Alice & Katherine & Cecile & David
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Poll
Straw poll of todays customers, currently running at 90% "Labour deserves to lose" vs 10% " Kevin Rudd makes me sick" will keep you updated
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Ruddy gillard
To turn to an arrogant foul mouthed prima donna who had conspired enthusiastically with the Murdoch press for 3 years to destabilise the government is an act of criminal stupidity. Labour deserves to lose, unfortunately, the Liberals don't deserve to win.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Dear Sir, (Letter to The Age)
When the
American freethinker Robert Ingersoll was abused yet again by a
group of bigoted christians, angry at his criticism of the bible, he
responded by saying that arguments cannot be answered by personal
abuse, that there is no logic in slander…should it turn out that I
am the worst man in the world, he said, the story of the flood will
remain just as improbable as before…So when your writer Barney
Zwartz begins his review of Richard Dawkins latest book by
characterising Dawkins as loud, opinionated, supercilious, and
someone who shouts down other views, we can see precisely where Mr
Zwartz is coming from. I wonder if Mr Zwartz has even met Mr Dawkins.
Mr Dawkins
problem is that you cannot reason someone out of a position that he
did not reason himself into. The God Delusion, Mr Dawkins latest book, is a tightly argued case for the fact that there is no evidence to
suggest that god exists, that the scientific proofs quoted in holy
books are nonsense, that the moral lessons of religion are often,
but not exclusively evil, and that the history of religious practise
is littered with acts of almost unimaginable savagery. Mr Zwartz
counters these arguments by suggesting that Mr Dawkins is
supercilious. Enough said. Or is it ? Surely we should expect better
from someone who is a religious affairs editor ? If Dawkins puts
forward page after page of facts to disprove the supposed existence
of god, surely a religious affairs editor would respond with just one
scientific fact proving gods existence – but I forgot, Dawkins is
opinionated. When Dawkins describes the catalogue of atrocities
committed by god in the bible, surely a religious affairs editor
worth his salt would refute these calumnies, but dear me , Dawkins
is loud. Religious practises today come in for whole chapters of
criticism in Dawkins book, and one can imagine religious affairs
editors all over the world leaping to a spirited defence of catholic
condom policies in AIDS ravaged Africa, but no, Mr Zwartz points out
that Dawkins is too clever.
Ian Plimer
wrote an excellent book “Telling lies for god” and it does seem
that Mr Zwartz has adopted this slogan as his personal credo. Mr
Dawkins does not say that prejudice, violence, hypocrisy and
exploitation would be eliminated if we eliminated religion. He does
say that religious prejudice, religious hypocrisy, religious violence
and religious exploitation would be eliminated if we eliminated
religion, and this is obviously true. Mr Zwartz’s approach is not
new by the way, Martin Luther said “What harm would it do if a man
told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and the christian
church”. When Mr Dawkins discounts the philosophical arguments for
the existence of god as vacuous, I would be pleased to be given a
counter argument, not an assertion that Mr Dawkins is wrong, without
furnishing any evidence. But then I suppose if you are a religious
affairs editor, you can get away with just calling the critic inept,
it saves so much time.
Unfortunately,
instead of ‘sticking to the knitting’ and relying on bigotry and
character assassination, Mr Zwartz embarrasses both himself and the
reader by suggesting that Dawkin’s criticism of cultism would be
akin to a non scientist like Mr Zwartz dismissing Newtonian physics.
I presume that Mr Dawkins would point out that Newtonian physics has
not been disproved, but rendered a special, but valid case, by other
subsequent thoeries. He would also no doubt welcome Mr Zwartz’s
contribution, providing that any refutation was based on fact. We can
imagine that he would be less enthusiastic if Mr Zwartz dismissed
Newtonian physics on the grounds that Sir Isaac was loud,
opinionated and supercilious.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
Fairy tales
I used to be an atheist,
for no better reason than the fact that stories of talking snakes,
or men flying through the air on horses with wings always struck me
as rather silly. These ideas seemed silly to me when I was 6 years
old, and they still seem silly now. So what ? Many people have silly
ideas. My next door neighbour thinks his dog is well behaved. The
fellow across the road thinks that Collingwood is a great football
team. Tony Abbott thinks the pope is infallible. So long as these sad
individuals keep their obviously ludicrous ideas to themselves, who
could possibly object ? The problem occurs when somebody who is
suffering from a delusion not only rejoices in it, but insists that
you share that delusion, whether you like it or not.
