(no subject)
I know everyone's caught up in Rudd fever at the moment, but I just wanna say, Julia Gillard, fuck yeah!
Been waiting for this for a long time. It's a shame she didn't get the actual leadership, but if she bides her time, and steps ever so softly, maybe Rudd'll get hit by a bus then everything will be sweet.
For anyone actually interested, Rudd's article in a recent Monthly was totally overrated. He was calling for the reemergence of a secular politik that still felt the influence of Christian humanism. Except it was all a bit pox.
Of course humanist Christians want their religion and beliefs to inform their ideology, but that's really neither here nor there. I want my atheism to inform mine, but I don't have to go around shouting my dogma for all to hear (even though I do).
The article itself wasn't terrible, but I was unlucky enough to read it at the same time as I was looking over an excerpt of the US Dems' wunderkind Barack Obama's new book. Basically the same threads of thought, but expressed infinitely more thoughtfully.
Whereas I read Rudd's piece with (slight) admiration but a touch of disconnectedness; that Rudd feels that his religion-fueled ideology is the correct one, and it'd be quite nice if he can make everything fit in with that, Obama's piece was far more more inclusive. Obama argued, conversely, that rather than religion informing ideology or vice-versa, the two go hand-in-hand.
That's a pretty stunted analysis, but what I'm trying to say is that Rudd ain't the second coming. Still a damn sight better than Beazley though, so let's go Labor.
Been waiting for this for a long time. It's a shame she didn't get the actual leadership, but if she bides her time, and steps ever so softly, maybe Rudd'll get hit by a bus then everything will be sweet.
For anyone actually interested, Rudd's article in a recent Monthly was totally overrated. He was calling for the reemergence of a secular politik that still felt the influence of Christian humanism. Except it was all a bit pox.
Of course humanist Christians want their religion and beliefs to inform their ideology, but that's really neither here nor there. I want my atheism to inform mine, but I don't have to go around shouting my dogma for all to hear (even though I do).
The article itself wasn't terrible, but I was unlucky enough to read it at the same time as I was looking over an excerpt of the US Dems' wunderkind Barack Obama's new book. Basically the same threads of thought, but expressed infinitely more thoughtfully.
Whereas I read Rudd's piece with (slight) admiration but a touch of disconnectedness; that Rudd feels that his religion-fueled ideology is the correct one, and it'd be quite nice if he can make everything fit in with that, Obama's piece was far more more inclusive. Obama argued, conversely, that rather than religion informing ideology or vice-versa, the two go hand-in-hand.
That's a pretty stunted analysis, but what I'm trying to say is that Rudd ain't the second coming. Still a damn sight better than Beazley though, so let's go Labor.