Tagged: respect Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • DistroMan 20:00 on August 2, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , respect   

    Genesis 43: Did anyone hear what God said? 

    Genesis: Part 43 of 50

    The Second Journey to Egypt

    1 Now the famine was still severe in the land.

    God’s fault.

    2 So when they had eaten all the grain they had brought from Egypt, their father said to them, “Go back and buy us a little more food.”

    3 But Judah said to him, “The man warned us solemnly, ‘You will not see my face again unless your brother is with you.’

    4 If you will send our brother along with us, we will go down and buy food for you.

    5 But if you will not send him, we will not go down, because the man said to us, ‘You will not see my face again unless your brother is with you.’ “

    6 Israel asked, “Why did you bring this trouble on me by telling the man you had another brother?”

    7 They replied, “The man questioned us closely about ourselves and our family. ‘Is your father still living?’ he asked us. ‘Do you have another brother?’ We simply answered his questions. How were we to know he would say, ‘Bring your brother down here’?”

    Joseph did not ask those questions.  Lies again.  You would think with the silver being placed in the tops of the sacks and thinking it was a message from God that they would wake up and stop sinning.  But no, not this lot.

    8 Then Judah said to Israel his father, “Send the boy along with me and we will go at once, so that we and you and our children may live and not die.

    9 I myself will guarantee his safety; you can hold me personally responsible for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him here before you, I will bear the blame before you all my life.

    Reuben offered his two sons lives.  This guy is only willing to be blamed.

    10 As it is, if we had not delayed, we could have gone and returned twice.”

    Smartmouthing your father!  Such wonderful children.

    11 Then their father Israel said to them, “If it must be, then do this: Put some of the best products of the land in your bags and take them down to the man as a gift—a little balm and a little honey, some spices and myrrh, some pistachio nuts and almonds.

    12 Take double the amount of silver with you, for you must return the silver that was put back into the mouths of your sacks. Perhaps it was a mistake.

    13 Take your brother also and go back to the man at once.

    14 And may God Almighty grant you mercy before the man so that he will let your other brother and Benjamin come back with you. As for me, if I am bereaved, I am bereaved.”

    It had to get to the point of starving before he would give in.

    15 So the men took the gifts and double the amount of silver, and Benjamin also. They hurried down to Egypt and presented themselves to Joseph.

    16 When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house, “Take these men to my house, slaughter an animal and prepare dinner; they are to eat with me at noon.”

    17 The man did as Joseph told him and took the men to Joseph’s house.

    18 Now the men were frightened when they were taken to his house. They thought, “We were brought here because of the silver that was put back into our sacks the first time. He wants to attack us and overpower us and seize us as slaves and take our donkeys.”

    Talk about paranoid.  Maybe if they were better people themselves they might think better of others.  Oh, sorry, this is the bible.  I forgot myself for a minute there.  :)

    19 So they went up to Joseph’s steward and spoke to him at the entrance to the house.

    20 “Please, sir,” they said, “we came down here the first time to buy food.

    21 But at the place where we stopped for the night we opened our sacks and each of us found his silver—the exact weight—in the mouth of his sack. So we have brought it back with us.

    22 We have also brought additional silver with us to buy food. We don’t know who put our silver in our sacks.”

    23 “It’s all right,” he said. “Don’t be afraid. Your God, the God of your father, has given you treasure in your sacks; I received your silver.” Then he brought Simeon out to them.

    24 The steward took the men into Joseph’s house, gave them water to wash their feet and provided fodder for their donkeys.

    25 They prepared their gifts for Joseph’s arrival at noon, because they had heard that they were to eat there.

    26 When Joseph came home, they presented to him the gifts they had brought into the house, and they bowed down before him to the ground.

    27 He asked them how they were, and then he said, “How is your aged father you told me about? Is he still living?”

    28 They replied, “Your servant our father is still alive and well.” And they bowed low to pay him honor.

    29 As he looked about and saw his brother Benjamin, his own mother’s son, he asked, “Is this your youngest brother, the one you told me about?” And he said, “God be gracious to you, my son.”

