This parliamentary bill gets it's first reading/vote today.. If passed it goes to a second reading and select committee work-over...
The religious are generally against this amendment on the grounds that it breaks the sanctimony of marriage. That marriage between a man and a women is the domain of god and while enshrined in law as being more than that it is still a religious institution first and foremost.
No surprise if you guess that I'm not supporting the religious argument.
One thing they do have right is the acknowledgement that marriage has become more than a religious ceremony. It is now a state ceremony and it's definition has ramifications in law and society. This amendment (if passed in to law) will have the effect of gathering in a part of our society that is excluded. In other words we have legal and societal conditions that create a 2nd tier within our country and I happy to see this form of bigotry extinguished.
29 August 2012
28 August 2012
Quote from Penn Jillette on faith
Just finished GOD, NO! by Penn Jillette - a great read, his flamboyant personality leaps off the page...
An abridged quote from the book
"Its not fair to blame all the Muslims for the horrible acts of a few people. That's wrong. You cannot blame all thos epeople. And we shouldn't blame a particular faith for the horrible acts of a few people. At least we shouldn't blame just Islam. We should blame all faiths. We should blame faith in general. But Bush and Obama couldn't do that. No religious person can do that. Being religious means being okay with believing in things without evidence. That's the most important part of any faith."
Cool !! "Being religious means being okay with believing things without evidence" - get it
So - and to use another quote: "The enemy is not Muslims. Muslims are people. The enemy is not people. People are good. The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is not god. There is no god. The enemy is faith. Love and respect all people; hate and destroy all faith"
An abridged quote from the book
"Its not fair to blame all the Muslims for the horrible acts of a few people. That's wrong. You cannot blame all thos epeople. And we shouldn't blame a particular faith for the horrible acts of a few people. At least we shouldn't blame just Islam. We should blame all faiths. We should blame faith in general. But Bush and Obama couldn't do that. No religious person can do that. Being religious means being okay with believing in things without evidence. That's the most important part of any faith."
Cool !! "Being religious means being okay with believing things without evidence" - get it
So - and to use another quote: "The enemy is not Muslims. Muslims are people. The enemy is not people. People are good. The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is not god. There is no god. The enemy is faith. Love and respect all people; hate and destroy all faith"
20 August 2012
01 August 2012
Should we call religious people stupid?
Probably not. So what would be acceptable?
I'll answer that with a question: What do we call adults who believe in the existence of Santa Claus?
I'll answer that with a question: What do we call adults who believe in the existence of Santa Claus?
31 July 2012
Marriage: Gods Law? Letter to Matt...
Dear Matt,
After waxing on about Feticide and other related issues of the Bible could you enlighten us with your position on gay marriage?
You see, every time I read about "Gods Law on marriage" I get very angry. God's Law, really. Which God? The one who still manages to turn a blind eye to the children dieing every day and droughts or flooding or other miseries that cause strife to various humans on this planet?
Seems there are about approx 3000 different Gods - so which one is making this "Law" on marriage?
Didn't we already sort out that Man made God (not the other way around)?
Isn't the issue equality. I would like to see the same rights afforded to any couple in the country I live in. Marriage is a state enforced contract. If it had been a religious construct then it has moved on from there, in other words, religion does not have a place (unless you chose it) in the contract of marriage.
Equality - remember that's what this is about.
SCA
After waxing on about Feticide and other related issues of the Bible could you enlighten us with your position on gay marriage?
You see, every time I read about "Gods Law on marriage" I get very angry. God's Law, really. Which God? The one who still manages to turn a blind eye to the children dieing every day and droughts or flooding or other miseries that cause strife to various humans on this planet?
Seems there are about approx 3000 different Gods - so which one is making this "Law" on marriage?
Didn't we already sort out that Man made God (not the other way around)?
Isn't the issue equality. I would like to see the same rights afforded to any couple in the country I live in. Marriage is a state enforced contract. If it had been a religious construct then it has moved on from there, in other words, religion does not have a place (unless you chose it) in the contract of marriage.
Equality - remember that's what this is about.
SCA
27 July 2012
William Lane Craig
Dear Matt,
You recently argued that (and I will paraphrase as to repeat your dissertation would put most reasonable people to sleep) Richard Dawkins refusal to debate William Lane Craig in the UK was a form of mis-information/cowardly act on Dawkins part. Yes - your over 1570 words boiled down to that...
Craig, in the face of many statements of fact, has (to my knowledge) never changed his mind and said - "OK on this point I am mistaken and I need to develop a new position". Yes - statements of fact.
Dawkins deals in facts. You preface your article with the words "Contra Mundum" really!! "Against the world" - how arrogant.
