He Finally Did It!

A friend sent this to me. I laughed. And I stole his heading.

Time for controversy!

I am going to do a little backflip and change/claryify my views. I think that with things that...oh what did i think the other day....If it is a big moral issue: i'm going to go out of my depth and use abortiona s an example. If it is a big moral issue like that, i mean people still have varying views and we can't change those, the person has a right to hold them (whether they be right or wrong, myself included) but everyone, i think in Australia at least, agrees murder is wrong, right? Evidenced by all the crime shows we watch. So if the government was letting hundreds of thousands of murders happen every year and they did nothing to stop it (i.e. it's not legal but they're not stoppign them) there woudl be outrage. I mean, imagine if they made those urders legal!
Now imagine this...(and i know the different arguments here, but hear me out) anequal number of babies being killed each year with no government intervention. I know that some argue about when it becomes a baby, but just think about it yeah? Got that, that many babies (i'm talking born): there owuld be absolute public outrage.
Now, because that human life is only a few months younger all of a sudden its cool, we're okay with it, not even a little concern. I just don't know how people can draw the line because, going back to self-actualisation, sort of, how would you like it if someone classed you as not human yet (at the moment i'm talking you're bron) and just decided to kill you for it? I'm guessing not that much (dont' say i wouldn't feel cos i'd be dead...). It's the same for you i'm sure before you're born. You are still you.
Personally, i just can't comprehend how people can take another's life, that's just something i don't think we can judge.

My own psychology

We had a talk on, well supposedly atheism tonight at youthgroup, but mostly self-actualisation. And also you know the psychology surrounding it, and there was something about how our natural (and hence selfish) desires are right and morals etc should not be forced on us. So basically it's like, do whatever feels good without concern for others.
Then i thought....
If it's what feels good, it really doesn't feel good when others miff you in favour of themselves, like getting in first on the lollies or something. You think that what feels right/good is for them to offer them around first. This all falls through though when your the person that can 'get in first'. So there's the whole, "do unto others" thing, but only while you're being served which is a massive contradiction, or so i think, in which case, there is no right in what our natural desires want, because they conflict. That just shows the need for higher moral code, which i believe comes from God.

Yesterday was the second anniversary of me having brace-free teeth.

So I thought I'd tell the world. Wooo.

Happy Birthday....

Oh by the way, it was my hundreth post on the 31st of october. I thought it'd just celebrate on my 102 post. (i forgot, that's really it) So:

President: Barrack Obama

I've decided that there is decisive problem with democracy. It's something that's obviously been recognised for ages, but it's what causes division, angry argumentsa etc etc. That's a bit pessimistic, and a bit over the top, but the thing is, people will never agree. And so what you get is a hosue full of representatives all clamouring for their view to be heard, who are then criticised because the people they're representing don't actually agree with them, and then ordinary people have huge political debates but...
People will have different ideas to you, and what i hate is that many people seem to be incapable of sharing they're own view (on anything) without trying to convert the person they're talking to. We need to be able to just throw ideas out there, into the big black vortex of 'maybe it'll chaneg their mind, but maybe it won't, and i don't mind either way, it doesn't affect me, i still hold my views.' People have different ideas and that's somethign that we all need to accept. Whatever it is that's created those ideas - a different life experience, belief system or simply personality - you can't change. You can add to it, maybe get them, to think but we all have to respect other people's views.
This comes particularly the day after the election in America, as indicated by my expectedly cliche title. I hold this position particularly after experiencing the effect an election campaign can have twice in one year. Parties and people have different policies they support, eys, but here's my take on it (after all that preamble):
We cannot force ourbeliefs and priorities on other people. We can't. And that's where i see slight issues with democracy. I have nothing againsta democracy, i do bleieve it is a good political system. The people vote in a praty/person and that party/person makes decisions about the country. I will be one of those people that says youc an't complain about a policy if you voted for the party, even if you didn't, because its a fair system. But in this system, you still have a group of people effectively forcing their beliefs and priorities on a whole nation.
I dunno, but it seems flawed in some major way that a small group of people can take what they see to be true and apply to others lives. True, it makes no great difference in countries like Australia and America who is in power, butas i say it's fundamental. Some religious people would say they have the right to enforce their world beliefs on others as they blieve that they know THE TRUTH. I am a christian and am tempted to say that soemtimes, but people would react the same way to me that i woudl to a .... another religion saying that. The person doesn't believe, they dont' have to live that way. Hey, i think the Bible is the truth, but i can't make everyone in australia live that way just because i think so. I can try to tell them why i think so and get them to think about it, but i will not enforce what i believe on others.
What has this to dp with democracy? Lots in the many controversial issues floating around. You all know what they are, i don't need to tell you. What i think is this: if everyone making the decision claims to believe the same thing (think Anglicans and minister appointment - we all claim to believe the Bible) go ahead and press your point, but if a collection of people al with different ideas about life, god, justice etc, (like government), just think about it. I'm not going to be president or PM ever, so what i propose that i will do is to simply hold my beliefs close to my heart and act on them when voting etc. Re-examine them yes, it would be foolish not to, but nto "Bible-bash" (in chirstian circles), only throw my ideas out there for considereation.
Hope i've been clear in what i'm saying. Just please don't get angry at people who don't think the same way you do. I'll just close with a quote, it sums this up nicely:

-Do not think of knocking out another person's brains because he differs in
opinion from you. It would be as rational to knock yourself on the head because
you differ from yourself ten years ago. -Horace Mann, educational reformer
(1796-1859)

I think this guy had a sensible head on his shouders.