    30 Deeply moved at the sight of his brother, Joseph hurried out and looked for a place to weep. He went into his private room and wept there.

    31 After he had washed his face, he came out and, controlling himself, said, “Serve the food.”

    32 They served him by himself, the brothers by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians.

    A little old style biblical racism there.

    33 The men had been seated before him in the order of their ages, from the firstborn to the youngest; and they looked at each other in astonishment.

    34 When portions were served to them from Joseph’s table, Benjamin’s portion was five times as much as anyone else’s. So they feasted and drank freely with him.

    I’m waiting for Alfred Hitchcock to make a cameo appearance somewhere…

    << Genesis 42      Index      Genesis 44 >>

     
  • DistroMan 20:00 on June 16, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , respect,   

    Community standards should go up, not down! 

    Just about all societies ills stem from the same problem that has befallen societies throughout history.  They have succumbed to the normalisation of things that should have been stopped before they even got started.  I’m all for freedom and progress, but there are some things that should not be allowed to fall by the wayside in the name of “I’ll do what I want”.

    Freedom of expression is a good thing, but it should be something that is earned like respect.  It’s not be something that you should have from the day you are born.  More freedom as you get older and are able to handle that freedom sounds like a much better deal than kids wandering around telling their parents that they will do as they please.  Should children have the right to express themselves to the point of abusing their parents whenever they try to get them to behave?

    We have allowed our children to get out of hand.  Try walking down the main street nearly anywhere without hearing the most foul language possible from the mouths of minors.  But go and do just that in ‘posh’ suburb and you are quite likely to wind up in court.  Double standards much?

    The bleeding hearts that say you shouldn’t smack your children have it so that parents are so afraid to discipline their children that the children are now beating up their parents.  Respect for one’s parents is dying very quickly.

    Try riding a train and having the peace and quiet to read a book or the mornings paper without having to put up with the music from some idiots mp3 playing phone.

    Get a copy of the road rules and look up what the rules are for roundabouts and then take a chair and sit near one and watch just how many people have no idea how they should work.  It’s become a free for all that is now spilling over onto other intersections.  Very little respect for others on the roads anymore.

    It’s so much fun to get caught by that red light just in time to have some dickhead pull up beside you with his or her music blaring so loud they couldn’t hear an ambulance siren if it was sitting right behind them.  The thumping base must be doing a great amount of damage to their hearing and yet they couldn’t care less.  Why are sound systems of this power legal in cars?

    There are rules about smoking within a certain distance of exits from buildings but when was the last time you saw anyone actually walk outside that area before lighting up?  And then they probably don’t keep going afterwards.  Just last week at our local hospital, visitors standing right next to the sign that plainly says ‘no smoking within the marked zone’ and yes, the zone is marked quite clearly with bright yellow lines.

    I used to think it was quite disgusting to see people spitting into the gutter, but that’s nothing to having people just spit right on the path in front of them oblivious to other people around them

    Roadside advertising signs are another problem these days.  They can be informative, but it should be kept to a minimum so drivers attention isn’t being diverted for lengthy periods of time.  What is worse are the explicit lingerie adverts or others that show scantily clad girls advertising something that has nothing to do with what is depicted.  How many accidents are caused by these advertisements taking drivers attention away from the road?  It’s not just the danger.  How about the blatant advertisement of such things to children?  You couldn’t legally put that stuff in a children’s magazine, so why is it where they can see it day after day? No respect for parents wishes.

    I drive past a school a few days ago only to see a parent getting a small child out of a car that has emblazoned across the rear window the following: Caring Understanding Nineties Type.  I don’t know about you, but when did it become acceptable to throw that in our kids faces right out in front of a school?  If I choose not to have that become a part of my children’s upbringing, it seems that society is now telling me I don’t have that right.

    The big movable signs that roadworkers use to inform you of roadworks and detours are now being used by businesses to advertise sales.  We take our attention away from the road to see what may be important only to find there is a sale on mattresses.

