So I'm finally getting my butt into gear and writing about the covention we went to on the 18th, Think Inc. It was an awsome experience and made me even more excited for the GAC next year! This may be long...
(The videos I have included are not from Think Inc. But I thought I would add a taste of each speaker for viewing =) )
The first speaker of the day was Tim Flannery.
He is an Aussie and a professor and currently works for the government going around to places educating people about global warming. Most of his talk was quite nerdy and not very interesting for people who do not know much about him or what he does. So I won't go into lots of detail. His talk was mostly on how difficult it is to get some people (like older engineers who are not used to the new technology) to look at the facts of global warming without bias. He also spoke a little about how we need to re-establish the respect we should all hold for professionals and their expertise in their area.
The second speaker was Christina Rad.
A Romanian Youtube blogger, she is very outspoken, comical and quite definite in what she believes, how she thinks and how things should be. I feel she is much better in her videos than what she was on stage, but as it was her very first public speaking event I think she did tremendously. Her biggest gripe is with religion and peoples rights, so her talk was mostly on that. And it was very informative.
Did you know that 70% of the worlds population lacks freedom of religion? And this fact remains unchallanged.
She also spoke about decriminilisation of drugs and the affects it would have on society. Portugal decriminilised all drugs in 2001 and shows a drop in consumption. And more importantly, a rise in people seeking help to quit drugs and a drop in the lifetime prevalence of drug usage.
Food for thought.
The third speaker was Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
This fantastic lady actually had to video link into the conference as she could not travel from New York because of death threats (yes, death threats) directed at her. She is an activist for womens rights and religous freedom and has published several books on how she was able to free herself from her opressive society. She spoke about her hopes for the future of the world (way too much detail to retype!). I found her a little, how do you put it, wishy washy? A little too optimistic for my liking, but she had some great ideas, and her kind words and smile do bring hope to millions of women who have not yet been able to do what she has done.
The fourth speaker was Shane Koyczan.
Wow, just wow! Shane is a canadian poet. And he was amazing. He was so good we spent our lunch time buying two of his books, his cd and getting them signed ($60 well spent!). A great addition to the day, he bought tears to almost every audience member with his powerful performace. The poem he did at the end of his performance -
The fifth speaker was the one and only Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Mr Tyson is an American astrophysicist, our generations version of Carl Sagan, and one of the best minds in the world atm. Some of his talk I have seen before, but that would be expected since I have watched hours of him on youtube. There was alot I had not seen though and he did not dissapoint one bit. His talk was exceptional because not only is he smart, he is also witty and funny, he also involved the audience which was awsome. His talk was mainly on the decline of science in America, and how he believes that America will fall behind other nations in science and will never be able to catch up. Which is a bit sad when you think about it, alot of what we know today came out of America.
The sixth speaker was Michael Shermer.
Michael is the founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, and columnist for Scientific American. So his talk was mainly about skepticism and how that is vital in this day and age when religion (especially in America) is trying to make a comeback and sneak into the educational system and politics. He also spoke about why humans in the past believed in supernatural beings and why we do not need to believe in them now. While he wasn't the best speaker of the day, I certainly got interested and am looking at signing up for the Skeptics Magazine!
The seventh speaker who was suposed to be via video link as well was Christopher Hitchens. An auther and journalist you either hate him or love him. He was unable to make it due to a medical emergency (he is currently battling cancer) but he is well now, and I was not too dissapointed as we will hopefully see him next year at the GAC.
So then there was the Panel at the end where all the speakers sat down and took questions from the crowd. But there was another guest bought on as well which we had not seen talk during the day. Catholic priest Father Bob. Good ol Father Bob... what can I say about him... not alot sept that I thought he was absolutely fantastic! One of the most outspoken people of the day, he was up to date with issues, open minded, and funny as. He had the crowd in stitches several times and his views on the issues that mattered were so against his scriptures that it blew my mind. The kind of Father that needs to be in the media. One that understood what was what. If he ever speaks anywhere I will be there with bells on!
There was so many questions fired so quickly I didn't get a chance to note them!
But a few passing thoughts:
> Someone bought up that Australias contribution to climate change is only 1.5% of the total and asked does it really matter? Tim Flannery asked if they gave money to the poor in Africa (or any charity/organisation, ie breat cancer, daffodil day), and they answered yes, and he bought up the point that their donation of $2 isn't alot of money, but together with the whole, it makes a difference.
