…and this is a 
The atheism conference in Australia is going to be huge (note the logo in the left sidebar here), with attendance in the thousands, a swarm of speakers, etc. It's fairly typical for regions to support that kind of influx of tourist dollars into their economies; they want to encourage more visitors. Strangely, though, while the conference leadership has applied for government support in this project, there has been no word yet.
Hmmmm.
Now you might be thinking that this sort of enterprise should be entirely self-supporting, which is true. But then again, consider similar sorts of events with a religious goal, like the Parliament of World Religions or Catholic Youth Day, to which the Australian government has cheerfully provided assistance. There seems to be something unfair going on here.
It seems to me that there are only two consistent positions to take here. Either there will be an equitable distribution of government support to all such conventions, or there will be no support for any of them. If there is to be no assistance to the Global Atheist Convention, then I should hope that the Australian government will also immediately withdraw all funds that would have gone to the religious conventions they've been propping up.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: vanharris
|
October 16, 2009 10:08 AM
"Advance Australia Fair". Apparently, not.
Posted by: Raiko
|
October 16, 2009 10:22 AM
Even though I could choose to have it sent to Germany, I never received mine, either.
Posted by: PaleGreenPants
|
October 16, 2009 10:23 AM
But atheism isn't a religion, right? So it shouldn't receive benefits that religions do.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
October 16, 2009 10:24 AM
I don't quite agree with this. There is a pragmatic and legitimate purpose for government to promote these sorts of conventions (as you say, tourism, service industry, etc.) but one can think of conventions that the government would be fine not supporting. The Global White Supremacy Conference might be one of those...
The problem is not so much that the Australian government is discriminating; it's that they are discriminating in a shitty and inappropriate way.
(I recognize that libertarians and other folks who believe the government should make absolutely no judgment on issues outside its direct jurisdiction will disagree with me... to which I can just say, well, I disagree.)
Posted by: PaleGreenPants
|
October 16, 2009 10:24 AM
...course, neither should religions.
Posted by: Raiko
|
October 16, 2009 10:28 AM
Sorry for the comment above - it was meant for the entry on the creationist booklet. Somehow, I ended up here after some loading/singing in problems with TypePad.
Posted by: sorceror171
|
October 16, 2009 10:31 AM
James Sweet - The problem is, you can't trust the government to exercise that discretion appropriately. You don't think the government should support racism. Meanwhile, some people already in government think, well, the direct opposite.
That's why we don't want the government to have that kind of discretion. Equal availability for all, or no deal. Anything else just invites abuse.
Posted by: allen
|
October 16, 2009 10:33 AM
James #4 - I think you make a good point but the government's actions give the appearance of mallice towards those of no religion. If the government is going to financially support people and groups with a religious message that the group claims is peaceful (by the way, i think it can be shown that many 'religious' messages are not peaceful but, rather, spread hate and discrimination), then they should offer the same support to people and groups with a peaceful non-religious message. To me this screams discrimination against people who don't believe in god. If government insists on discriminatory financial policy, then they should just stick to their direct jurisdiction and stay out of religion or the lack there of altogether, but I think that is an unrealistic goal, currently.
Does anyone know what department in the Australian government to contact? Maybe a few words from around the globe would help them see a new perspective.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 16, 2009 10:34 AM
300 bucks a pop for the conference is a hefty fee, you'd think if there will be thousands of visitors that they wouldn't need government support to finance the thing.
The fact that australian governments like to support religious occasions but struggle with supporting non-religious ones is of course something worth publicising and mentioning.
Posted by: Kane148
|
October 16, 2009 10:37 AM
@ #9
Yeah I think that's the point - not that they need the money, but rather that the government should be helping them, if it is to help anyone.
Posted by: abigblackman
|
October 16, 2009 10:46 AM
It could be they are just waiting for the outcome of the Evangelicals and the Aussie sex party to see which side to support?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/aussie_party_satanism/
Posted by: PaleGreenPants
|
October 16, 2009 10:47 AM
#10
Well, only poor people get welfare (ideally). We may not want to paint with too broad a brush here.