    Just because there aren’t specific laws to stop most of this behaviour, doesn’t mean that it should just be shrugged off and allowed to continue.

    Are we now at the stage that the ‘lowest common denominator‘ is the major stockholder in our collective futures?  If I said that we are now living with anarchy, I’d be wrong, but if I said that we are well on the road to such a situation I’d be right.  Somewhere between now and then, there is a line that will be crossed.  Do we cross that line and then be unable to retrieve the situation or do we hold that line and save some kind of community standards for future generations to live by?

    WHICH WORLD DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN?

     
  • DistroMan 20:00 on June 11, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , respect   

    Life’s Good 

    I’m sitting here thinking about my life as it is at this moment and I have to say I’m pretty happy.  Luckily for me I live in a wonderful country with a terrific wife, 3 kids all grown up and moved out.  The eldest has given us two wonderful grandaughters and our youngest has just given us our first grandson.  Our two son-in-laws would do anything for us whenever we asked.  A parent could not ask for more for partners for their daughters.  To top that off we have a great little dog. She has enough heart for a dozen dogs and shows us nothing but love.  Neither of us can walk inside without having her meet us and want to cuddle.  How we managed to meet up with a dog like this is beyond me.  She is a duplicate of our children. Just as lovable, kind, mellow and loyal to a fault.

    I’ve already packed my car with the things I need for a relaxing weekend away with my telescope under dark skies and am about to drop my wife  off at our daughters place.  I can go away knowing she will be well looked after as they are always asking when she is coming to stay next.

    My car passed it’s registration check and the sky is clear.  I’m not starving, in pain or having to worry about work.

    Look at the things that are good in your life and the things you don’t have that could make things worse.

    It’s not that there aren’t things I could ‘not like’ or that have gone wrong, but they only have power to make my life worse if I get them power by looking at them.  If I don’t look at them and make them a factor, they have no meaning.

    If you look at black you will see black.  Look at what and you’ll see white.

    What are you looking at in your life?

    As I said, life is good.

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

    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 26, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , respect, ,   

    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 23, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , respect,   

    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, , respect,   

    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.

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 21, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , respect   

    Do non-christians have rights? Christians think not. 

    If a person:

    …is happy being religious, I’m cool with that.

    until they try and convert me over and over and over.

    …wants to worship a God and use up their life in that pursuit, I have no problem with them doing so.

    as long as I’m not being marginalised in that pursuit.

    …wishes not to use condoms, who am I stop him?

    just don’t try and stop me. It’s my choice what I do with my body.

    …refuses to have an abortion, it’s none of my business.

    but when someone has a reason to, get out of the way and allow them the same freedom of choice.

    …wants their children taught their brand of religion, so be it.

    just let us educate our children in the way we believe is in their best interests.

    …puts their child in a private religiously oriented school, that’s their choice.

    that’s fine, just don’t look down on our children because they are in State Schools.

    …wishes to form a group around that religious belief, it’s no skin off my nose.

    as long as that doesn’t interfere with what I choose to do in my life.

    …puts up signs at the front of their churches, cool, I’m not forced to look and read it.

    just let us put up our signs without protesting and threatening those who own them.

    …is fine with dying in huge amounts of pain and discomfort for an extended period of time, again, their choice.

    but allow us the freedom to choose to die in the manner we deem is right, proper and dignified for us.

    …give their money to their church, it’s up to them, they worked for it and can do what they like with it.

    but stop taking money out of our pockets by force of law for something we don’t believe in.

    You, as a human being, have the right to choose to follow whichever particular brand of religion you wish.  You have this right and many more including those listed above.  Nobody is trying to take them away from you. On the contrary, you have been allowed so much freedom to do as you choose  that you have forgotten what that means.  You seem to have forgotten that the rest of us have those same rights.