> That it was better in more primitive times to believe that the rustle in the grass was a predator and not presume it was the wind, as presuming it is the wind could get you killed when it was a predator, but presuming it was a predator when it was the wind will do nothing. And that we do not need to think like that anymore, as we have science.
>That out of the universe, there is 74% dark eneergy, 22% dark matter, and about 4% atoms. We only understand atoms at the moment, so out of everything in the whole universe, we accumilated knoweldge is a whole 4%. We still have a long way to go.
>Because of religion, one sixth (1.3 Billion people) are not doing any science research, are not on the frontier of science. That saddens everyone who is willing to really think about what that means. Those same 1.3 billion people are the ones that came up with our numbers, algebra, that named the stars! And now, they have thrown science out the window for faith. Imagine where we could be today if that hadn't have happened.
> That to beat extremists of any faith at their own game, we must not attack them only. We must focus our attention on their intended audience, get the the people first and the extremists have no ground to stand on.
> That humans have an inbuilt societal nature. Much like ants. Which is fascinating. We know this because society as we know it has risen 5 times independantly.
And the biggest thing I took away from this is that I do not know enough, that we must all strive to learn more, to educate ourselves further, to search for knowledge and truth.
That we should be thinking of ourselves not as Australians, Americans, Canadians, but as citizens of the world.
And that to be able to make the changes we need to make, to make sure the human race continues to florish and not kill itself, is to stop teaching our children what to think, and start to teach them HOW to think.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Shark Fin Soup.
This is one of the most awful things I have witnessed. Not only the fact that they chop off the fins while the shark is still alive, or the fact that they take their time doing so, or that they throw them back alive, to bleed to death while slowly flaoting down the the bottom of the ocean. But at 4:00 mins in, Gordon finds a roof where there are fins sitting out to dry, and there would be thousands of these fins. WHY? I almost burst into tears.
Most of the time, things like this can continue because peoples eyes are closed to the facts, they never see it, never get educated to the facts, so they don't think about it. That is no excuse.
I could not watch all the video, I never can with these types of videos. But I skipped to the end, and Gordon has a meeting, and shows some powerful resturant owners exactly where their shark fins come from, and he starts a campeign to ban shark fin soup. As soon as these people saw what was happening around them, they banded together to make a difference. It brings a small amount of hope to the heart.
Friday, 23 September 2011
The rumour.
There was a rumour floating around a little while ago on Facebook about Australian schools 'banning' Advance Australia Fair, our national anthem. Straight away I knew it would bs, but I did some research into it and found the source. And I had to laugh.
There was two private schools in Perth which decided that instead of having the normal second verse of AAF, or even skipping the second verse which is done all the time and going straight to the third, they put their own second verse in instead.
The normal first and second verses: (and the one that is normally left out)
Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
"Advance Australia fair!"
When gallant Cook from Albion sail'd,
To trace wide oceans o'er,
True British courage bore him on,
Till he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England's flag,
The standard of the brave;
With all her faults we love her still,
"Brittannia rules the wave!"
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"
Beneath our radiant southern Cross,
We'll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"
What the private Perth schools were having the children sing:
Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
"Advance Australia fair!"
With Christ our head and cornerstone, we'll build our nation's might;
Whose way and truth and light alone, can guide our path aright;
Our lives a sacrifice of love, reflect our master's care;
With faces turned to heav'n above, Advance Australia Fair;
In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair.
While a private school can pretty much do what they want, this is rediculous. One it is our national anthem, and they have changed it (like, WTF?), and two, I do not think that they are even telling the kids that this is 'their' version and not the real one.
If this is the source of the rumour not long ago, then GOOD. I would not want my child singing the improvised version, ever. Lets keep to the real national anthem. It said nothing about god, religion or faith. And that is the way it should be.
While I'm at it too, I think this should be the new 'version' if it ever gets changed. I personally like the words, hate the actual song. If this was the song, I'd sing it loud and proud every time.
There was two private schools in Perth which decided that instead of having the normal second verse of AAF, or even skipping the second verse which is done all the time and going straight to the third, they put their own second verse in instead.
The normal first and second verses: (and the one that is normally left out)
Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
"Advance Australia fair!"
When gallant Cook from Albion sail'd,
To trace wide oceans o'er,
True British courage bore him on,
Till he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England's flag,
The standard of the brave;
With all her faults we love her still,
"Brittannia rules the wave!"
