Updates from May, 2010 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 31, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: Abbott, , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    I’m having a crisis of faith. 

    Ok, ok, it’s not what you think.  It’s to do with politics.  As some of you may have gathered over the months, I’m a staunch Labor voter here in Australia.  I always have voted Labor and would like to think I always would.  BUT, it is quite likely that my vote will now be going to the Greens at this years Federal Election.  There is no way that the Liberal/National Coalition will ever see a vote from me while ever they support big business over the people of this country.  They have dragged us down from a nation of workers with respect, to a nation of workers that have had to grovel and beg for their rights.  That may never change as governments are most often reluctant to undo changes made by previous governments.  Yes, I know it has happened and has when Labor won government at the last election, but they only went so far and way too many workers have fallen by the wayside since.  There are too many sweatshop type businesses operating in this country and far too many operating with illegal immigrants to save money.  If they are unable to get the work done cheap enough here, many are now moving production offshore and still using sweatshop labour when selling here at top prices.

    This need to pander to big business, together with the reluctance to stand up to the Christian Right is turning Australia into a Nanny State.  Most religions are now only just businesses anyway, so there isn’t much difference between the two.  Business gives them money to fund elections and the religious give them a big block of votes.

    If we just look at the current situation, we have Labor wanting to put a larger tax onto mining companies, but hit us with an internet filter that is censorship at it’s worst.  The Liberal/National Coalition would scrap the tax and let business be subsidised by the workers again, but say they would scrap the filter.  Both are pandering to the Christians.  Neither can be trusted not to change their minds once they win government though.

    We are at a crossroads here in Australia where the Greens are now at a stage where they have enough power to force governments to deal with them on a day to day basis.  Not only that, if things continue the way they are, we may end up with another Coalition that includes the Greens the way they have had to do in Tasmania this year.  I do not think the Greens have the depth in their ranks to take government and do the job on their own even if they did win enough seats.  They just don’t have that kind of experience.  But as a power behind the power, they are uniquely qualified to steer this country in the right direction.  A direction that will bring it back to the place it deserves.  We have fought hard to keep this country ‘Australian’ and by that I mean the qualities that make it Australian, not the ‘white nationalist’ qualities some would prefer and not the ’51st State of the USA’ that others seem intent on accomplishing.

    I say screw the business interests and screw the religious sycophants.  Give the Greens the power to turn this country into a social and environmental success while the Labor Party look after the economic and international side of affairs.  The rest they can haggle over.

    The two major parties have shown they are only interested in staying in government and they don’t care what the people say.  Neither of them really want to do anything in electorates that aren’t their own.  Too many independents are only there to push their own shortsighted and narrow religious views.  There are the exceptions, but not many.  On their own they have limited power and when it is only their vote that can win the day, they have far too much power invested in that one person.

    While a Labor/Greens Coalition may just end up like the Liberal/National Coalition, it won’t do it right away.  That may just give us time to fix the problems and show them all that things can be done in a better manner.  I say we give the Greens a go.  It certainly can NOT be worse than what we have now.

    ONLY A GREEN VOTE WILL HAVE REAL POWER THIS YEAR

     

    • Greybeard 20:42 on May 31, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      You had me going for a minute. I thought you were about to 'out' yourself as a new member of Senator Fielding's Hillbilly 'Family First' party!

    • nathanlee123 05:12 on June 1, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Well, the only trouble will be that (like in US politics) we'll be dividing votes that probably would have gone to Labor and letting the liberals get first past the post.

      Tony Abbott is too fucking scary to contemplate: the man's not only a climate change denialist, he's a creationist, homophobe and let's not forget how he acted while in charge of health (abortion drugs needed his approval for some bizarre reason) and his stance on stem cell research was appallingly ignorant.

      So I'd say that I agree with you that (like the last few elections) it's important to send a message, and I have voted in that fashion before (a labor/greens coalition might be interesting), but not so much that you let tony abbott end up in power (e.g. then we're doubly screwed: no talk of "postponing" climate action, just "it isn't our fault and mining rocks and saved us all from poverty!")

      Anyhow, we've got preferential voting: use it people. Just be aware of another family first nutjob sneaking in via the quirks of it.

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 30, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , Conroy, , , , Lundy, Milky Bar, , ,   

    If Labor loses this election, you can blame Stephen Conroy. 

    Ever since the moronic notion of filtering the Internet entered Stephen Conroy’s head or was injected by someone else (probably a Lib/Nat), Labor has been inching ever closer to losing the upcoming election. The even stranger part is that they have had their heads so far up their own propaganda that they can’t see the outcome even though over 90% of the population has been screaming it at them since the last election.