    Next time you are about to open your mouth in opposition to something someone else does, think for a second.  Would you have been fine with being forced to do the things you obviously believe in before you came to the conclusion that they are right for you?  Remember that there are many of your brand X’ers out there that don’t believe 100% of the same things you do and if brand X gets it’s way, you will be forced to do a lot of things you may not agree with either.  This world is mostly about freedom of choice within certain ethical and moral confines that we should all agree upon in a democratic fashion.  Just having one group with all the power to set those boundaries is wrong and you’d not be happy under those burdens anymore than I would.  So have a good think before telling others what they should and shouldn’t do, think or say.

    IF YOU TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS

    YOU ARE ALSO GIVING UP YOUR OWN

     
    • John 02:17 on May 23, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As usual you are right on with this. I have met right wing christians( I will not cap the c ) who think the country should be legislated by the ten commandments and they are shocked that everyone does not believe what the bible dictates.

    • anon. 02:52 on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I like your thoughts, i only wish the title read "some Christians" rather than simply "Christians" ….
      I am a christian.
      I don't choose to judge, nor tell anyone how to live.
      I simply live differently.
      all i hope is to be an example of my faith.
      not a poster board, or a extreme rules type.
      I choose christianity because without it, without God
      I would not be who i am.
      I don't think that America should be governed by the ten commandments because God gave those rules to his people.
      and Americans are not all Christians.
      I think the fact that people like bunching christians into a selfish judging category is our own fault. but i don't think its right, or polite to assume we all think something, when obviously we don't.

    • DistroMan 00:19 on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Thank you for your comment, I'm sure it will inspire a new blog post shortly. Maybe even today if I get time to start a new one instead of finishing a previous draft. It is good to have comments such as yours as I don't often get opposing views. When I have, they have been, well, not the kind I would approve. You are a refreshing change. Again, thanks.

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

    Cardinal Pell versus Ethics Classes – Yet Again 

    Once again Cardinal Pell finds it necessary to speak out about the Ethics Classes under trial here in NSW.

    “Our state schools are free, compulsory and secular; there’s no reason whatsoever as part of the normal curriculum that secular ethics mightn’t be taught,” the cardinal said.

    Let’s break this down and go through it one bit at a time shall we.

    “Our state schools” – yes, State Schools George.  Not your Catholic Schools.  You get a fair bit of leeway in how you run your Private Catholic Schools and can teach religion in whatever way you wish, but when it comes to State Schools, you shouldn’t. Not even close to having a say.  Just where do you get off thinking you are in a position to demand that our children either sit in your indoctrination classes or sit idle?  If not idle, then why not ethics?  Straighten your frock George, your agenda is showing.

    “Free” – yes, they are to a great degree, but that isn’t what is under discussion here.

    “Compulsory” – No, that is not true. You may enrol your child in a private school or do homeschooling if you so choose.

    “Secular” – No, that is not quite true.  If it were you wouldn’t have your god squad invading them once a week.

    “there’s no reason whatsoever as part of the normal curriculum that secular ethics mightn’t be taught” - Wow, I’m surprised you even said this.  I really am.  That is the whole argument there in one phrase.  If our children aren’t attending your religious classes, then you have nothing to do with them and no say over what we as parents want to have them taught and therefore whatever they are taught IS part of their normal curriculum.

    I know that SRE has been going on since approx 1880.  At what time parents were allowed to exempt their children from SRE I do not know, but I do know that nobody has said a word about that as long as those children that were exempt weren’t doing anything ‘worthwhile’ or that may encourage others to remove their children as well.  As I see it, that is the big problem here for you.  You are worried that parents will remove their children and you’ll lose a captive audience.  If those parents only have their children in your classes for the ethics but would prefer a non religious environment if that was on offer then that is their choice and you should not be depriving them of that.  Neither you, nor the Catholic Church have the right to deny anyone a choice in how they learn or live their lives.

    What is the the Jesuit maxim? “Give me a child for his first seven years and I’ll give you the man”?  There it is in a nutshell.  That is what you are losing.  Raw recruits to feed your religious mill.  You know full well that if you can’t get them early enough, you’ll never get them.  If we can teach them ethics outside of your superstitious institution, then they would have no reason to bow before you and the inevitable demise of religion would be hastened.