Though, I am loathe to think that religions don't have plenty enough money.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 16, 2009 10:59 AM
That's not what the US religionists say when they whine about evolution being atheistic and hence that it shouldn't be allowed in science class because of US rules on not having religion in schools.
Don't the Australians have a law about discriminating against people on the basis of their religion or lack of religion? (The UK version does explicitly include that clause to make the intent clear.)
Posted by: James Sweet
|
October 16, 2009 11:15 AM
This is the position where I said "We just disagree" :) I used to roughly feel the way you do. I have since come to the conclusion that a society in which we don't allow elected officials to exercise some degree of discretion is simply not realistic. Isn't the government exercising discretion when they choose where to build a highway? What laws to make? Which tax deductions to allow? etc., etc., and on and on.
Of course, there are some things where we specifically forbid the government from exercising any sort of discretion whatsoever (see also, Bill of Rights). But I don't see this as one of them.
That said, when our elected officials exercise poor discretion, we should hold them to the flames... which brings us to:
Yeah, exactly. I'm not troubled by the fact that the Australian government is discriminating amongst potential conference holders. I have an issue with the fact that they are discriminating improperly, unfairly, and with clear prejudicial preference for some types of legitimate beliefs over others.
In my example of the White Supremacist Conference, it is simple to articulate compelling secular reasons why the Australian government might not want to lend them a hand. Not so much for the Global Atheist Convention...
Posted by: James Sweet
|
October 16, 2009 11:23 AM
To respond further to sorceror171... Let me address specifically the case you link to, that of the asshole Lousiana judge who refuses to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples.
Clearly the guy is a racist fuck. And also, I think it's quite clear that the government ought to allow gay marriage, because there is no compelling secular reason to forbid it. (And numerous compelling secular reasons to sanction it... rarely does a political issue come along where the correct course of action is so abundantly clear..! but I digress..)
But does that mean we don't want the government exercising discretion in choosing who can marry whom? Of course not --unless you oppose all age of consent legislation.
So we have three choices here:
1) The dictatorial governments of the past where the government just decides who can marry whom on arbitrary whims, like this racist fuck in Louisiana
2) A nigh-anarchic libertarian system of government where NAMBLA gets everything they ever wanted
or 3) A democratic republic where we hope our elected officials will make reasonable choices about who can marry whom (i.e. any two consenting adults -- I am going to put aside the issue of polygamy for the moment because it is a messy issue), and if our officials fail to exercise this discretion appropriately, we call them the bigoted racist lying assholes that they are, and hope that the masses of ignoramuses who are deceived by folks like Glenn Beck will be outvoted in the next election.
None of those options are hugely appealing, but I think #3 is clearly the best choice. Is there a fourth option I am missing?
Posted by: geesuss.wordpress.com
|
October 16, 2009 11:39 AM
You can email the Victorian Premier's Office - premier@dpc.vic.gov.au
James Sweet, we have the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act yep, so religion is given the same standing as race.
The Act does not define what 'vilification' actually is, but says that you cannot incite hatred, severe contempt or severe ridicule against someone on the basis of their race or religion. There is an exemption for religious discussion 'done reasonably and in good faith'.
Posted by: sorceror171
|
October 16, 2009 11:46 AM
James Sweet - You jumped from my saying "we don't want the government to have that kind of discretion" (emphasis added) to implying that I'm calling for "a society in which we don't allow elected officials to exercise some [any?] degree of discretion".
Not allowing particular kinds of discretion is different from not allowing any discretion.
If governments are going to be making decisions about what conventions to fund, then religion - or lack thereof - should not be a consideration. They might have "discretion" to decide based on economic factors (How likely is the convention to bring visitors and money? Will a racist convention reduce future tourism dollars or disrupt public order?) and such considerations, but not religion.
I'd say that that's "where we specifically forbid the government from exercising any sort of discretion whatsoever". Which is not what the Australian government appears to be doing. We agree on that, and even on some of the principles that we use to reach that decision... but apparently not all of them.