    I can’t imagine how many children will still be hurt and criminals evade justice because Conroy and his cohort are going to waste $128.8 million on this farce instead of injecting it into the budget of the department of the Federal Police that looks after child crimes.  How much good could be  done if they had the resources they require to catch the pedophiles and child pornographers?

    Conroy has repeatedly asked people why they don’t care about children when they have opposed the Filter.  I have to ask if he is willing to go to jail for the rest of his life if the crimes he says will drop actually go up after introduction of the Filter.  No ifs, ands buts or maybes this time.  No worming his way out of it.  He’s asked the question enough times himself.  Is he willing to pay the price when he’s shown to be wrong?  Not that it will ever happen, because if Labor do not change their mind on this policy within the next month it will be too late to drag back the support they are losing at the moment.  I have been amazed at the amount of people who swear their allegiances will change at the next election if this goes ahead.  This is not just a one time ‘bad decision’ they can overcome with time.  This will leave a stain on the Labor movement that will last while ever people remember what has been done.

    The absolute uncaring attitude towards the people of this country that is being shown is not something that I had ever expected to see in my lifetime.  I have always voted Labor and had planned to always do so.  The minor parties have always seemed to be more trouble than they are worth and the Liberal/National Coalition is way too synonymous with ‘Big Business’ to ever attract my vote.  Their philosophy of taking care of the BHP’s and Rio Tinto’s of this country so that the dollars trickle down to us was, is and always will be crap.  The more they make the more profits go to the investors instead of dropping prices.  That is not in our interest.  The smaller parties have had no significant influence on anything of any real importance to the population until the last election and it seems to be more the independents (read christian backed morons) that are making the biggest noises.  Though it does look likely that the next election will be when the ‘Rise of the Greens’ really happens and they will have to be courted in a much more significant manner than ever before.  Maybe even a coalition of Labor/Greens?

    Whatever happens all depends on whether Rudd has enough commonsense and courage to put Conroy back in his bottle and bury him in the backbenches where he belongs.  Give that job to Kate Lundy and let’s fix this mess up now before it is too late.  The Lib/Nats are licking their lips everytime Conroy promotes the filter.  We all know that Abbott is a losing proposition for them after his and Ms Bishops faux pa’s of the last couple of weeks.  Malcolm Turnbull didn’t just change his mind because he likes being in opposition.  He has the numbers and knows that he will be back as leader very shortly and when he is, you’ll hear real opposition to the filter from them as well.

    Rudd must come out in direct opposition to the filter and soon.  He must be seen to be firm in his opposition now that the facts are in.  Yes, we’ve known they’ve been in for a long time, but he has to play the game.  It’s either that or be relegated to history as the PM that had no balls to do what he knew was right.

    HAS THE MILKY BAR KID BEEN OUT IN THE SUN TOO LONG?

     

    • Greybeard 22:14 on May 30, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      State controlled internet access is the thin end of the wedge but maybe if he was proposing filtering out the Vatican and the Australian Christian Lobby I might be more interested!

      Yes, Conroy is a liability to Labor – but his poor performance could easily be cancelled out on the Coalition side by their own resident liability, Barnaby Joyce!

      It get's worse – just imagine if we get a hung Parliament and Senator Fielding's bunch of Hillsong Hillbillies get enough seats to hold the balance of power!

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 29, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   

    Should a Politician put aside their religious beliefs when making decisions? 

    The simple answer would seem to be yes to anyone who understands that to fairly administer a nation for all citizens you need to be able to know what the peoples needs are and how to fulfil them in a fair and just manner, not only from your own persepective, but from theirs as well.  If you are a religious person it seems that it is nigh on impossible for you to do this.  Just lately this has been shown to be true for about 90 percent of the religious community that have had anything to do with decision making.  The Ethics Classes debate has shown most religious people only care about keeping kids in the Special Religious Education classes and not at all about those who don’t attend.  Those who don’t attend are left to fend for themselves and aren’t really bothered about unless they wish to do something useful and then they are stopped.  It seems that Scripture is the be all and end all of their existence and what others needs are don’t matter.

    I do have to say here that the Muslim community have shown themselves to be the more openminded and are quite happy for the classes to go ahead. I and many others applaud their support at this time.

    The Australian Christian Lobby on the other hand are mobilising as much support against the classes as they can muster and seem to be of the mind that they are the absolute arbiters of what should be taught, where it should be taught, when it should be taught and who teaches it.