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"
Beneath our radiant southern Cross,
We'll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"
What the private Perth schools were having the children sing:
Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
"Advance Australia fair!"
With Christ our head and cornerstone, we'll build our nation's might;
Whose way and truth and light alone, can guide our path aright;
Our lives a sacrifice of love, reflect our master's care;
With faces turned to heav'n above, Advance Australia Fair;
In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair.
While a private school can pretty much do what they want, this is rediculous. One it is our national anthem, and they have changed it (like, WTF?), and two, I do not think that they are even telling the kids that this is 'their' version and not the real one.
If this is the source of the rumour not long ago, then GOOD. I would not want my child singing the improvised version, ever. Lets keep to the real national anthem. It said nothing about god, religion or faith. And that is the way it should be.
While I'm at it too, I think this should be the new 'version' if it ever gets changed. I personally like the words, hate the actual song. If this was the song, I'd sing it loud and proud every time.
R 18?
So looking through the news the other day I came across something that really rubbed me the wrong way.
http://www.refused-classification.com/censorship/films/serbian-film-2010.html
A SERBIAN FILM
Memo × Friday 19 August × 8pm
Life is fucking fucked. That is the premise for A Serbian Film, which it then proceeds to glibly illustrate in half a dozen different ways, many of them literally, as it looks all the while like some sort of so-called torture porn flick. But unlike the Hostel, Captivity and Great American Snuff Film of your choice, A Serbian Film really knows how to ram itself into your psyche and isn’t afraid to force entry into every available orifice in order to do so. To put it bluntly, A Serbian Film is slick and fully sick and you can take that as both a warning and the greatest challenge to see something through to the end credits.
Plot wise A Serbian Film takes on the story of Milos, a porn stud supreme who thought he had retired and was adjusting awkwardly to life at home with the wife and kid when he gets pulled back into the jizz biz with an offer he couldn’t refuse. Or rather he gets taken on by Vukmir a child psychologist and George Michael look-a-like turned custom filmmaker who’s cry of, “Love, art, blood”, leads to the creation of what he calls, “Newborn Porn”.
Since barrelling out of the Balkans last year A Serbian Film has justifiably made a name for itself as a dangerous film. Of course it immediately lends itself to political readings especially with regards to why it exists but the truth is that no matter what your political perspective or film going fetish nothing has prepared you for the aftermath of watching it that could lead to instant apathy towards all films. While that might be a strange way to kick off a filmfest, even MUFF 12, with A Serbian Film there is simply no way you can avoid its steel-capped kick in the head.
** MUFF WARNING: The sickest film we have ever played. You have been warned! **
The film has now been reviewed by the classification board (a total of THREE people, none of the most populated states) and been deemed 'unclassified' which means it is now banned in Australia and cannot be sold or shown here.
In the Review Board’s opinion, A Serbian Film could not be accommodated within the R 18+ classification as the level of depictions of sexual violence, themes of incest and depictions of child sexual abuse in the film has an impact which is very high and not justified by context.
Films classified RC cannot be sold, hired, or advertised in Australia.
The Review Board convened on Monday 19 September 2011 in response to an application from the Minister for Justice, the Hon Brendan O’Connor, to review the decision made by the Classification Board on 5 April 2011 to classify A Serbian Film R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice, ‘high impact sexual violence, sex scenes and violence’.
In reviewing the classification, the Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. This is the same framework used by the Classification Board.
I do not understand this whatsoever. As a consenting adult should I not be able to decide for myself what I do and do not want to watch? I do understand that this film pushes many boundries alot of people just do not want to go anywhere near, but that is them, not me. Are we a country that has to police things for people now just incase someone doesn't like something? As long as no one was hurt in the making of the film (which there wasn't) and it was a proper, 'dinky-di' film (which it was), then why the 'F' can we not view it in Australia?
Even if you think the film is disgusting, even if you would never watch it yourself, what makes you think that it right to ban other people from watching it? We live in a free country.
Well I thought so anyway.
http://www.refused-classification.com/censorship/films/serbian-film-2010.html
An aging porn star agrees to participate in an "art film" in order to make a clean break from the business, only to discover that he has been drafted into making a pedophilia and necrophilia themed snuff film.
Just from the blurb of the film you should be able to decide whether you would be interested in the film or not. But as well as the blurb you can also watch the trailer to decide for yourself whether you want to watch it. However that is not how our country works apparently.