In the middle ages the
catholic church was pretty keen on catholicism. So keen in fact, that
when anyone make the mistake of not being catholic, the church felt
that its interpretation of a 1500 year old silly idea, entitled it to
murder them. That is not to say that the catholics weren't just
regular fellows who enjoyed a bit of fun like the rest of us, so
sometimes they indulged in a bit of playful racking , or recreational
thumb screwing before the burning. Unfortunately, some enlightened
spoil sports wrecked the party. They suggested that perhaps it was a
bad idea for the church to force its religious views on to those
who did not share its faith. The church took issue with this
ridiculous suggestion, and launched a series of religious wars on
the world, which killed millions.
A good deal later, some
of the participants tired of this particular game, especially when
it appeared that clerical superannuation strategies might be
compromised, so an uneasy compromise was adopted. It remained fair
game to hurl vatican sponsored anathemas at offending heretics, but
it was reluctantly agreed not to garotte them any more. In return
catholics were free to apply their own ideas to themselves, for
example, not to eat meat on Thursdays, to say sorry in a confessional
for things they did yesterday and intended to do again tomorrow, and
to plan their family by sitting with their legs crossed, and refraining
from sex for 70% of each month (Unless they found themselves seduced
by one of those shamelessly provocative 7 year old choirboys)
So far so good. The
problem is that the religious in general, and the islamocatholics in
particular were never all that enthusiastic about aspects of the
compromise which formed the foundation of our western, liberal ,
secular society in the first place. They certainly agreed whole
heartedly with the clauses which guaranteed themselves religious
freedom, but they were never really happy about the idea of your
religious freedom.
Put yourself in their
place. A magic talking snake specifically forbids them to masturbate,
yet on a daily basis they are confronted with doctors who stand up in
public and describe the practise as normal and healthy. A 2000 year
old jewish zombie instructs them to nibble on his leg, and amoral
scientists suggest that things which look like biscuits, and smell
like biscuits, and taste like biscuits usually turn out to be
biscuits. Even the fashionably embroidered dresses which their
ex-fuhrer wears have attracted ridicule (Not to mention his fab
little red shoes), and to date not a single one of these critics
have been executed. Not one.
So it is hardly
surprising to learn that religious extremists have decided to resort
to that most foul and degraded of stratagems – politics, to impose
their cultist imperatives on people who do not share their regard for
magic wine and flying carpets, or who have not even taken the trouble
to learn that seraphim outrank ophanim.
I heard a newly elected
member of the Tasmanian government comment that his conscience as a
christian would not allow him to vote in favour of euthanasia. So an
elderly person wracked with pain and facing an imminent and painful
death has to have his suffering prolonged because a member of an
Australian state parliament feels comfortable about imposing his
religious values on somebody who may not share his faith.
When was the last time
you heard a pope say “My religion forbids divorce, but I would not
dream of imposing my views on non catholics” ? Public support for
gay marriage in Australia currently runs at about 65% in favour
according to some public opinion polls. Parliaments around Australia
have defeated legalisation designed to establish marriage equality
as a consequence of an hysterical campaign launched by religious
groups. It will harm society they allege. Well, if society is going
to be harmed, surely that fact would be pointed out by sociologists,
or welfare workers or doctors. Not by a coalition of catholics,
muslims and mormons.
This is why I am no
longer an atheist. I am now an anti-theist.
If it acceptable for a
group of supernaturalists to use our political system to impose their
magically inspired encyclicals and fatwas, on individuals who
consider their underlying values laughable, why shouldn't normal
people in turn, impose their views on religions ? Ban the bible and
koran as examples of hate speech. Stop job advertisements for the next
pope containing the words 'men only'. Encourage sermons on history
and science, but only if they contain reference to evidence. Give
equal time in the pulpit to the theory of evolution. Lock up genital
mutilators. Apply the same taxation laws to cults that apply to every
other single person in Australia. Have a proper enquiry in to
paedophiles, not a politically motivated attempt to appeal to a
cultist constuency by being seen to try and spread the blame. If
somebody suggests that a recently fertilised human egg contains a
soul, hand them a microscope and ask them to point it out. As Delos Mckown said “The invisible
and the non existent look very much alike”
Not fair ? Well, when
Mother Theresa called for contraception to be banned in Ireland, were
you one of those people bowled over by the rush of catholics
demanding freedom of conscience for non catholics ? I bet you had
only just picked yourself up off the ground and dusted yourself off,
when a horde of muslims calling for freedom of speech for Salman
Rushdie sat you back on your bum again.
When an American
legislator recently said that freedom of religion does not mean
freedom from religion, I think he let the cat out of the bag.
Of course , I don't
really want to ban anything, I just want to enjoy the same freedoms
which religions claim for themselves. Perhaps we could appeal to
religions sense of fairness. Unfortunately asking paedophiles and
suicide bombers to behave fairly is like sending the Belgrave under
12's out to face Lillee and Thomson. It will always end in tears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)