational and secular?
...of course, I favour the name "the Bloody Angry Party", so I'm probably not the best person to be whining about names that people don't take seriously. :P
To our oppressed comrades in the Americanian Empire: see, this is an example of what you can do with preferential voting. We can protest vote. I can vote for teeny tiny parties like this as #1, and vote for my mainstream has-a-chance as my #2. If the little party can't win after the first count, my vote stays alive and I still get a "real" vote. It's not wasted.
But if this little teeny tiny party gets a heap of those first votes, suddenly it can get some senators, and some traction. New parties can start, and one day get the power to suck up to larger countries! People can actually vote for the folk they want to vote for instead of being forced to vote for one of the two options they think everyone else will vote for - which, of course, everyone else *will* vote for because they, too, have to worry about who everyone else will vote for. Round and round it goes, two parties, no real options. "Gee I hope the one party I can actually vote for does what I want it to do..."
:/
Choice = democracy.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | November 7, 2007 1:58 PM
The good news is: that's not the best part of the song. That's not the best song on the album. And that's not their best album.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 2:06 PM
And, if the major parties are closely matched, power massively disproportionate to its size.
On balance, I overwhelmingly favour PR, but it has its down sides.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 2:09 PM
Don't most parties have names that scream one issue? Republican, Democratic, Labour, Green, etc. It's just eventually the name becomes more associated with the party than the issue.
Posted by: poke | November 7, 2007 4:19 PM
I'm voting for the entire Greens ticket in the Senate, or I'd preference these guys and the Climate Change Coalition (Senator Karl? I'd love to see that).
Posted by: Mick | November 8, 2007 12:52 AM
The link is broken, but you can still find the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GpauCMf5D8
Posted by: JM | November 8, 2007 12:57 AM
If they get votes for the Aussie Diaspora, I will vote for them. Until then I can't.
Posted by: reason | November 8, 2007 4:09 AM
On the voting ticket, the secular party are
Section J:
Ian Bryce
John August
The preference flow for each party if you vote "1" above the line is at http://aec.gov.au/pdf/elections/2007/gvt/NSW_2007_gvt.pdf
Obviously you can pick your own preferences if you vote below the line.
Posted by: the great and powerful oz | November 8, 2007 4:16 AM
They are only a newly formed political party. But they are GROWING at a fast rate. I suggest keeping an eye on them in the NEXT election, they may really make a splash.
Also please note: the voting tickets are different in each state
For info go to: http://www.secular.org.au/HowToVoteSecular.pdf
Posted by: Secular Aussie | November 8, 2007 11:28 PM
Smelly Terror
Yes Preferential Voting is definitely a good thing. As is (oddly) compulsory voting (the opinions of the apathetic middle being just a valuable of those of committed loonies). The problem is of course, that the status quo is supported by those in power, so there is no obvious way it is going to change. You need something like the German "Burgherinitiative" (citizens referendum) process to bootstrap such changes into other countries. Australia was just lucky with the time its democracy developed.
Posted by: reason | November 9, 2007 4:51 AM
oops .
Should read .. being just as valuable as those of committed (in the sense of dedicated) loonies ...
I seem to have developed some strange aversion to the word as. tic, tic...
Posted by: reason | November 9, 2007 4:55 AM