Posted by: geesuss.wordpress.com
|
October 16, 2009 11:48 AM
Theres no need to speculate over whether atheists are eligible for funding. We are, you can read the requirements for any group here
The Convention meets the requirements for funding and yet we have not even received a reply letting us know why they are ignoring us.
That's it. As PZ stated.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 16, 2009 11:52 AM
I'm going to write a letter to Jon Faine at the ABC about this, maybe we can have a public discussion on it and make Mr Brumby or KR explain whats going on. Unless Russell Blackford has already done that.
Posted by: Jessie
|
October 16, 2009 11:54 AM
I can't afford to go to Australia so I contacted the organisers to see if the conference would be viewable online, for a subscription. As it is being run on a tight budget, there are no plans to do this but I imagine they would reconsider this if there were sufficient interest. It could certainly help with the funding.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 16, 2009 11:54 AM
It doesn't even have to involve money. Several years back, the Atheist Alliance International had its annual convention in Colorado Springs, and they requested a 'letter of welcome' from the Mayor. This is I guess standard practice with conventions, and it had never been refused. But the Mayor turned them down, explaining that he felt that the presence of atheists on Easter weekend was offensive to people of faith, and a deliberate slap in their face. Or words to that effect.
This turned into a big stink, with, surprisingly, a lot of support coming from residents themselves. In Colorado Springs, the intolerant conservative Bible thumpers are evidently balanced off by open-minded new-agey hippies, leaving the live-and-let-live Christians in the middle, to break the tie. A member of their city council came, on his own, to welcome us in person.
So I ended up going back later, with my husband, for a vacation. Had the mayor's response gone without local rebuttal, no way would I have done so.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
October 16, 2009 12:00 PM
sorceror171 -- Alright, sorry, I think I misunderstood you :)
I don't know anything about Australia's laws, so I am going to just pretend for a second that this is happening in America. If it were, then yeah, I agree that one could make a strong Establishment Clause case against the government's exercise of discretion on this issue. It is conceivable the gov't could present a compelling secular reason for the discrimination (e.g. if the atheism conference was too small to warrant attention, which it seems like is not the case, but I'm just speaking hypothetically) but the outlook for the gov't in such a case would not be very positive.
I guess the cause of the misunderstanding is how each of us parsed PZ's phrase "all such conventions" (emph. removed). What are "such conventions"? If by that he means all conventions regarding religion, then I more or less agree. I initially took it to mean all conventions gathering people with similar ideologies or interests, in which case I would have to disagree, for the reasons I stated.
Posted by: Davo
|
October 16, 2009 12:13 PM
The convention is seriously going to rock, everyone here is really looking forward to getting together with others across our country, and of course from overseas. Top notch locals, same with those from coming over the oceans (like the tentacled one;) it should be a blast.
I don't know why we haven't received a reply as yet, others in the committee have been make regular contacts trying to get an answer and just nothing, literally no reply.
So it's up in the air, it could just be taking extraordinarily long to get around to making a decision (over 4 months) .. who knows as yet.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
October 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Huh... maybe they are in serious CYA mode, because they realize they can't refuse -- but they also know that they will get lots of shit from the "admitting that atheists exist is hate speech!" crowd..?
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 16, 2009 1:23 PM
As I see it, the government has discretion about where to spend its money, and if it spends it (or refrains from doing so) in a way that sends an innapropriate or prejudiced message or is impractical, then the citizens can make their voices heard and change things by voting, sending letters, etc. In this case, the government is sending and innapropriate message by protraying the religious and their conventions as better than the atheist equivalent. It is also possibly not spending money in a way that would be profitable by increasing tourism, which would be bad policy. So it would be good for the government, Australians, Atheists, and equality for them to fund the thing.
That said, if they have a legit reason not to fund it, they should say what it is and I'll stop complaining.
Posted by: shonny
|
October 16, 2009 1:27 PM
Oh, don't forget that little Ruddy, although a lot better than his predecessor, the shrub suppository, is a godfucker.