    Look at what is about to happen shortly and you can see that the religious are getting their way much more than you would have thought.  On 21st June Prime Minister Rudd and the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will address Australian churches via a web-cast.  I have never heard of such a thing in my life.  What has so radically changed in this country that they are giving in to one group to such an extent?  It just shows that the leaders in this country not only have religious leanings, which in and of itself is alright, but have a bias towards religion that is blinkering their outlook on the community as a whole.  It’s not that there is anything overt being done that has affected us, but more that when we speak, we aren’t heard.  It’s like we don’t exist at times.

    No politician should be giving in to any one group over others consistently or to be seen to be playing favourites in this manner.  There is a section of politics that is fighting back, but they are small and don’t have the numbers to make changes as easy as other factions.  It is up to us, the people who are fed up with the way things are, to support these people and help them make the changes we wish to see.  If  we don’t, then we have no right to be complaining when next our lives are disrupted by religion getting in the way.  We are a bigger part of the community than even most of us are aware and if we mobilise ourselves and make ourselves heard we can bring this country back into balance.

    You, as an atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, humanist or another religous person that thinks the christians in this country have far too great a say in our lives, then you need to start asking what you can do to change things for the better.  Help these brave politicians.  Sign their petitions, attend  parliament, write letters and emails.  It really now has come to the time that you need to make yourself heard.  I hate to have to put it as plainly as this, but…

    IT’S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUTUP

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 28, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , Female Genital Mutilation, , , , , ,   

    Alarming rise in the rate of infection of the ‘Stupid Virus’. 

    I have been getting quite ticked off lately over a few things happening in this country that come down to ‘giving in’ to the nutters in our society.  Today two more have arisen that are really taking stupidity to new levels.  On top of the recent Ethics Classes debate we now have the following idiocies to contend with and attempt to stop.

    Now we have the Anti-Vaccination Nutters causing vaccination rates to plummet and put our children in harms way.  In Western Australia vaccination levels are dropping at an alarming rate and don’t look like stopping anytime soon.  With the recent problems over the Flu Vaccine this is only going to get worse.  I can’t understand how people can say that vaccination is bad for our children.  We have come so far from the days of measles, polio, whooping cough and chicken pox it is unthinkable that we are going to let these morons take us back to the dark ages of child health care.  Due to a few unthinking people we now have seminars being held in this country trying to talk parents out of vaccinating their children against these terrible diseases.  I hope they are willing to pay the price themselves, because if the infection rates of diseases like polio start to climb they should be held accountable.  If you incite someone to murder you are held accountable and it should be so in this case as well.

    To make matters worse we now have the Western Australian Government allowing these Anti-Vaxxers to use government facilities to spread their misinformation.  The governments of this country spend an enormous amount of our money to educate people about the positive side of vaccination.  We vaccinate  the children in the schools so we know who has had it.  Now they spend our money to promote the opposite side?  I’m quite a bit more than disappointed about this matter and have written to several of the MP’s in Western Australia.  Responses range from ‘prove it’ to ‘we have noted your concerns’.

    This next section was written in response to this article.

    To top that off Australian doctors are now talking about reforms to allow them to perform Female Genital Mutilation procedures.  I will continue to use that term no matter what they wish to call it themselves, because it is still mutilation of a human body for no positive purpose.  It only has a negative outcome.  I am appalled at the idea that they think this could be a good thing to do under any circumstances.  I get what they are saying that the negative outcomes of backyard procedures is a problem and that at least if they do them, there is less of a problem of disease etc, but that is still wrong.

    We must never give in to this form of barbarism under any circumstances.  Put that effort into stamping it out.  There has to be harsher penalties for this kind of behaviour as well.  We don’t allow torture of infants and there are consequences for those offences so why not do the same for this offence?  Double the penalty.  Triple it for all I care, but this must be stopped and not be given in to.

    Then this article comes in which completely repudiates the last one.  I am thrilled that the original article was wrong, but where did the information really come from and by whom was it given credence?  This unconscionable behaviour seems designed to stir up trouble and sell up the ratings. It’s a shameful act and one that makes it hard to take anything on their site with any seriousness.

    We still have to worry about the coddling of the religious zealots and their barbaric practices though.  How long before we stand up for basic human rights in this country so that none of this is even necessary?

    ANTI ETHICS – ANTI VACCINATION – FEMALE MUTILATION

    WHEN WILL COMMONSENSE PREVAIL IN THIS COUNTRY?