The 'uncut' version was not allowed classification in Australia. The makers than did a 'cut' version which was denied classification, the second attempt was then accepted and classed R 18+. All up they cut a total of 3 minutes out of the film to achieve classification in Australia.
The film was then played at MUFF (Melbourne Underground Film Festival). A release from MUFF before the viewing:
The 'uncut' version was not allowed classification in Australia. The makers than did a 'cut' version which was denied classification, the second attempt was then accepted and classed R 18+. All up they cut a total of 3 minutes out of the film to achieve classification in Australia.
The film was then played at MUFF (Melbourne Underground Film Festival). A release from MUFF before the viewing:
Memo × Friday 19 August × 8pm
Life is fucking fucked. That is the premise for A Serbian Film, which it then proceeds to glibly illustrate in half a dozen different ways, many of them literally, as it looks all the while like some sort of so-called torture porn flick. But unlike the Hostel, Captivity and Great American Snuff Film of your choice, A Serbian Film really knows how to ram itself into your psyche and isn’t afraid to force entry into every available orifice in order to do so. To put it bluntly, A Serbian Film is slick and fully sick and you can take that as both a warning and the greatest challenge to see something through to the end credits.
Plot wise A Serbian Film takes on the story of Milos, a porn stud supreme who thought he had retired and was adjusting awkwardly to life at home with the wife and kid when he gets pulled back into the jizz biz with an offer he couldn’t refuse. Or rather he gets taken on by Vukmir a child psychologist and George Michael look-a-like turned custom filmmaker who’s cry of, “Love, art, blood”, leads to the creation of what he calls, “Newborn Porn”.
Since barrelling out of the Balkans last year A Serbian Film has justifiably made a name for itself as a dangerous film. Of course it immediately lends itself to political readings especially with regards to why it exists but the truth is that no matter what your political perspective or film going fetish nothing has prepared you for the aftermath of watching it that could lead to instant apathy towards all films. While that might be a strange way to kick off a filmfest, even MUFF 12, with A Serbian Film there is simply no way you can avoid its steel-capped kick in the head.
** MUFF WARNING: The sickest film we have ever played. You have been warned! **
The film has now been reviewed by the classification board (a total of THREE people, none of the most populated states) and been deemed 'unclassified' which means it is now banned in Australia and cannot be sold or shown here.
In the Review Board’s opinion, A Serbian Film could not be accommodated within the R 18+ classification as the level of depictions of sexual violence, themes of incest and depictions of child sexual abuse in the film has an impact which is very high and not justified by context.
Films classified RC cannot be sold, hired, or advertised in Australia.
The Review Board convened on Monday 19 September 2011 in response to an application from the Minister for Justice, the Hon Brendan O’Connor, to review the decision made by the Classification Board on 5 April 2011 to classify A Serbian Film R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice, ‘high impact sexual violence, sex scenes and violence’.
In reviewing the classification, the Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. This is the same framework used by the Classification Board.
I do not understand this whatsoever. As a consenting adult should I not be able to decide for myself what I do and do not want to watch? I do understand that this film pushes many boundries alot of people just do not want to go anywhere near, but that is them, not me. Are we a country that has to police things for people now just incase someone doesn't like something? As long as no one was hurt in the making of the film (which there wasn't) and it was a proper, 'dinky-di' film (which it was), then why the 'F' can we not view it in Australia?
Even if you think the film is disgusting, even if you would never watch it yourself, what makes you think that it right to ban other people from watching it? We live in a free country.
Well I thought so anyway.
Friday, 16 September 2011
Smoking
Please be prewarned, this -will- offend some people. My thoughts on this subject are very strong, and even though I do not say these things to my family members and friends, this is how I feel. I would never think of saying this to someone directly, and if asked about it I will politely say I do not want to talk about it. But this is my blog, and I can say how I feel here.
From Ninemsn today:
Graphic new health warnings on cigarette packets will be larger than the existing ones, removing any vestiges of glamour associated with tobacco, Health Minister Nicola Roxon says.
The federal government on Saturday released new health warnings for tobacco products that are planned to complement the impact of the drab olive-brown background it has proposed to cover cigarette packs from next July.Under world-first plain packaging laws, the government wants to ban tobacco industry logos, brand imagery, colours and promotional text from packaging.
The legislation is scheduled to go before the Senate next week.
The latest warnings and graphics will cover 75 per cent of the front of the cigarette pack instead of the current 30 per cent.