Dawkins is a scientist. Debating Craig who does not practice science or should I say does not use the Science Methodology would be a waste of time. Dawkins can do what I do - and watch Craig on Youtube. Dawkins probably concluded the same thing I did - Craig is an Unreasonable man.
Unreasonable: "When the facts change, I change my mind"
Science continues to erode the the boundary of knowledge of our species and adding more facts about our existence. Religion feels threatened by this and it is becoming obvious to me that we need to start treating thoughts of God in the same way we think about Santa Claus: Great for children but not appropriate for adults.
So Matt, I hope your pursuit of "adultness" deals to the childish notions of an omnipetent diety
Cheers
SCA
You recently argued that (and I will paraphrase as to repeat your dissertation would put most reasonable people to sleep) Richard Dawkins refusal to debate William Lane Craig in the UK was a form of mis-information/cowardly act on Dawkins part. Yes - your over 1570 words boiled down to that...
Craig, in the face of many statements of fact, has (to my knowledge) never changed his mind and said - "OK on this point I am mistaken and I need to develop a new position". Yes - statements of fact.
Dawkins deals in facts. You preface your article with the words "Contra Mundum" really!! "Against the world" - how arrogant.
Dawkins is a scientist. Debating Craig who does not practice science or should I say does not use the Science Methodology would be a waste of time. Dawkins can do what I do - and watch Craig on Youtube. Dawkins probably concluded the same thing I did - Craig is an Unreasonable man.
Unreasonable: "When the facts change, I change my mind"
Science continues to erode the the boundary of knowledge of our species and adding more facts about our existence. Religion feels threatened by this and it is becoming obvious to me that we need to start treating thoughts of God in the same way we think about Santa Claus: Great for children but not appropriate for adults.
So Matt, I hope your pursuit of "adultness" deals to the childish notions of an omnipetent diety
Cheers
SCA
23 July 2012
Does evil exist?
Interesting question - Let us presume that evil does not exist - "A hypothesis"
So, evil does not exist.
Then you (yes you can play the other side) suggest that the Nazis/Hitler were evil.
I say: Really? "Yes" The stuff the nazis got up was because of evil? "Yes" An evil spirit made them do those crazy things? So they weren't responsible? Something else called "evil" was responsible. "Well yes..."
You know I'm thinking there are shades of evil, but we should be thinking about how many people view evil. Evil is the result of the "Devil". The Devil has enticed you towards an evil act. The dark side....
Interesting. So if I was to do something bad to another person (say hit them with a bat) would I be responsible or would the "evil" thing be responsible.
The religious amongst us contend that evil is all around us and that it needs to be turned away from, and that if the evil has caused you to do a bad thing then you can be reconciled from it by another third party - "God" A forgiveness that will take on your burden of responsibility.
Wow - that last statement is huge. So you can be absolved of the responsibility. In other words, the consequence for the bad thing you did is gone - no consequence.
What if we were to re-label "Evil" and called "Acts of Wrong" People doing wrongs against others/things. This definition would still be considered evil, but its not seen as coming from another third-party source like the Satan etc.
Who is responsible for Acts of Wrong? Well the people themselves. No "passing the buck" with this, these people own it.
I like this definition because it can also include Acts of Wrong perpetuated by people thinking they were doing Gods Work. Nope - they were just wrong and they in flicked bad stuff on other people or things.
Does evil exist? No. They are Acts of Wrong that people should be responsible for.
So, evil does not exist.
Then you (yes you can play the other side) suggest that the Nazis/Hitler were evil.
I say: Really? "Yes" The stuff the nazis got up was because of evil? "Yes" An evil spirit made them do those crazy things? So they weren't responsible? Something else called "evil" was responsible. "Well yes..."
You know I'm thinking there are shades of evil, but we should be thinking about how many people view evil. Evil is the result of the "Devil". The Devil has enticed you towards an evil act. The dark side....
Interesting. So if I was to do something bad to another person (say hit them with a bat) would I be responsible or would the "evil" thing be responsible.
The religious amongst us contend that evil is all around us and that it needs to be turned away from, and that if the evil has caused you to do a bad thing then you can be reconciled from it by another third party - "God" A forgiveness that will take on your burden of responsibility.
Wow - that last statement is huge. So you can be absolved of the responsibility. In other words, the consequence for the bad thing you did is gone - no consequence.
What if we were to re-label "Evil" and called "Acts of Wrong" People doing wrongs against others/things. This definition would still be considered evil, but its not seen as coming from another third-party source like the Satan etc.
Who is responsible for Acts of Wrong? Well the people themselves. No "passing the buck" with this, these people own it.
I like this definition because it can also include Acts of Wrong perpetuated by people thinking they were doing Gods Work. Nope - they were just wrong and they in flicked bad stuff on other people or things.
Does evil exist? No. They are Acts of Wrong that people should be responsible for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)