    I also know that this worries you.  As it should I suppose.  You have given your whole life to the Church and what it stands for, but is that a reason to deny others with differing opinions a chance to learn and to prosper as human beings?  Really George, if christianity, the church, religion or whatever term you wish to use, has a firm enough foundation as you obviously believe, don’t you think it could withstand this?  Facing hardships is one of the things we all know is part of life on this planet and that when we overcome them, we turn out to be better people for that experience.  If christianity/the church/religion can’t survive children learning ethics outside of a religious framework, then it doesn’t have the foundation you think it has and it should be allowed to fall by the way, just as the Ethics Classes shall if they are not worthy of continuing.  Are you worried religion isn’t up to the challenge?

    Once again, I’ll say this.  You have your churches to teach Sunday School for those who wish to attend.  You have your Catholic Schools to teach religion in the manner you choose.  You have SRE classes in State Schools where you can teach religion in the manner you wish to the children of parents who wish to have them attend those classes.  Those are your domains.  Outside of that, it is our domain.  A place where  secular parents can choose to have their children be educated in a secular manner.  Why is it that you are trying to deny us that right?

    DEMOCRACY NOT THEOCRACY

     
  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 18, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , blood tranfusion, , , , , respect   

    I’ve been rude and I repent of my sins. 

    Lately I have been accused of being rude to the religiously retarded.  Yeah, I probably have at times and I don’t deny it.  I get a little heated after reading of child abuse, cover-ups, lies, rape, hindering justice, the blatant uncaring attitude towards those whose lives are being destroyed or lost due to whichever superstitious doctrine they happen to follow.  So excuse me for caring about those who are being hurt by them and their tripe.

    I’m such a bad person for feeling it’s wrong to sit by and allow deaths to occur every minute of every day in Africa because one guy won’t change his tiny mind about condoms.  I should be flogged for not wanting to see children starving to death because of the overpopulation of the earth the way it is happening and will continue to happen because one guy won’t change his tiny mind about condoms.  Get the cat-o-nine tails out and give me a good going over for thinking that the church should allow the priests who do rape children to face justice.  How about an extra 100 lashes for thinking that the hush money they’ve paid out could have been better spent where it was really needed if they weren’t so damn worried about their PR image.

    Now that you have made me see the error of my ways I won’t get so worked up by people that think that their hurt feelings are of more concern than children starving to death, dying of aids/hiv, drinking putrid water, being in the middle of wars being fought over religion, seeing people  being burnt alive because a fundie who didn’t like them called them a witch.  I’m a real bastard for thinking that stoning teenage girls to death for talking to a boy in the street is wrong.  I suppose I should rethink my feelings on the horror of female genital mutilation while I’m at it.

    The next time I hear that a pregnant woman is going to die if they don’t have an abortion, I should just pray that they’ll be alright and not think that being sure of saving one is better than gambling with both lives.  I’ll also respect the right for parents to deny their child a blood transfusion even though the doctors have told them that the child has zero chance of surviving without it.

    I can’t understand how I could not have thought that bibles are more appropriate to starving people left homeless after earthquakes. No, upsetting those who were only trying to help by passing out bibles was wrong of me.

    I’ll have to start thinking that these things aren’t bad enough to get all bent out of shape over and start worrying more about the tender feelings of the religitards.

    So, I’m going to have to start being nice to them so that we might have a chance of converting one of them to atheism.

    Yes, a few more converted from religion to atheism will soothe my heart and allow me to see the error of my ways.   I’ve seen the light.

    NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

     
    • skeptic 20:20 on May 18, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      You don't need to apologize. It's so typical of Christians to complain about rudeness while ignoring things like starvation, wars, and destruction of habitat.

    • DistroMan 11:13 on May 18, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Ah, now there is the funny thing. It wasn't christians who complained. It was a couple of atheists. :)

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