He has done some honourable things, like that 'Sorry' bit to the Aborigines, but he is also a regular church-goer which puts him in the superstitious category.
Also, why have the convention in Oz, why not in the civilised part of the world (i.e. Europe)?
Posted by: shonny
|
October 16, 2009 1:31 PM
Oh, and my apologies to all civilised Aussies, all three of you :^)
Posted by: 386sx
|
October 16, 2009 3:57 PM
Oh wow, an atheist convention. Yeah, that's gonna be huge. I hope somebody remembers to bring the the skeeter spray! Don't forget the charcoal! Jiffy Pop too! Wow.
Posted by: 386sx
|
October 16, 2009 4:10 PM
How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb? None, because they don't believe in it. And besides, they can't because all five of them are at the atheist convention.
Posted by: MadScientist | October 16, 2009 4:52 PM
1. When was funding applied for?
2. How long does it typically take to hear back?
3. Is someone nagging the right people? In Australia if you're not breathing down someone's neck all the time nothing gets done (well, not quite true - there are competent people around, they're just damn rare).
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
October 16, 2009 5:03 PM
I was not aware the Australia claimed to have any separation of church and state.
I'm not trying to be snarky. I agree that it's unfair, but I doubt that is in any way illegal. Unless Australia has acquired a constitution in place of Parliamentary Sovereignty (or whatever the concept is), it's down the voters to punish their candidates for wasting public funds.
Posted by: RobertDW | October 16, 2009 5:15 PM
The article in question doesn't say that funding has been denied - it says they haven't heard back yet. Which means its lost in the public service.
The religious groups, like the World Youth Day, get their funding because they lobby. They get in the face of the politicians, who then push the paperwork through the process. However, anyone can prod public servants - all it takes is a willingness to spend a lot of time on the phone.
Sili: We have a constitution. It prohibits the Federal Government from "making any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion." Which means we don't get, say, Xian propaganda on our currency.
Posted by: avault
|
October 16, 2009 5:20 PM
You can ask Brumby and Rudd about it, but all they'll say is that they weren't involved.
World youth day was funded by the NSW govt (not the federal govt), and this conference is in VIC.
Posted by: avault
|
October 16, 2009 5:24 PM
Also, the NSW gave world youth day money because it brought 100 000s of people to NSW. So there was an economic benefit to it. I doubt this conference will bring in the same kind of tourist dollars.
I was far more concerned about the laws that NSW passed about "annoying pilgrims etc" than I was about the actual money that was spent
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
October 16, 2009 6:01 PM
At a federal level we do, the constitution had freedom of religion written into it while they decided not to put freedom of speech in there (they felt it implicit in the system of government we have).The government shouldn't support this just like they shouldn't have supported World Youth Day. It would be nice to have recognition, but I won't lose any sleep over them not.
Despite the hefty price tag, I'm looking forward to the conference. Really looking forward to the Friday night dinner.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | October 16, 2009 7:16 PM
Everyone should bear in mind that it's the Victorian government, not the Australian government that they should write to.
Although I blogged about this yesterday, I haven't yet written to the government - yesterday turned out a bit messy for me. But even if I had, that doesn't mean anyone else should be holding back.
Also, if you do write you might be careful not to follow too closely what I wrote on my own blog. It was the NSW government that gave money for World Youth Day. So, although this makes the point about how governments in general in Australia are keen to subsidise religion, it's not something we can blame the Victorian government for.
I'm glad to see you airing this issue, PZ.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
October 17, 2009 1:02 AM
Hey, just came back from Mt Ainslie, were any other Pharynguloids there? Nice peaceful demo, with the gay, wiccan, atheists and other friends crowd singing "we are one but we are many", and my friend Ms Heidi von Hottentot in her finest burlesque gear, and gay boys snogging. And sour faces on the loons. Whee!
This is the story.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26216296-12377,00.html
BTW, the "blood sacrifice" is rust streaks at the bottom of the telecoms pole.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 17, 2009 1:24 AM
One of my mates was talking about going, but personally I couldn't be bothered bothering the God-botherers.