I do not understand why people smoke. I have heard all of the excuses, I do not believe a single one of them. I think it is a disgusting habit. It DOES kill you, and can harm the people around you. It eats away at not only your body, but your bank account. And does not one good thing for you.
I would never tell someone that they 'cannot smoke', because what you put into your body is your own business. But to smoke? Really?
I can understand the old folks that smoke, when my grandfather started smoking they did not know how bad it could affect you. But with all the information about smoking and how bad for your health it is today, why do people still take it up?
I fully support anything the government does to stop people from taking up smoking. I do not know if I would support a ban on smoking, as I said, it is your body and do whatever with it you want. But I would love to see the day that tabacoo companies are reduced to only one or two major ones because they have no business to keep them afloat.
I would suggest to any kid (teenager/early 20's) that wanted to take up smoking should go to a home/hospice/hospital, and see the damage it does to yourself and your family. My grandfather died of cancer, bone cancer and secondary lung cancer. They found it too late to do anything about it. He was a near pack a day smoker. He had a horrible last couple of months. How about the kids that take up smoking now going to his bed, changing his sheets and adult diaper themselves. Sitting there listening to him barely breathing, and taking only small sips of water. That is what it does to you.
If you do take up smoking, or continue to smoke, I hope that you also save money for your health care later in life. Because even though I would not 'ban' smoking, I would like to see no government funding go to the care of someone who has inflicted pain onto themselves. Why should I have to pay for your mistakes as a person? If you want to smoke, take out private health insurance to cover yourself, free up the beds for people who's illnesses are not self inflicted.
Bullying?
Found this today:
A ten-year-old British transgender girl who has found herself being bullied by adults rather then her fellow classmates has spoken out about her excitement of returning to school as a female.
Born as a male, she was diagnosed two years ago with gender dysphoria – in simple terms someone who experiences discontent with their biological gender. After the diagnosis her parents chose to allow her to live as a girl.
The child’s mother told the Worcester News that while children largely accepted her daughter, parents and local adults had reacted badly, by calling the girl a “freak”.
When the school held a special assembly to educate the children on the girl’s new appearance and name, it was meant with complaints by a few of parents.
The grade six student told the BBC she had been very “disappointed” about being forced to wear boys’ uniform in the past and found it “exciting” to now be allowed to dress as a girl.
It is disgusting to see that adults, the people children should be looking up to, can talk down and redicule a child so easily. She has not 'chosen' to be the way she is, you can not help the way you feel about your body. As adults our job is to help, nuture, support and care for the young, to make sure they know that how they feel is alright, that they can talk to us about it because there is nothing wrong with how they feel. For parents to be against this basic idea.
Good to see the children had no problem with accepting someone they way they are. Maybe some people need to look at the way the children dealt with this issue and learn from them.
A ten-year-old British transgender girl who has found herself being bullied by adults rather then her fellow classmates has spoken out about her excitement of returning to school as a female.
Born as a male, she was diagnosed two years ago with gender dysphoria – in simple terms someone who experiences discontent with their biological gender. After the diagnosis her parents chose to allow her to live as a girl.
The child’s mother told the Worcester News that while children largely accepted her daughter, parents and local adults had reacted badly, by calling the girl a “freak”.
When the school held a special assembly to educate the children on the girl’s new appearance and name, it was meant with complaints by a few of parents.
The grade six student told the BBC she had been very “disappointed” about being forced to wear boys’ uniform in the past and found it “exciting” to now be allowed to dress as a girl.
It is disgusting to see that adults, the people children should be looking up to, can talk down and redicule a child so easily. She has not 'chosen' to be the way she is, you can not help the way you feel about your body. As adults our job is to help, nuture, support and care for the young, to make sure they know that how they feel is alright, that they can talk to us about it because there is nothing wrong with how they feel. For parents to be against this basic idea.
Good to see the children had no problem with accepting someone they way they are. Maybe some people need to look at the way the children dealt with this issue and learn from them.
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Me, political?
And now my Australian Sex Party shirt is on its way! Will be hilarious to wear it around when it gets here. Might keep it for special occasions though...
If anyone is interested in having a look at the party check them out here:
http://australiansexparty.com.au/
And remember, Don't Blame Me! =(
And from Scotland today:
"And Cardinal Keith O'Brien claimed that moves to give gay and lesbian couples the same marriage rights as mixed-sex pairs would be taken as a sign of the government's "intolerance" to the Catholic Church."