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 27, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , breastfeeding, clergy,   

    You think you’ve heard everything? Think again. 

    Breast Feeding.  Got your attention?  There are arguments for and against from all sections of society.  We all know that and have heard most of the arguments.  BUT, I know of at least one most of you have never heard of and it is a case ‘for’ breast feeding.  Not only is it a case ‘for’ breastfeeding, it is being put forward by ‘clergy’.  Not only is it a case ‘for’ breastfeeding and put forward by ‘clergy’, it is a case for it at ‘work’.  I really have you interested now I hope.  Time to burst your bubble and to give you what will undoubtedly be the biggest laugh you’ve had all day.

    The proposition is this: Women should be allowed to breastfeed male colleagues in the workplace.  This is so that they become symbolically related and overcome any problem with segregation of the sexes.

    Make sense now?  Oh, not yet?  It was proposed in Egypt.  Truly.

    Dr Atiya, the head of al-Azhar’s Department of Hadith said, “According to Islamic tradition, or Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.”

    He said that, “if a woman fed a male colleague ‘directly from her breast’ at least five times they would establish a family bond and thus be allowed to be alone together at work.”

    I’m telling you, I want to work there and I hope there is a high turnover of women.  You’d certainly get loyal male workers, even if the females weren’t satisfied with the arrangement.

    Egypt’s minister of religious affairs, Mahmoud Zaqzouq, has called for future fatwas to “be compatible with logic and human nature”.

    Honestly, I think it is fully compatible with ‘human nature’, but that’s just me.  After ‘Boobquake’ and now this, I’m firmly of the opinion that ‘boobs’ are the answer to the worlds problems.  I’m not going to go into how I would work that, but I expect better minds than mine could come up with something appropriate to all.

    POLL IS OVER THERE >>>>>


    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6681511.stm

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 26, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Ethics Trial debate is becoming a farce. 

    Abbreviations:

    * SRE – Special Religious Education – Single faith instruction, usually by a ‘chaplain’ of that faith.

    ** GRE – General Religious Education – Comparative religious instruction on many faiths.

    Last night on television here in Australia a show called Insight had a somewhat varied group discussing their opinion on the Ethics Classes that the Education Department hope to introduce on a fulltime basis.  As you have probably seen from previous articles I have written on the subject, the religious community have gotten in on the act and are trying every tactic they can think of to stop these classes going ahead.  We have heard arguments that:

    • it isn’t necessary because they already have religious classes
    • it has no moral basis
    • ethics lacks substance
    • the term ‘ethics’ is problematic
    • it’s not fair and just to the religious children
    • it’s hostile to religion
    • it just shouldn’t happen because they have an agreement with the government
    • you can’t teach ethics outside a religious framework
    • the children’s minds can’t critically analyse ethics
    • philosophy discussion ‘problematic’ at that age (10 to 12)
    • the work of the Greek and Roman philosophers is irrelevant to ethics
    • afraid more children will opt out of SRE*
    • wasn’t implemented in a way they approve of

    They gave some of the children a chance to give their opinion and describe the classes they are involved in.  I was amazed at the explanations of the ethics given by the children and how it was being taught, but the religious in the group could not come up with one reason that countered the children’s wish to continue.

    It was explained by the person who originally put the syllabus together that scenarios are tailored for the age groups they are given to so that the children can not only comprehend the problem put to them, but analyse it and come up with different ways of dealing with them and then discussing those ideas amongst themselves with the objective of finding better solutions to ethical problems in their lives.

    The Anglican Minister confused me with his objections.  I can only think that he has no idea how atheism is defined.  He said,

    “If there was an atheistic teaching system we would be happy with that at the same time. Teaching all faiths is better than ethics with no faith component”

    and something about

    “Atheistic religion it’s a religion of some sort.”

    I don’t know what he is thinking because I’m not sure he knows himself.  None of his objections made sense and he was less than helpful in the discussion.  Whilever we include clueless people in these discussions, an outcome is impossible.

    The children who were removed from the SRE* classes told the audience that they were allowed to:

    • watch movies
    • read books in library or in the back of SRE* Classes
    • played on computer

    This is the part that really upsets the Non Religious parents.  Why, when the ‘religious’ children are being taught something their parents and the ‘chaplains’ are happy with, are our children being made to go without?  Blaming us for not wanting our children in those classes is no more than a smokescreen to reflect the responsibility back on us.  The trouble most of us have with that is that they wan to have their cake and eat it too.  I’ll explain what I mean by that.