Posted by: Warren | October 17, 2009 3:58 AM
It's actually quite possible this is just standard bureaucratic shenanigans. Anyone who has applied to local, state or federal governments for grants of any flavour could attest to the entirely arbitrary decision making process they seem top engage in. I knew of a history group doing a social history of their region that applied for a grant to help pay for the publication of their research, under a cultural grant scheme. They didn't get it, the winner was a group requesting road grading on a back road to a community hall. The grants officer questioned whether social history fell under the banner of the culture grant.
Posted by: Warren | October 17, 2009 4:05 AM
Oh and I will be there with bells on with my whole family, and numerous friends. We'll be travelling 2000kms to do this and spending money we don't have but it will be worth every cent and moment. Thanks for coming PZ, with Dawkins, Barker and Grayling it's hell of a line up. There'll also be an all women panel discussion with some of our best and brightest, which I'm probably looking forward to the most. ~It has Tanya Levin, Leslie Cannold, Jane Caro and Lyn Allison. Extremely cool.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 17, 2009 6:24 AM
Shonny - What do I think of European Civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea.* - DJ
------------
*(Apologies to M Gandhi)
Posted by: Sean the Blogonaut | October 17, 2009 8:20 AM
The Victorian government is funding the Parliament of world Religions to the tune of 4.5 million AUD and its expected to attract 8000 delegates.
The Global Atheist Convention is expecting around 2500 delegates(1000 of which have sold in three weeks). The convention is viable and its just over a quarter of the size of the Religious love fest. So while its not necessary, the convention will be self funded, it would be nice to have support from the government for helping shore up a secular society :)
Posted by: Moshe Reuveni
|
October 17, 2009 5:15 PM
The Victoria government is happily sponsoring many major events, but experience shows these events have to qualify through certain criteria of theirs.
The first criteria is that the event needs to be a vote earner. That usually means that if you want money for your event, you need to make it a sporting event (e.g., the MotoGP taking place today).
The second criteria is that the event needs to be one that the powers that be can show off with before their mates. As in, bang on their chests and demonstrate how cool and powerful they are. Show off.
For example, they have paid millions in order to bring Tiger Woods to Victoria this year, and they keep on paying (and losing) tens of millions each year to bring the Formula 1 circus to town each year.
I regret to say our convention doesn't qualify with either criteria, therefore we should not expect a cent.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | October 17, 2009 8:12 PM
Moshe is probably correct, but if it turns out to be like that we need to make a fuss about it. Why, exactly, is it okay to throw public money at the Parliament of the World's religions but not at the Global Atheist Convention, which is not all that dissimilar in its projected size and in its ability to bring lots of people to Melbourne?
Posted by: Rorschach | October 18, 2009 7:56 PM
Russell,
I have an email from Jon Faine at the ABC stating he is interested in the matter.I gave their producer the link to the convention website, so hopefully this will get some more press attention now.
Posted by: Jason
|
October 19, 2009 1:03 AM
I'll be there whether funding emerges or not. We're trying to organise, among other things, a bloggers' side-event and a podcasters' side event. Something will get posted to my blog and/or facebook and/or twitterstream when we have more info on that.
And most evenings I suspect we'll be at the 1806 Cocktail Bar - the *finest* cocktail bar in the known universe bar none. Join us.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 19, 2009 1:11 AM
What's the requirement for this? Can any old blogger be involved?Posted by: Rorschach | October 19, 2009 9:38 AM
Walk to Exhibition Street from Crown? I dont think so.
And who is this "us" you speak of? PZ, the redhead, me and the pharyngulites will be drinking somewhere closer to home methinks LOL.
Posted by: John | November 26, 2009 1:26 AM
The funding has been officially rejected. Legal team start growling.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/atheists-cross-as-religious-forum-secures-taxpayer-funding-20091126-jste.html
Posted by: wardsie | November 26, 2009 6:17 AM
Comment #26 by shonny
Went to Europe once...it was closed.
boomboom