Weird, But Cool

And the RTA Cops Some More Flack

I thought of something today, and it struck me that i finally have something to post about. havign spent the day at a driver safety day, it's really inevitable that my post escape the topic so here it is: L-plater hours and their effect on reducing accidents.
I don't feel like writing much, so my basic idea is that increasing the number of hours you drive for on your L's does nothing - unless your learning as you do about safety. See, for young people, having more experience won't make them safer, it will make them more confident and more likely to crash i reckon. As soon as kids are alone in a car or with friends, they'll drive stupidly, unless they know the dangers and have been confronted with the possible consquences.
SO basically i reckon it's been a waste of everyone's time to increase the number of hours to 120 - driving more does not equal driving safely. Instead, the RTA would probably do better to invest in mroe of the safe driving programs liek the one i and my classmates did today. That and more rules that are effective - like the one pasenger after 11pm or p platers rule. Maybe it should be extended? I dunno. But what i do know is that more than doubling the compulsory hours just means people will lie i think and won't fix much of the problem.
I mean really, I do 120 horus on my Ls. If you crash on your green P's you've probably done 120 hours by then too - has it helped at all? The main factor is the supervised driver, which will stop the kids being so stupid. The hours thus have no effect cz you can still be supervised for only a year if you get your hours done. I believe that if the RTA really wants to address this problem, kids shouldn't be able to drive alone until they're like 19 or so. Really that's the crux i reckon.

Interesting

Welcome to the Freedom From Religion Foundation
The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.
In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.
The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.


I found just this part of the site interesting for a couple of reasons:

• Moral progress is a subjective phrase and you can't say that atheists have therefore made moral progress because, for instance, I don't believe thatlegal abortionis moral progress. Just because they do doesn't mean it is. If you have no God, you should have no definate moral code. [editor's note: apparently their moral code comes from natue, but i'm not goingto go into that]
• what do you mean by the ambiguous death with dignity? Euthenasia? Because i don't think that's moral progress, see above.
• "Just as they were te first to call for an end to slavery." Its funny but all the big names in slavery abolishen that I've heard of have been christians, but you know whatever. Even if they were the first to call for an end to slavery, it means nothing if you don't take action, like Wilberforce did. Shall i quote James at you???
• The cherished prinicple of state and church. You know, they should really make it clear that it is their cherished principle, because i don't liek the ambiguity of such a subjective phrase. Either be objective, or make your subjectivity explicit.

I read a couple of things on the site, or read a little bit of them. But i got so annoyed at them taking the Bible out of context and not trying to understand it that i gave up and am now about to go do homework. Think about it yourself, but it's no good me writign about it hear, you really need to talk to atheists and agnostics about your faith.

With all the news about the recent financial crisis that's been bombarding our screens lately, i thought I'd chip in with my two cents worth on the whole situation. Even though i have the most limited understanding of how the economy (shares and "the dollar", banks and money in general) actually works, and that I've decided that money is stupid (ask for more details ask later) i thought of something even more ridiculous than the whole game of money in general. One of the great debate topics amongst politicians and political commentators appears to me to be how well a party is able to manage the economy. It was one of the strike zones the liberal party had against the labour party (and the only one i ever heard about) in the run up to the election late last year, with the claim by all liberals being that the labour party is incapable of keeping/creating/whatever-ring a stable economy. Now people nit pick about this and bring political history into it, but ultimately i think we need to be thankful for the fact that we have a stable government that doesn't change much whatever way the voting goes, and i believe that whatever party ends us running the country, we're in pretty safe hands economically (even with the labour party).
Let's think about it. Economic crisis hits (starting in America - interesting point isn't it? But i won't go into that now), everyone's (i.e. every nation's) economies fare badly. But Australias economy was pretty strong to start with (i heard stronger than Amercia's - i think) so we're actually not hit as badly, AND the management of our banks has been better. Something about an 80% cut-off and definately somethign to do with the more socialist way our country is run (i.e. gvernment owning/running of banks or the reserve bank or something) so that now, according to my dad - which is not the best source but you get the picture - the Australian and Swedish banking systems are the most stable in the face of this crisis.
So who cares which party runs the coutnry because they pretty much run it the same and either way i think we're lucky to be living in a country that has such good economic management - whether it be liberal or labour (and don't get confused byt he stupidity of the party's names).