Are you fucken serious? Wtf?
Intolerance to the church? I'm sorry, but no one that is not in your church cares about your church. If you want to be bigoted then go for it. If you do not want to marry off LGBTI couples, then that is your choice. But do not deny the rights of people who do want to be married. There are other ways to be married that are not tied to the church, I know, because I had a marriage that has nothing to do with religion! If it was all about religion, then I would not have married. Some people want nothing to do with your church, get over it.
"If the Scottish Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, it will have forfeited the trust which the nation, including many in the Catholic community, has placed in it, and its intolerance will shame Scotland in the eyes of the world."
This just hows you how out of touch you are with the world cardinal. This decision would now 'shame Scotland in the eyes of the world', in fact, quite the opposite, it would be a shining light in the darkness for equal rights. You are the one that is trying to keep 'universally recognised human rights' back in the dark ages.
He added: "Disingenuously, the government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn't be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is quite staggering arrogance. No government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage."
You know what is 'staggaring arrogance'? The thought that your private beliefs might be able to be foisted and forced onto people who do not want anything to do with them. No church has the moral authority to tell someone who is not a member of the church what to do with their life.
Marriage equality is not something the church can weigh in on, as much as it would like to. You can say you don't like it, you can say you don't agree with it, whatever, you do what you want. But you have no say in what the world does, you are one institution, people can choose to be a part of it or not. You do not have a say in what Governments can and can't do. The intolerance is not falling onto the church my friend, it is falling on the lives of all the people who are not considered equal in the eyes of the LAW.
Marriage equality...
Equality
EQUAL!
DO YOU NOT SEE THE POINT.
If you want to view the article:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/269838-cardinal-claims-same-sex-marriage-would-shame-scotland/
"And Cardinal Keith O'Brien claimed that moves to give gay and lesbian couples the same marriage rights as mixed-sex pairs would be taken as a sign of the government's "intolerance" to the Catholic Church."
Are you fucken serious? Wtf?
Intolerance to the church? I'm sorry, but no one that is not in your church cares about your church. If you want to be bigoted then go for it. If you do not want to marry off LGBTI couples, then that is your choice. But do not deny the rights of people who do want to be married. There are other ways to be married that are not tied to the church, I know, because I had a marriage that has nothing to do with religion! If it was all about religion, then I would not have married. Some people want nothing to do with your church, get over it.
"If the Scottish Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, it will have forfeited the trust which the nation, including many in the Catholic community, has placed in it, and its intolerance will shame Scotland in the eyes of the world."
This just hows you how out of touch you are with the world cardinal. This decision would now 'shame Scotland in the eyes of the world', in fact, quite the opposite, it would be a shining light in the darkness for equal rights. You are the one that is trying to keep 'universally recognised human rights' back in the dark ages.
He added: "Disingenuously, the government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn't be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is quite staggering arrogance. No government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage."
You know what is 'staggaring arrogance'? The thought that your private beliefs might be able to be foisted and forced onto people who do not want anything to do with them. No church has the moral authority to tell someone who is not a member of the church what to do with their life.
Marriage equality is not something the church can weigh in on, as much as it would like to. You can say you don't like it, you can say you don't agree with it, whatever, you do what you want. But you have no say in what the world does, you are one institution, people can choose to be a part of it or not. You do not have a say in what Governments can and can't do. The intolerance is not falling onto the church my friend, it is falling on the lives of all the people who are not considered equal in the eyes of the LAW.
Marriage equality...
Equality
EQUAL!
DO YOU NOT SEE THE POINT.
If you want to view the article:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/269838-cardinal-claims-same-sex-marriage-would-shame-scotland/
My first post.
Well how to start off my first post. I think with an apology for anyone who has come across this blog that may feel offended by what is in it. Kinda. These are my views on life, and the world, and what does and does not affect me. I will tell it how I feel it, and that is all. If you do not like me then please feel free to click away from the blog. If you do like me, feel free to follow me and check back for regular updates!
I am first and formost a lover of science, rationality, reason and learning. I love animals more than I do most people, and I enjoy their company more.
I'm sure you'll get to know me more as I post my opnion on different matters.
I am first and formost a lover of science, rationality, reason and learning. I love animals more than I do most people, and I enjoy their company more.
I'm sure you'll get to know me more as I post my opnion on different matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)