    We take our children out of the SRE* classes, and they say it’s our fault. Fine, we take responsibility for our own children the same way they do for theirs.  Our children sit doing nothing and they say that’s our fault as well.  Sorry, but that’s not true.  It was part of the agreement they had with the government.  Why they would ever have made an agreement that the non SRE* children were not to be allowed to undertake educational activities is something they need to answer for as it is neither an ethical or moral stance.  So we took appropriate action to give our children a positive educational influence during that time and then they want responsibility back and the authority to stop us teaching ethics to our children.  We took them out of those classes and they didn’t care.  Our children sat idle and they didn’t care.  Why so much concern now?

    They showed a clip of one Minister teaching 10 to 12yr olds with toy bears.  THAT does not seem age appropriate to me.  If you can’t do better than that, it will only reinforce the decision to keep our children out of SRE.  While I certainly do not believe that all ‘chaplains’ would be that bad, I can only assume that they would have tried to show their best to the world.  If that is so, it was a pretty pathetic ‘best’.  They did themselves a great disservice and only managed to show how poor SRE* can be as an educational tool.

    It was also a sad reflection on the Victorian State Government to hear that they wouldn’t allow Humanist/Secular Ethics classes in Victoria because the group proposing it weren’t religious.  It really does show that the Christian Lobby in this country have quite a stranglehold on our Education Departments.  This is inappropriate in this day and age.  It needs to be looked at seriously and a resolution sought that will allow for our children to get better educations free of the restraints being imposed by a ‘special interest group’.  It is their ‘interest’ and not that of the wider community.

    Let’s get to some facts.

    1. They have the classes for their children that they want.
    2. We don’t have an existing alternative.
    3. Their children learn scripture according to their groups beliefs.
    4. Our children are banned from learning anything during that time.
    5. Some parents put their children into the SRE* classes because there is no alternative class.
    6. If there was an alternative, they would change their children over to that class as has already been shown during the trial.
    7. There has been up to 47% drop in SRE* attendance in some classes.

    This whole debate is entirely unnecessary.

    • They have their classes for their children, so why complain?
    • They haven’t cared about our children going without before, so why are they so interested in what we ‘do’ teach our children now?
    • Our children learning ethics is a good thing, so why complain?
    • They have GRE**, SRE*, Church, Sunday School and home. What more do they need?

    It really boils down to this:  The children of religious parents have the right to have their children taught the belief system they choose.  We, as either non-believers or parents whose children’s school does not have a chaplain for their ‘belief system’ would prefer to have our children taught ethics.  Why when they get exactly what they want do they think they have the right to deny us the exact same thing?

    Again, the explanation is simple.  They have to ‘automatically respect’ the other religions so they don’t make a noise about children of other faiths being taught in SRE*.  But we aren’t religious and are not given that respect.  We are nothing to them and in their opinion we don’t have equivalent rights to teach our children ethics.  It would not be in any of their interests for our children to be shown to be becoming more moral and ethical without their so-called religious beliefs.  It would once and for all show to the world that their gods and prophets are not needed for us to be good people.  They will continue to fight this even if we do get these classes approved.  It is not in their interests for us to be good.  How then do they claim that without God, there is no morals, no goodness, no compassion etc?  What use will there be for religion if that happens?

    THE DEMISE OF RELIGION IS AT HAND

     

    • Kat 11:58 on May 27, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I am a strong supporter of teaching ethics in primary and philosophy to high school age students. One of the things that most strongly affected my thinking as a child was that while Mum wanted us to go to Catholic school where our thinking was often stifled – my father taught us many philosophies, encouraged critical thinking and had many ethical discussions on many topics.
      I taught my children ethics when they were primary school age and Philosophy when high school age. Even though my daughter has not pursued it academically – it has helped her make good life choices and decisions. My son is still interested and continually questions and discusses ethics and philosophy daily.

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 25, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Atheists and Atheism: Are we misunderstood? 

    The short answer is yes.  That’s obvious from the multitude of comments you can hear on Radio, read each and every day in Newspapers, Facebook, Twitter and many Blogs.  We have been accused of everything from causing world wars to genocide and everything in between.

    The biggest problem I see is that the commenters either don’t or won’t understand the meaning of the word ‘atheist’.  This is most noticeable from the questions we are regularly asked by believers. e.g.

    • Why do atheists hate god?
      • You can’t hate something you don’t believe exists.
    • Why do atheists hate believers/christians/priests/the pope?
      • If we do, and I will admit that some do, it isn’t because we are atheists, but because of the wrongdoing of some of those people.  It is a misconception that we hate all of them.
    • Are atheists devil worshipers?
      • This is probably one of the silliest I have seen. God and the Devil are your fairytales, not ours. Oh, just in case, we don’t believe in Angels either.  None of that stuff.

    This silliness goes on and on and on.  There will never be a stop to it while the likes of power hungry priests, ministers, pastors, nuns etc are still allowed to spread their bile and hatred against those of differing opinions.

    I’ve just read an article (which I encourage everyone to read) entitled ‘Is there such a thing as an ex-atheist?’ where some Christians gave very far fetched ideas of what being an atheist actually means.

    1. Living without god. No church, no praying, etc, but still believing in God.
    2. Not attending church for a while.
    3. Not thinking about religion.
    4. Doing “bad things’ like stealing, etc.
    5. Getting ‘angry’ with god for not giving them what they wanted.

    These things don’t make you an Atheist, just a very stupid or bad Christian.

    How many times do we have to keep saying it?

    ATHEISM: is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factual evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

    MORE SIMPLY, WE DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD

    MEMORISE IT

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 24, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , Christian, , ,   

    Defining a Christian. 

    A comment submitted earlier today on an article I wrote a few days ago asked quite politely that I not lump all Christians together as that person was not the same hardnosed, arrogant, selfish, we’re the best and will rule you heathen’s one day type of Christian.  I can fully understand that there are different degrees of Christian and that some don’t like to be thought of as being like the others.  You have your Westboro Baptist types that are either the most extreme or very close to it all the way to those who never say a bad word against anybody and just try to get along.

    This got me to thinking about how you/we actually define a Christian.

    Before I go any further, I must explain that I am prepared to give a little leeway, but will NOT be making an infinite amount of distinctions so as to accomodate each and every degree of Christian. That would be impossible.

    A dictionary defines Christian in the following way:

    1. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; an adherent of Christianity.
    2. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ.
    3. a member of any Protestant churches, as in the Anglicans, Catholics, Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
    4. a male given name.

    Not so hard, just four.  I think we can dispense with the last alternative quite easily, so we’re down to three.  Even those three are just subdivisions of the same group.  It’s not that there aren’t many different subdivisions of Christianity or Christians, but none of them are what I’m trying to get at here, nor do they explain Christians or Christianity in the way I use it.  This is where we have a difference of opinion and the trouble starts.  I shall try to explain how I define Christians when I use the term.

    A Christian is a Christian.  Very oversimplified I know, but that’s it.  Why? Because I divide Christians into only two groups.

    1. Christians who not only believe that we are beneath them, but would and do  discriminate, abuse, deride, marginalise, insult, physically assault and even kill us.
    2. Christians who stand silently by and don’t attempt to stop them, whether they feel the same way or not and therefore as part of the overall group are complicit in that very behaviour.

    If there is a 3rd group who actively and loudly speak out against such behaviour, I have never heard of them.  I know that the second group won’t be happy about being described that way, but it is no different to people who turn a blind eye to wrongs committed by family or friends and allow others to be hurt.  It’s the same as saying ‘I was just following orders’.

    If people would only stop and think they would soon realise that it isn’t what you think or believe that makes the difference.  It is how you act that matters.  If you feel like hitting someone for whatever reason, but restrain yourself because you know that to turn those feelings into action would be wrong, you have my respect.  If you allow yourself to act, then you don’t.  We do not punish people for wanting to do bad things.  We punish them for ‘doing’ bad things.

    As humans we are all imperfect beings and have to struggle against these urges on a daily basis.  We have to overcome urges regarding anger, hunger, lust, etc.  So most of us are used to holding back and not allowing ourselves to lose control.  So why is it that when it comes to religion we allow ourselves to be talked into believing that treating others in a manner that is anything but Christian IS Christian?.

    The minimum expected from a member of any group is to speak out when they know wrongs are being committed.  Are you as Christians standing up and being heard on the actions that other Christians say and do when you don’t agree with them?  Until you do, those wrongs will continue and the  Christians committing those wrongs will take it that they have your backing.

    You are quite happy to see the drivers of the getaway cars go to jail when their accomplices murder somebody.  You are happy to see cars being confiscated when someone other than the owner is driving during the commision of a crime.  You are happy to see innocent members of families of drug dealers lose everything they own when the criminal is caught and convicted.

    We all have a responsibility to not only be good, but to speak out about the injustices, especially within groups to which we belong.

    ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING

     

    • Greybeard 12:59 on May 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think it is some form of misguided loyalty. If the (non-religious) Society that I belong to was covering up the criminal misdeeds of some of it's office bearers, I would quit immediately and report it to the police. So would most people in such a situation outside religion.

      Somehow the 'other part of the brain' takes over when it comes to misdeeds within the church. They close ranks and put their heads in the sand. This is manifest in all branches of religion. You don't ever hear the leaders of the Anglican Church, Jewish Church, Muslim Church or even the Westbro Baptist Church calling for the Vatican to come clean or for the Pope to be arrested. Shame on them all.

    • Ashley 04:57 on May 28, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I pray that you begin to encounter christians that you can enjoy and respect. There are more of us then I think you think : ) God Bless You.

    • DistroMan 03:04 on May 28, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Oh, do not pray for us thankyou. Totally not necessary, especially in this instance. We have many good Christian friends that we cherish and have nothing but good words for them as human beings. None of that diminishes the utter insanity of believing in sky faeries that want you to worship them while doing nothing about the millions of starving children in the world. If the amount of energy spent kneeling down and getting back up was used to help in a really meaningful manner, the world would be a different place altogether. Definitely a lot closer to a paradise and without the make believe.

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 23, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Questions for Cardinal George Pell and Robert Haddad. 

    In the following article entitled ‘Secular ‘ethics’ drive belittles religious faith‘ Cardinal Pell seems to have missed the point yet again.

    He uses the word secular.  Do you not understand the term?

    It is not religious.  It is not anti-religion.  It is just ‘without’ religion.  It has nothing to do with religion in any way.

    There is no hostility in secularism.  As there is no hostility, hostility cannot be reflected in anything. You state that there is a majority of christians in Australia, which I doubt, but I’ll let you have that for the sake of the discussion.  What has that to do with anything? Are you of the opinion that a religious majority have the right to enforce their religion on the secular minority? All anyone is asking for here is the right to teach our children ethics outside of a religious framework because we are not religious.

    You say

    “So you have a few people who suggest that religious considerations are inappropriate in public life.“

    Whether or not we consider it inappropriate or not has nothing to do with the ethics debate currently underway. That is not what is being said at all.  What is being said, and I am getting rather tired of having to repeat myself here, ‘All anyone is asking for is the right to teach our children ethics outside of a religious framework because we are not religious.‘  Please try to understand George, this has nothing to do with you or your SRE classes.  This is about parents who wish to have their children taught ethics.  What has that to do with you? Is it just that a few parents have taken their children out of the SRE classes? They probably would not have put them there in the first place if secular ethics classes were available.  Which just means that you and yours have had a free ride with those children up till now.  You shouldn’t be complaining about that.

    From your friend Robert Haddad:

    It’s not for our sakes, but so our baptised children can hear and know about Christ, wherever they may be.

    Now that’s telling isn’t it.  It’s for his baptised children. He wants to do the best for ‘their’ children.  Good luck to you mate.  Well, we also want to do the best for our children.  Why are you trying to stop us?  Do you have some special mandate that means only you are allowed to do good for your children and that says we can’t?

    and

    “In the end, the volunteer providers of secular ethics will be no more interesting or inspiring than our catechists, nor will they have the staying power of our catechists, many of whom have devoted decades to joyfully bringing Christ to our children, despite the many difficulties they encounter.”

    Not only are you religious, you now profess to be a fortune teller? You can see the future? Oh, what a wise and holy man thou art!  Your comments about others being ignorant and prejudiced just go to show your own failings as a christian and solidify our problems with having people such as yourself teaching anything, especially ethics, to our children.  Take your hostility to your church and teach it to your children, not ours.  He goes on…

    Sorry, I would much prefer to continue my cooperation with Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic and Buddhist SRE providers to have this Ethics course diverted to another dedicated time slot or removed altogether.

    All this shows is that you are trying to remove it altogether.  You know full well that if it went to another time slot that the children would have to forgo some other part of their education and that will not be allowed.  All you want is to stop non religious people being taught ethics in a secular manner. 

    If Christianity were being practised in this country in the way that is being made out by the vocal proponents of Christianity in this debate, there wouldn’t be such a problem.  But the words being used and the tone of the arguments coming from those in positions of leadership within the christian community are one of the biggest signs that religion is past it’s use by date.  When they push a fear campaign to get their way it just goes to show that they have a weak position and they know it.

    Why is it that you’re all fine to allow other religions to teach their special brand of ethics, even if it is one you don’t prescribe to, but we aren’t allowed?  Why do you fear us so much? We are just ordinary people trying to get along in the world and do the best for our families just like anyone else.  If it is just because we don’t believe in your god, then it makes even less sense.  How many other religions don’t believe in your god but you’re fine with them teaching their followers children in that same time slot?  Buddhists don’t even believe in a god but you’re fine with them, so what is your problem with us?

    IT’S TIME YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 22, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: EUTHANASIA, , , , , , referendum, , ,   

    My pain, my body, my life, my death, my choice. 

    Robin Chapple a West Australian Greens MP introduced a bill on Thursday in an attempt to legalise voluntary euthanasia and allow terminally ill patients some dignity in their final days knowing they would not have to suffer unnecessarily and that their families would not have to see that and remember them that way.  I unreservedly praise Robin for this stance as it is a hard thing to do knowing the opposition he will be facing.  But as with a lot of the good things in this world, you have to fight for them.

    From 7 News:

    This Bill would allow any terminally ill West Australian over the age of 21 and of “sound mind” to elect to be euthanised. Under the bill, a request for the administration of euthanasia would only apply to a person who has a terminal illness that will cause death within two years and is experiencing considerable pain or debilitation. The request must be assessed by two independent medical practitioners who both have five years’ experience before a third practitioner reviews the request and administers euthanasia.

    As would be expected though, out of the woodwork creep the angry Christian groups.

    As usual though the christians have trotted out all the tired old lines of yesteryear.  They claim it will assist suicide, the depressed, those not terminally ill and the disabled. Please, it isn’t hard to read guys. I’m sure you were taught in school and it would be a useful tool for you to put to work at this point.  Read the bill and you’d see that the things you are saying are NOT included and are quite obviously going to be disallowed under this proposed legislation.  Telling untruths in this manner is what we’ve come to expect from political christians and it reflects badly on non-political variety.  We all know what your objections really are and I respect your opinion.  But that opinion is ‘yours’ and should be a compass for ‘your’ actions.  Our opinions are a compass for ‘our’ actions and neither should be used to force anybody else to do something they don’t choose to do themselves.  Nobody is talking about forcing anyone to die.  Nobody is talking about murder.  This is about death with dignity for the terminally ill who are experiencing untold amounts of pain and do not wish to go on in that manner any longer.

    I do not handle pain very well at the best of times and am hoping that I never have to get to the point of wishing to end my life the way these people do, but if it does eventuate that I do end up like that, I want the right to end my life in a manner that is quick and dignified for both myself and my loved ones.  It is so frustrating to see good people like Robin Chapple putting these bills forward only to have them knocked down at the very first opportunity before they get the chance to be fully discussed and everybody having the chance to give their opinion on the matter.  There are a few topics that are getting to the point of never being settled due to noisy groups getting in first and shutting down debate.  This cannot be allowed to go on any longer.  If this bill does not go all the way through all stages and have everyone involved given a chance to have a voice on the matter, it must eventually go to referendum.

    As happens so often in this country, the christians come out swinging with bullhorns roaring and before we know it, the debate has ended before it has had a chance to begin.  This must change.  If a topic is so controversial that it can’t be decided over a period as long as this one has been going, it should be put to a referendum and have the people decide.  No more putting it on the shelf for the next government to deal with. Stand up and do the damn job you are being paid to do and do it right.

    ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, ONE DECISION

    LET’S GET THIS DONE

     

    • Ciaran MacAoidh 23:06 on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      When Exit International came to Ireland in April the same type of noisy religious groups almost stopped their public meeting from going ahead. I'm with Atheist ireland and they asked us for help with a venue, which we gave on the basis that we want our nation to have the debate. While a few groups came out against Exit, one actively pressured four venues into cancelling Exit's booking until finally I found one with the help of our membersip. As a left wing and anarchist collective this venue (Seomra Spraoi) wasn't going to let a hard line catholic group dictate to them so it went ahead. It was a small victory for free speech but it was pretty disturbing how easy it was for them to intimidate the other venues with lies about the law. I still have misgivings about some aspects of the euthanasia debate and I can understand why people might be afraid but it really just shows how weak the religious argument is when they block us all from having the discussion. They know that in the end clear and rational debate tends to remove faith from the equation so they don't even bring it up most of the time, prefering to build 'extreme case' arguments about people forcing granny to top herself so they can get at her inheritance or becase she's a burden. The palliative care organisation in Ireland are against voluntary euthanasia for these reasons but even they say that the vast majority of people want to continue living on pain meds. What they can't explain is why those who don't should not be allowed a painless, comfortable and loving exit in circumstances of their choosing.

← Older posts

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel