The current trend is for people to talk about their "rights". A "right" only exists if someone is there to uphold it. My "right" to freedom from bullying means absolutely nothing if someone decides to bully me. There is no protection, only a vague hope of punishment for the bully.
A child's "right" to education only exists if there are teachers willing to teach them. Ironically, this "right" to education seems (in some areas of the UK, at least) to have morphed into a "right" to a good grade: some pupils don't put the effort in and think that they are entitled to success because of their "rights".
I could start on how we need to forget "rights" and talk about responsibility (we have a responsibility not to bully people; pupils have a responsibility to study well if they want the good grades), but I want to address something else first.
In a recent article regarding using "genderless pronouns" to avoid offending a 'trans' person, an LGBT activist is reported saying: "It's about respecting people's right to define themselves as neither male nor female." (Although the article was also updated, the quote doesn't seem to have been taken back.)
My question is: do we really have a "right" to decide what gender we would prefer to be?
Sex change operations allow people to decide that they no longer wish to have the genitals they were born with. What's to stop the medical profession going a step further and experimenting with swapping arms, legs, hands, feet and so on? Do I have a "right" to request that my feet be changed into hands so that I can pick things up and hold things with my feet?
Perhaps some things should not be considered "rights"...
I am not free to choose which nationality I'm born into.
I am not free to choose whether I grow up in a wealthy house or a poor house.
I am not free to choose which genitals I'm born with.
It all seems to point to a society which does not take any responsibility:
I have a responsibility to provide for my family if I am able to.
I have a responsibility not to bully other people.
I have a responsibility to study well so that I can be educated.
I have a responsibility to keep myself clean and not smelly.
I have a responsibility to help the needy.
I have a responsibility to develop a good reputation for the country I'm born into.
I have a responsibility to develop a good reputation for the gender I'm born with.
If we allow our society to take away "normality", then the result will be chaos.
It's interesting: so many children just want to be "normal", not identified with some medical condition or because of their intelligence level or because of the way they look. On the one hand, they want to be unique (character, hobbies), but they also want - and need - an element of normality. Fashion models have taken "attractiveness" to unreachable heights with the airbrushed look, and that's become a new "normal" that no one can attain. But the struggle for this "normality" is so clear as we look around at all the girls who wallow in their make-up and realise just hoe much money is spent on plastic surgery!
A recent book was published to advocate "gender diversity". Instead of encouraging people to feel secure with their gender, it promotes confusion and advocates learning environments for children which does not provide gender security because the bounds of normality have been moved.
But if we want a society which panders to people who choose to take offence, then...
I wish to be identified as a male (not something wishy-washy or "genderless").
I wish to be identified as married, as a husband (not as someone's "partner").
I wish to be identified as white (I didn't choose my skin colour, and although it's more peachy-pink, "white" will do fine).
Why is it considered "politically incorrect" if I decide to get offended over these things? Why is my voice not heard?
Thursday 22 December 2016
Wednesday 21 December 2016
Jesus vs. Santa #4
#4 - Good behaviour and bad
You don't have to teach a child bad behaviour. They pick it up on their own. Parents struggle to get their children to be kind and generous people, to care more for others than themselves.
Santa lets us down here: he encourages children to boast about their good deeds, focusing on them and hoping everyone forgets about the bad things they've done. Jesus requires us to acknowledge that we are, by nature, evil, and then to confess and repent of what we've done. Jesus wipes the slate clean with an act of forgiveness and a change of behaviour, but Santa teaches children to just forget the past, no action necessary.
Matthew 4:17 and 1 John 1:9
You don't have to teach a child bad behaviour. They pick it up on their own. Parents struggle to get their children to be kind and generous people, to care more for others than themselves.
Santa lets us down here: he encourages children to boast about their good deeds, focusing on them and hoping everyone forgets about the bad things they've done. Jesus requires us to acknowledge that we are, by nature, evil, and then to confess and repent of what we've done. Jesus wipes the slate clean with an act of forgiveness and a change of behaviour, but Santa teaches children to just forget the past, no action necessary.
Matthew 4:17 and 1 John 1:9
Jesus vs. Santa #3
#3 - Giving and receiving
Santa is the one with the generous heart: he gives gifts to the whole world! For the little children, they only have to wait for him to arrive while they sleep. Despite the parents being the ones who are giving the gifts, their children are exempt from acknowledging this act of kindness because of a fictional person.
Children are free to boast about all the great things that Santa gave them. They don't have to think about other people at Christmastime because it's not their place to give gifts: Santa does that! In short, Santa subtly teaches children to be selfish and greedy.
Acts 20:35
Santa is the one with the generous heart: he gives gifts to the whole world! For the little children, they only have to wait for him to arrive while they sleep. Despite the parents being the ones who are giving the gifts, their children are exempt from acknowledging this act of kindness because of a fictional person.
Children are free to boast about all the great things that Santa gave them. They don't have to think about other people at Christmastime because it's not their place to give gifts: Santa does that! In short, Santa subtly teaches children to be selfish and greedy.
Acts 20:35
Jesus vs. Santa #2
#2 - Myths and truth
In a post-modern age where the 'truth' can be whatever you want it to be, people decide that sometimes the real truth is a bit inconvenient (that whole 'repent of your sins' thing) and prefer to make up their own. Santa is a nice little piece of fiction that parents are far happier to let their children believe... after all, it's not really lying to children if we decide that it's true for us...
John 8:31-32
In a post-modern age where the 'truth' can be whatever you want it to be, people decide that sometimes the real truth is a bit inconvenient (that whole 'repent of your sins' thing) and prefer to make up their own. Santa is a nice little piece of fiction that parents are far happier to let their children believe... after all, it's not really lying to children if we decide that it's true for us...
John 8:31-32
Jesus vs. Santa #1
Since we're coming up to Christmas, I thought it would be interesting to think about why people prefer the make-believe of Santa Claus to the real celebration of the birth of Jesus the Messiah.
Now, I know that the Christians jumped in and did away with the pagan celebration of the 'Winter Solstice' and gave it a biblical make-over. In recent years I've found more people going back to the solstice celebrations so that they can avoid any religious meddling, claiming it's the true celebration for this time of year. But I'm not going to get into that. Leave the pagans (or pagan pretenders) out of it, I'm just comparing the traditional Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus with how a fictional character has somehow stolen the show.
#1 - Materialism and spirituality
Santa is all about giving material gifts: the things you can touch and feel.
Jesus came to give eternal life: something spiritual, but which is far more valuable.
People prefer material things, gaining worldly wealth and comparing themselves with others, which could be part of the reason why people prefer Santa.
Matthew 6:19-20
Now, I know that the Christians jumped in and did away with the pagan celebration of the 'Winter Solstice' and gave it a biblical make-over. In recent years I've found more people going back to the solstice celebrations so that they can avoid any religious meddling, claiming it's the true celebration for this time of year. But I'm not going to get into that. Leave the pagans (or pagan pretenders) out of it, I'm just comparing the traditional Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus with how a fictional character has somehow stolen the show.
#1 - Materialism and spirituality
Santa is all about giving material gifts: the things you can touch and feel.
Jesus came to give eternal life: something spiritual, but which is far more valuable.
People prefer material things, gaining worldly wealth and comparing themselves with others, which could be part of the reason why people prefer Santa.
Matthew 6:19-20
Monday 21 November 2016
EU Superpower
Brexit seems to be a difficult thing. Not only because of certain people who voted "Remain" trying to block the way, nor because of the politicians who don't understand that their role in democracy is to deliver what the people ask for, but because what the EU is becoming.
There are suggestions of the UK having to continue paying into the EU for years after leaving. There are talks of an EU army. President Obama wants to keep the links with the EU over the UK.
The EU is becoming like a "United States of Europe". Threats have been made against the UK because of the desire to leave. Some people are working hard to try to stop the leave. In light of the US election, things have heated up.
Why is this?
My suspicion is that the EU is essentially a superpower. It certainly will be if an EU army is given authorisation. They can "bully" the smaller countries into doing what they want (e.g. by imposing payments for years to come), and if there's an EU army, they can go to war with countries who disagree with them. To be in charge of the EU is to have a huge amount of global power.
The EU currently doesn't have the military force to be a dictatorship, and if Brexit proves that leaving the EU is relatively straight-forward, other countries might follow suit, weakening EU power. By imposing financial conditions for leaving, the EU is trying to send out the message that it is better to remain.
The current problem is that President Obama wants to be united with the EU, reinforcing USA's status as a superpower and having global control, but President-elect Trump might prefer to be united with the UK - separate from the EU. The conflict here is whether a US-UK union would be stronger than the EU. Without an EU army, UK remains strong outside of the EU, and the EU is weakened. A problem for the EU.
But if the USA and EU are united, they become the global superpower, far beyond any other country. The UK is then shown to be weakened, which could scare other EU countries into remaining part of the EU. The EU would then be able to push for an EU army which, combined with USA, would far outweigh any other military force on the planet. Waging war would become much easier and could happen over trivial matters.
Global domination is finally achieved.
I wonder if an attempt for dominance is the real motivation behind the current situation.
There are suggestions of the UK having to continue paying into the EU for years after leaving. There are talks of an EU army. President Obama wants to keep the links with the EU over the UK.
The EU is becoming like a "United States of Europe". Threats have been made against the UK because of the desire to leave. Some people are working hard to try to stop the leave. In light of the US election, things have heated up.
Why is this?
My suspicion is that the EU is essentially a superpower. It certainly will be if an EU army is given authorisation. They can "bully" the smaller countries into doing what they want (e.g. by imposing payments for years to come), and if there's an EU army, they can go to war with countries who disagree with them. To be in charge of the EU is to have a huge amount of global power.
The EU currently doesn't have the military force to be a dictatorship, and if Brexit proves that leaving the EU is relatively straight-forward, other countries might follow suit, weakening EU power. By imposing financial conditions for leaving, the EU is trying to send out the message that it is better to remain.
The current problem is that President Obama wants to be united with the EU, reinforcing USA's status as a superpower and having global control, but President-elect Trump might prefer to be united with the UK - separate from the EU. The conflict here is whether a US-UK union would be stronger than the EU. Without an EU army, UK remains strong outside of the EU, and the EU is weakened. A problem for the EU.
But if the USA and EU are united, they become the global superpower, far beyond any other country. The UK is then shown to be weakened, which could scare other EU countries into remaining part of the EU. The EU would then be able to push for an EU army which, combined with USA, would far outweigh any other military force on the planet. Waging war would become much easier and could happen over trivial matters.
Global domination is finally achieved.
I wonder if an attempt for dominance is the real motivation behind the current situation.
Wednesday 16 November 2016
Extremism in the educational workplace
It's interesting. On the one hand:
"People cannot be fired for political beliefs"
And yet:
"You can be fired for your political views"
Some schools in the UK have been (and are being) investigated for potential radicalistion of pupils. Teachers can be fired for expressing their religious views (as potential indoctrination). In fact, some teachers can be fired or discriminated against for holding certain views (without even expressing those views in the workplace). Much of this happens without any direct effects on the pupils (other than the loss of a potentially good teacher). In other words, the pupils involved are not actually radicalised: the impact is minimal.
Politics is also an educational workplace.
Think about it.
Politicians are responsible for educating the population regarding national and global circumstances. They are responsible for causing fear of the future with the 'global warming' messages, when much of the information was unproven.
Concerning the EU referendum, people were reduced to tears as they felt their futures were ruined by the "Leave" vote. And the same is true of the US election, as seen by the protests and riots.
And yet, what we have is a clear case of political brainwashing, indoctrination with an irrational fear because the future is unproven. Considering the fear that has been felt by the people who have succumbed to such scaremongering, it could be considered an act of terrorism: making people live in fear unless they adhere to their views.
In fact, I will now be using the term "political terrorism" to describe the process of forcing people to believe a particular viewpoint by exaggerating the opposite position, and causing them to become terrified of a particular outcome of a democratic situation.
Such conduct is not allowed in schools, and is considered acts of extremism, so why is it acceptable in political circles?
"People cannot be fired for political beliefs"
And yet:
"You can be fired for your political views"
Some schools in the UK have been (and are being) investigated for potential radicalistion of pupils. Teachers can be fired for expressing their religious views (as potential indoctrination). In fact, some teachers can be fired or discriminated against for holding certain views (without even expressing those views in the workplace). Much of this happens without any direct effects on the pupils (other than the loss of a potentially good teacher). In other words, the pupils involved are not actually radicalised: the impact is minimal.
Politics is also an educational workplace.
Think about it.
Politicians are responsible for educating the population regarding national and global circumstances. They are responsible for causing fear of the future with the 'global warming' messages, when much of the information was unproven.
Concerning the EU referendum, people were reduced to tears as they felt their futures were ruined by the "Leave" vote. And the same is true of the US election, as seen by the protests and riots.
And yet, what we have is a clear case of political brainwashing, indoctrination with an irrational fear because the future is unproven. Considering the fear that has been felt by the people who have succumbed to such scaremongering, it could be considered an act of terrorism: making people live in fear unless they adhere to their views.
In fact, I will now be using the term "political terrorism" to describe the process of forcing people to believe a particular viewpoint by exaggerating the opposite position, and causing them to become terrified of a particular outcome of a democratic situation.
Such conduct is not allowed in schools, and is considered acts of extremism, so why is it acceptable in political circles?
Sunday 13 November 2016
Rioting, really?
What does rioting say about a civilised, democratic nation?
Disturbing the peace is usually associated with anti-democratic and anti-social behaviour. And yet, with the result of the US election, there have now been four consecutive nights of protesting - including rioting - in some places.
The irony is that it seems these people feel it is their duty to uphold democracy and the level of progress they see their country having made.
But let's think: democracy is about letting the people have their say. With the current voting system, Trump won the election. And people are upset with that. Put simply, people seem upset with democracy... because it means some people don't get what they want.
Let's also think: how does a civilised person respond to not getting what they want? Well, a child will respond by getting upset and throwing a tantrum: a one-child stand because they want their chocolate bar or a certain toy. If the mark of civilisation is for people to respond to a democratic vote by marching through the streets and (in some places) inciting a riot, then I guess I've misunderstood.
Another irony is that it is precisely these people who talk of 'tolerance', and they will expect everyone to be tolerant of their views... but it is these people who are showing a massive act of intolerance by resisting a democratic outcome and exhibiting riotous behaviour.
I'm not sure about rioting, but there was certainly resistance to the result of the EU referendum too, even calling for a re-vote!
It's a nice display of hypocrisy from those who stand for 'progress'.
Disturbing the peace is usually associated with anti-democratic and anti-social behaviour. And yet, with the result of the US election, there have now been four consecutive nights of protesting - including rioting - in some places.
The irony is that it seems these people feel it is their duty to uphold democracy and the level of progress they see their country having made.
But let's think: democracy is about letting the people have their say. With the current voting system, Trump won the election. And people are upset with that. Put simply, people seem upset with democracy... because it means some people don't get what they want.
Let's also think: how does a civilised person respond to not getting what they want? Well, a child will respond by getting upset and throwing a tantrum: a one-child stand because they want their chocolate bar or a certain toy. If the mark of civilisation is for people to respond to a democratic vote by marching through the streets and (in some places) inciting a riot, then I guess I've misunderstood.
Another irony is that it is precisely these people who talk of 'tolerance', and they will expect everyone to be tolerant of their views... but it is these people who are showing a massive act of intolerance by resisting a democratic outcome and exhibiting riotous behaviour.
I'm not sure about rioting, but there was certainly resistance to the result of the EU referendum too, even calling for a re-vote!
It's a nice display of hypocrisy from those who stand for 'progress'.
Friday 11 November 2016
Freedom takes another hit
Another article: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/04/re-teacher-who-posted-islamophobic-comments-struck-off
Despite Britain being proud of its democratic governance - and I've even had people tell me that it is my 'duty' to vote because people fought and died for me to have that right - it seems that such democratic freedoms are limited to certain parties and view points.
What baffles me about the article is that it seems to indicate that the man wasn't 'struck off' due to showing an 18-certified film to 12- and 13-year-olds, nor for accessing pornography on a school laptop, nor for failing to take appropriate action when a pupil acknowledged taking drugs, nor for taking sick leave in order to work as a security guard.
No, the article seems to indicate that he was struck off due to his involvement with a certain political group. Apparently he was undermining "fundamental British values, including democracy". The article also says: "A number of teachers have also been suspended or struck off as a consequence of their links with another far-right group, the British National Party (BNP)."
What baffles me is that the UK is now so concerned with 'extremism' that it is undermining the very fabric of democracy by discriminating based on a person's political views. The anger this creates is governmental 'shooting oneself in the foot' as people will become disillusioned with so-called 'democratic freedoms' and want something to be done about it. The result? More people will be joining those 'extremist' groups.
But the question on my mind is: why aren't Britons allowed to care about their own country anymore? So many other countries have laws whereby a foreigner isn't allowed to engage in paid work until they become a citizen, or isn't allowed to do any work (paid or voluntary) if there is a born-and-bred national capable of doing it. But not in the UK. Apparently this makes us such a 'tolerant' society.
The result is that the government are not looking after their own. Britons are being neglected and discriminated against due to 'tolerance'... is it really a wonder why there are groups such as the BNP or Britain First? Is it a wonder why Nigel Farage has such strong opinions about caring for Britons before immigrants?
But no. Apparently 'tolerance' must prevail and anyone concerned with making sure Britons are looked after is clearly intolerant, against freedom and against democracy.
Despite Britain being proud of its democratic governance - and I've even had people tell me that it is my 'duty' to vote because people fought and died for me to have that right - it seems that such democratic freedoms are limited to certain parties and view points.
What baffles me about the article is that it seems to indicate that the man wasn't 'struck off' due to showing an 18-certified film to 12- and 13-year-olds, nor for accessing pornography on a school laptop, nor for failing to take appropriate action when a pupil acknowledged taking drugs, nor for taking sick leave in order to work as a security guard.
No, the article seems to indicate that he was struck off due to his involvement with a certain political group. Apparently he was undermining "fundamental British values, including democracy". The article also says: "A number of teachers have also been suspended or struck off as a consequence of their links with another far-right group, the British National Party (BNP)."
What baffles me is that the UK is now so concerned with 'extremism' that it is undermining the very fabric of democracy by discriminating based on a person's political views. The anger this creates is governmental 'shooting oneself in the foot' as people will become disillusioned with so-called 'democratic freedoms' and want something to be done about it. The result? More people will be joining those 'extremist' groups.
But the question on my mind is: why aren't Britons allowed to care about their own country anymore? So many other countries have laws whereby a foreigner isn't allowed to engage in paid work until they become a citizen, or isn't allowed to do any work (paid or voluntary) if there is a born-and-bred national capable of doing it. But not in the UK. Apparently this makes us such a 'tolerant' society.
The result is that the government are not looking after their own. Britons are being neglected and discriminated against due to 'tolerance'... is it really a wonder why there are groups such as the BNP or Britain First? Is it a wonder why Nigel Farage has such strong opinions about caring for Britons before immigrants?
But no. Apparently 'tolerance' must prevail and anyone concerned with making sure Britons are looked after is clearly intolerant, against freedom and against democracy.
Another excuse for accusations of racism
I recently read this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/11/10/will-britain-ever-have-a-black-prime-minister-the-answer-starts/
The point to ponder in the title is: will Britain ever have a black Prime Minister?
I can see it coming: the results of a future general election where the party with a black leader comes in second, and suddenly everyone who didn't vote for that party is labelled a racist.
As the EU referendum showed me, a large number of people seem to think that votes are about one thing: our view of minorities. Voting "Leave" on the EU issue led to accusations of racism because of what it would mean for immigrants... despite there being many other reasons for people voting "Leave".
Due to the political correctness of the UK, it is only a matter of time before a black party leader rises up and, if that party doesn't win the election, accusations will fly again. The idea that people might vote because of what the party stands for, and the impact on the country, will become alien.
Equality will have been missed again... and hence the phrase 'positive discrimination' which makes minorities have a more than fair chance.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in equality. But I believe in the 'equal' part of it, not swinging in the opposite favour. I have no problem with foreigners. As long as they are able to do the job they are meant to be doing. Yet, in the past, I have felt bad for being annoyed with a foreigner who was not pulling his weight with a project we were working on together. Why did I feel bad? Because I felt I would be accused of being a racist when in actual fact I just wanted our project to be done effectively and I felt that not turning up to scheduled meetings was unacceptable. I would not have felt bad for being annoyed if the person was white British. Thank you, UK society, for your politically correct contribution to my life.
The point to ponder in the title is: will Britain ever have a black Prime Minister?
I can see it coming: the results of a future general election where the party with a black leader comes in second, and suddenly everyone who didn't vote for that party is labelled a racist.
As the EU referendum showed me, a large number of people seem to think that votes are about one thing: our view of minorities. Voting "Leave" on the EU issue led to accusations of racism because of what it would mean for immigrants... despite there being many other reasons for people voting "Leave".
Due to the political correctness of the UK, it is only a matter of time before a black party leader rises up and, if that party doesn't win the election, accusations will fly again. The idea that people might vote because of what the party stands for, and the impact on the country, will become alien.
Equality will have been missed again... and hence the phrase 'positive discrimination' which makes minorities have a more than fair chance.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in equality. But I believe in the 'equal' part of it, not swinging in the opposite favour. I have no problem with foreigners. As long as they are able to do the job they are meant to be doing. Yet, in the past, I have felt bad for being annoyed with a foreigner who was not pulling his weight with a project we were working on together. Why did I feel bad? Because I felt I would be accused of being a racist when in actual fact I just wanted our project to be done effectively and I felt that not turning up to scheduled meetings was unacceptable. I would not have felt bad for being annoyed if the person was white British. Thank you, UK society, for your politically correct contribution to my life.
Lessons to learn from recent votes
The US election, much like the UK vote on the European Union, shows a nation divided. But there are some similarities that I find interesting, especially in these times.
1. Democracy
Voting is meant to be a process whereby the people have their say. For the EU referendum, the majority of voters voted to leave the EU. The result? Backlash. People unhappy and calls for a second referendum. These people couldn't cope with democracy. For the US election, the way the voting system works, Donald Trump won. The result? Backlash. Rioting, protests, even calls for California to leave the United States! It's much like a child throwing a tantrum when it doesn't get its own way.
2. Tolerance
People are always rattling on about 'tolerance' and how we must accept people who have opposing views to our own. But where is the tolerance from the people who voted on the losing side? The UK referendum resulted in the Leavers being branded racists. The Trump supporters have been labelled bigots and misogynists. It seems that tolerance only works when everyone is agreeing with you.
3. Controlling the world is a difficult job
It's hard enough for leaders of small countries to do their job. The EU is a massive area of the world and to keep everyone happy is difficult. The US is also a large area of the world, with people having widely varying opinions. Is it really a surprise that not everyone is in agreement? The calls for breaking down the land into smaller chunks might not be a step backwards. The UK might be better off being four separate countries again. The US might be better off with more control being given at the state level. Smaller areas are much easier to govern. In times gone by, kings would go to war to expand their kingdoms. Nowadays, people run for president or try to set up an organisation to ally different lands and then become ruler of that organisation.
4. Voting systems need work.
The EU referendum was done by 'popular vote', which most people consider the fairest method. But UK general elections are not. In the most recent general election, I didn't know how to vote. The local MP was doing a good job and I would be happy for him to remain in place. Plus, he was the most popular by far (he had previously won with 64% of the votes) so it was pretty much guaranteed that he would stay. But I didn't want to vote for the party he stood for. A vote based on his character would mean a vote for a party I disagreed with. A vote for the party I wanted running the country would just be a wasted vote, as that party's representative had no chance of getting in (only 10% of the votes). Although the MP remained in his position, it was only with 35% of the votes, but it only goes to show that the votes were more split: the nation was divided, and; with more choice there is more uncertainty.
If we look at the 2015 UK general election, we find that the Conservatives won with only 36.9% of the votes. This means that 63.1% of the country didn't want them in.
For the US election, the Electoral College has a similar system to the UK constituencies, but with each state having a differing number of Electoral College Votes, based on various factors. It's not entirely fair and, as the 2016 presidential election revealed, it is possible to be elected without having the highest numbers of votes. But then, the same was true in 2000 (and also in 1888).
But look on the bright side: a greater percentage of the US population wanted Donald Trump for president (47.5%) than the UK population wanting David Cameron for Prime Minister (36.9%).
5. Campaigns need to build up rather than pull down
Every campaign I've seen in recent years has been more about pulling the opposing parties/views down rather than talking about the benefits of their own standpoint. In the UK, political parties slag each other off. For the EU referendum, much of the campaign was aimed at how much worse the country would be if you voted against their campaign, not to mention the amount of lies that was presented. For the US election, there were insults and police investigations. Does anyone believe in what they stand for? The result of the EU referendum and the US election is about how bad things have become. Even the people who voted in favour seem to talk about it being better than the alternative. For all elections, including the EU referendum, there is hope with every option. The hope may be different, but there is still hope. It seems the story of Pandora's Box has more reality than we think: people focus on the evils that come out and forget about the hope that's mixed in there too.
6. Votes are a reflection of the times
The world changes: sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But whatever our own opinions, the world does change. Some people call it 'progress' whilst others think it's a step backwards. Many people felt the UK vote to leave the EU was a step backwards, but also many people felt that the EU was an interesting experiment that had run its course. Either way, the vote was a reflection that with all the multiculturalism of the UK, there are now so many different views it is even more difficult to remain united.
The US has a reputation of being the 'world police', trying to dictate to other countries how they should be run (which is not always agreed by other nations). Although this is a generalisation, it is a prevailing theme. Is it a wonder, then, that the person elected as leader has views about how his own country should be run?
7. Strength is found in independence
Whilst for individuals, there is 'strength in numbers', it doesn't work when the numbers are so large due to multiple countries being involved. Many people in the UK feel that we are stronger being independent than being with the EU. A prevailing theme is that we need to regain control of our own country again. The US have elected a leader who wishes to regain control of his own country too. There doesn't have to be unity or alliances for there to be peace, just the allowance for other nations to do things their own way. We used to call this 'tolerance'.
8. Stock markets
With both the EU referendum and the US election, stock markets took a hit immediately after. Why? Because the large companies are not being responsible with their wealth. So focused on money, they take bets on the vote. Commentators for the EU referendum said it was going to be a win for the Remainers, so the companies took bets that way. When the result was different, a huge sum was wiped off the stock market immediately. For the US election, commentators said Hillary Clinton was going to win, so the companies took bets that way. When the result was different, again, a huge sum was wiped off the stock market. The good thing about the stock market response to the US election is that it might have helped stabilise the UK economy after the EU referendum. But the question remains: when are the big companies going to stop being so money-focused and start to take their responsibilities to the world seriously?
1. Democracy
Voting is meant to be a process whereby the people have their say. For the EU referendum, the majority of voters voted to leave the EU. The result? Backlash. People unhappy and calls for a second referendum. These people couldn't cope with democracy. For the US election, the way the voting system works, Donald Trump won. The result? Backlash. Rioting, protests, even calls for California to leave the United States! It's much like a child throwing a tantrum when it doesn't get its own way.
2. Tolerance
People are always rattling on about 'tolerance' and how we must accept people who have opposing views to our own. But where is the tolerance from the people who voted on the losing side? The UK referendum resulted in the Leavers being branded racists. The Trump supporters have been labelled bigots and misogynists. It seems that tolerance only works when everyone is agreeing with you.
3. Controlling the world is a difficult job
It's hard enough for leaders of small countries to do their job. The EU is a massive area of the world and to keep everyone happy is difficult. The US is also a large area of the world, with people having widely varying opinions. Is it really a surprise that not everyone is in agreement? The calls for breaking down the land into smaller chunks might not be a step backwards. The UK might be better off being four separate countries again. The US might be better off with more control being given at the state level. Smaller areas are much easier to govern. In times gone by, kings would go to war to expand their kingdoms. Nowadays, people run for president or try to set up an organisation to ally different lands and then become ruler of that organisation.
4. Voting systems need work.
The EU referendum was done by 'popular vote', which most people consider the fairest method. But UK general elections are not. In the most recent general election, I didn't know how to vote. The local MP was doing a good job and I would be happy for him to remain in place. Plus, he was the most popular by far (he had previously won with 64% of the votes) so it was pretty much guaranteed that he would stay. But I didn't want to vote for the party he stood for. A vote based on his character would mean a vote for a party I disagreed with. A vote for the party I wanted running the country would just be a wasted vote, as that party's representative had no chance of getting in (only 10% of the votes). Although the MP remained in his position, it was only with 35% of the votes, but it only goes to show that the votes were more split: the nation was divided, and; with more choice there is more uncertainty.
If we look at the 2015 UK general election, we find that the Conservatives won with only 36.9% of the votes. This means that 63.1% of the country didn't want them in.
For the US election, the Electoral College has a similar system to the UK constituencies, but with each state having a differing number of Electoral College Votes, based on various factors. It's not entirely fair and, as the 2016 presidential election revealed, it is possible to be elected without having the highest numbers of votes. But then, the same was true in 2000 (and also in 1888).
But look on the bright side: a greater percentage of the US population wanted Donald Trump for president (47.5%) than the UK population wanting David Cameron for Prime Minister (36.9%).
5. Campaigns need to build up rather than pull down
Every campaign I've seen in recent years has been more about pulling the opposing parties/views down rather than talking about the benefits of their own standpoint. In the UK, political parties slag each other off. For the EU referendum, much of the campaign was aimed at how much worse the country would be if you voted against their campaign, not to mention the amount of lies that was presented. For the US election, there were insults and police investigations. Does anyone believe in what they stand for? The result of the EU referendum and the US election is about how bad things have become. Even the people who voted in favour seem to talk about it being better than the alternative. For all elections, including the EU referendum, there is hope with every option. The hope may be different, but there is still hope. It seems the story of Pandora's Box has more reality than we think: people focus on the evils that come out and forget about the hope that's mixed in there too.
6. Votes are a reflection of the times
The world changes: sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But whatever our own opinions, the world does change. Some people call it 'progress' whilst others think it's a step backwards. Many people felt the UK vote to leave the EU was a step backwards, but also many people felt that the EU was an interesting experiment that had run its course. Either way, the vote was a reflection that with all the multiculturalism of the UK, there are now so many different views it is even more difficult to remain united.
The US has a reputation of being the 'world police', trying to dictate to other countries how they should be run (which is not always agreed by other nations). Although this is a generalisation, it is a prevailing theme. Is it a wonder, then, that the person elected as leader has views about how his own country should be run?
7. Strength is found in independence
Whilst for individuals, there is 'strength in numbers', it doesn't work when the numbers are so large due to multiple countries being involved. Many people in the UK feel that we are stronger being independent than being with the EU. A prevailing theme is that we need to regain control of our own country again. The US have elected a leader who wishes to regain control of his own country too. There doesn't have to be unity or alliances for there to be peace, just the allowance for other nations to do things their own way. We used to call this 'tolerance'.
8. Stock markets
With both the EU referendum and the US election, stock markets took a hit immediately after. Why? Because the large companies are not being responsible with their wealth. So focused on money, they take bets on the vote. Commentators for the EU referendum said it was going to be a win for the Remainers, so the companies took bets that way. When the result was different, a huge sum was wiped off the stock market immediately. For the US election, commentators said Hillary Clinton was going to win, so the companies took bets that way. When the result was different, again, a huge sum was wiped off the stock market. The good thing about the stock market response to the US election is that it might have helped stabilise the UK economy after the EU referendum. But the question remains: when are the big companies going to stop being so money-focused and start to take their responsibilities to the world seriously?
Tuesday 28 June 2016
Tolerance
Shortly after the "Leave" result came through, I had one person tell me, "Over half of the UK are racist!"
Obviously, in this person's mind (as with many others, I've found), people who voted to leave the EU are now branded as racists. What amazing tolerance we have in the UK!
The irony is that it's not just about immigration: do people in the UK really want to be forced to accept EU laws? Do British citizens want to have their court rulings overridden by EU courts?
But concerning immigration, most of the people voting to leave the EU because of immigration did so because it has become unsustainable. It's not about "hating immigrants", it's about the UK not being able to cope.
Plus, when we visit non-EU countries, there are restrictions on our visit: visas, work permits, etc. Does that make every other country racist towards us? No, it doesn't. It simply puts the UK in line with other non-EU countries.
"Leave" voters are not (necessarily) racists. They just don't want the country spiralling out of the control of the elected government, to be guided by non-elected people of other countries. That's not the type of democracy that is wanted.
Obviously, in this person's mind (as with many others, I've found), people who voted to leave the EU are now branded as racists. What amazing tolerance we have in the UK!
The irony is that it's not just about immigration: do people in the UK really want to be forced to accept EU laws? Do British citizens want to have their court rulings overridden by EU courts?
But concerning immigration, most of the people voting to leave the EU because of immigration did so because it has become unsustainable. It's not about "hating immigrants", it's about the UK not being able to cope.
Plus, when we visit non-EU countries, there are restrictions on our visit: visas, work permits, etc. Does that make every other country racist towards us? No, it doesn't. It simply puts the UK in line with other non-EU countries.
"Leave" voters are not (necessarily) racists. They just don't want the country spiralling out of the control of the elected government, to be guided by non-elected people of other countries. That's not the type of democracy that is wanted.
UK's referrendum on the EU
The one thing I've thought all the way through the whole process is this:
"You can't achieve great things without an element of risk."
Sure, remaining in the EU does offer an element of security, and things may continue much the same way (which includes the little EU laws coming into effect in UK without the possibility for much resistance).
And sure, leaving the EU brings with it a lot of uncertainty. But is the unknown a bad thing? Yes, it could make things worse, but it could also make things much better.
Are we wanting things to remain the same, or do we want the potential to make UK a much better place?
You can't have security with great aspirations.
"You can't achieve great things without an element of risk."
Sure, remaining in the EU does offer an element of security, and things may continue much the same way (which includes the little EU laws coming into effect in UK without the possibility for much resistance).
And sure, leaving the EU brings with it a lot of uncertainty. But is the unknown a bad thing? Yes, it could make things worse, but it could also make things much better.
Are we wanting things to remain the same, or do we want the potential to make UK a much better place?
You can't have security with great aspirations.
Tuesday 22 March 2016
Freewill
If it is true that everything about us is predetermined by our genetic make-up: our interests, desires, sexuality, intelligence, thoughts, and so on, then there comes some problems:
1. We really don't have any free choice at all, and everything I do in life is predetermined, so why not just kill someone?
2. Why do we have a justice system? Surely this would imply that some people's 'genetic make-up' is inferior or substandard? We would be denying the 'right to life' to a chunk of the population who just couldn't help it.
3. Why do we train children to 'think before they act' and to make wise choices if they have no control over it?
4. Why is there even a debate over whether we are predetermined by our genetic make-up? Some people will be predetermined to believe it, and others will be predetermined to not believe it. Discussion is futile.
Or, perhaps, could it be that this view is brought on by people who want some form of justification for unsavoury lifestyles? They don't like the idea that some 'ultimate truth' might be different to the way they live.
1. We really don't have any free choice at all, and everything I do in life is predetermined, so why not just kill someone?
2. Why do we have a justice system? Surely this would imply that some people's 'genetic make-up' is inferior or substandard? We would be denying the 'right to life' to a chunk of the population who just couldn't help it.
3. Why do we train children to 'think before they act' and to make wise choices if they have no control over it?
4. Why is there even a debate over whether we are predetermined by our genetic make-up? Some people will be predetermined to believe it, and others will be predetermined to not believe it. Discussion is futile.
Or, perhaps, could it be that this view is brought on by people who want some form of justification for unsavoury lifestyles? They don't like the idea that some 'ultimate truth' might be different to the way they live.
Saturday 12 March 2016
Combatting racism
"Great nations weren't built without a good dose of racism."
Said during a discussion on racism. It also applies to ethnic cleansing. Think about it.
If you're from a rich Western nation, then over the course of history there has been a crazy amount of racism, slavery and ethnic cleansing with all the wars over the centuries. Another nation doesn't agree with our ideology, so we attack them and put a stop to their 'evil' plans. We justify it with our own ideology because of course 'we are right!'
But the balance of power in the world is such that for one nation to become more powerful, another nation must become weaker. For one to become richer, another poorer. We claim to 'help the poor' but only so far as we can still be rich. The balance of power and wealth will never be restored because, deep down, we don't want equality: we always want to be that 'bit above' the others.
African and South American nations will remain poor, as will the slums and council estates. Unless, that is, the rich people of this world are prepared to part with enough of their wealth to become as one of them: fighting to earn their living, just to provide the food for the day.
Said during a discussion on racism. It also applies to ethnic cleansing. Think about it.
If you're from a rich Western nation, then over the course of history there has been a crazy amount of racism, slavery and ethnic cleansing with all the wars over the centuries. Another nation doesn't agree with our ideology, so we attack them and put a stop to their 'evil' plans. We justify it with our own ideology because of course 'we are right!'
But the balance of power in the world is such that for one nation to become more powerful, another nation must become weaker. For one to become richer, another poorer. We claim to 'help the poor' but only so far as we can still be rich. The balance of power and wealth will never be restored because, deep down, we don't want equality: we always want to be that 'bit above' the others.
African and South American nations will remain poor, as will the slums and council estates. Unless, that is, the rich people of this world are prepared to part with enough of their wealth to become as one of them: fighting to earn their living, just to provide the food for the day.
Wednesday 9 March 2016
Education in a consumer society
The UK's 'consumer society' has become the norm: we feel we have the 'right' to pick and choose what we eat, what we wear, what car we drive, where we live, what job we have, and so on. It is as though we have lost the real reason for doing things: we eat to live and should buy food we can afford; we wear clothes to keep warm and modest and should dress appropriately for the given situation; a car is for transport; a house is somewhere to live; a job is to earn money to pay for everything else in life.
But people feel they have a 'right' to have a large flatscreen TV with all the Sky channels, an XBox to go with it, a fancy car and extravagent holidays. So many people are in debt because of the lie that 'you deserve it'.
And it seems to me that young people enter into this consumerist society during their school days. They are used to having all the choice of life at their disposal, and then they apply it to their education. Despite more choice becoming available as they get older, right from a young age they decide that they want to be in control of what subjects to study: "I don't like maths. Therefore I won't pay attention and I can't be bothered to make the effort."; "I don't like my English teacher. I don't want to study it anymore."; "I'm never going to be a historian, so what's the point of learning it?"
It seems to me that there needs to be a shift in thinking.
1. Education should be seen as a priviledge, not a right. It is wrong to assume that just because a person is forced to go to school that they will be educated to a suitable level. Learning is entirely dependent on attitude and motivation. Even a teacher who is seen to be unfriendly is still able to pass on their knowledge.
2. If a person wishes to be educated, they need to accept the system. A person who has not yet gone through the system cannot possibly have enough knowledge to understand it and propose sensible changes which will benefit the majority. Only when they have gone through it themselves, will they be able to modify it for the better. (But of course, if it worked for them, why would they want to change it?)
3. There will always be things in life that we don't like. There will be aspects of education that we find dull and uninteresting. Choosing to get educated despite the feelings is how a person develops stamina and patient endurance. The consumerist society has created a generation of 'softies' who feel everything should be tailored to their wants and desires. It is as if they feel that hard work should only be required when it's something they want to do.
How is this beneficial for society? Who will be left to do the hard yards? Why should some people be forced to do the hard yards, just because others can't be bothered or don't like it?
Stop the whinging. Grow up. Get educated. Get clever.
But people feel they have a 'right' to have a large flatscreen TV with all the Sky channels, an XBox to go with it, a fancy car and extravagent holidays. So many people are in debt because of the lie that 'you deserve it'.
And it seems to me that young people enter into this consumerist society during their school days. They are used to having all the choice of life at their disposal, and then they apply it to their education. Despite more choice becoming available as they get older, right from a young age they decide that they want to be in control of what subjects to study: "I don't like maths. Therefore I won't pay attention and I can't be bothered to make the effort."; "I don't like my English teacher. I don't want to study it anymore."; "I'm never going to be a historian, so what's the point of learning it?"
It seems to me that there needs to be a shift in thinking.
1. Education should be seen as a priviledge, not a right. It is wrong to assume that just because a person is forced to go to school that they will be educated to a suitable level. Learning is entirely dependent on attitude and motivation. Even a teacher who is seen to be unfriendly is still able to pass on their knowledge.
2. If a person wishes to be educated, they need to accept the system. A person who has not yet gone through the system cannot possibly have enough knowledge to understand it and propose sensible changes which will benefit the majority. Only when they have gone through it themselves, will they be able to modify it for the better. (But of course, if it worked for them, why would they want to change it?)
3. There will always be things in life that we don't like. There will be aspects of education that we find dull and uninteresting. Choosing to get educated despite the feelings is how a person develops stamina and patient endurance. The consumerist society has created a generation of 'softies' who feel everything should be tailored to their wants and desires. It is as if they feel that hard work should only be required when it's something they want to do.
How is this beneficial for society? Who will be left to do the hard yards? Why should some people be forced to do the hard yards, just because others can't be bothered or don't like it?
Stop the whinging. Grow up. Get educated. Get clever.
Sunday 6 March 2016
Even more idiocy...
Another article: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/647539/Ukip-UK-Independence-Party-school-police-called-website
Let's get this straight...
- UKIP is a governmental party.
- Democracy is a very important part of UK society (despite it becoming increasingly totalitarian).
- Young people are encouraged to get involved in political debates and take their vote seriously.
But if you click on a political party's website, you get reported for radicalisation?!?!
Is it a wonder why so many people are becoming disillusioned with the government...?
Let's get this straight...
- UKIP is a governmental party.
- Democracy is a very important part of UK society (despite it becoming increasingly totalitarian).
- Young people are encouraged to get involved in political debates and take their vote seriously.
But if you click on a political party's website, you get reported for radicalisation?!?!
Is it a wonder why so many people are becoming disillusioned with the government...?
More idiocy...
A recent article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472655/Father-s-fury-school-calls-social-services-son-8-told-teachers-wanted-fight-terrorists-watching-news-report-Syrian-refugee-crisis.html#ixzz41ptno3sW
So, the UK now has laws whereby institutions such as schools now have a legal duty to report anything which might possibly be contrued as 'radicalisation' in order to avoid anyone becoming a terrorist.
On the surface, a good thing.
But UK society is so scared of not doing their duty, that - as is so often the case now - they go overboard...
A school puts on a charitable event to help Syrian refugees, and in the process explains the role of terrorism in creating this situation.
The result? One pupil thinks that terrorism needs to be dealt with (hence the government policy), but by expressing this view - that he wants to fight terrorism - he is reported for potential radicalisation!
It wasn't so long ago when the newspapers were reporting on the 'war on terror' and of course the government's emphasis on fighting terrorism over the last decade. Instead of thinking that here's a person who could be a good agent to fight terrorism, they accuse him of potentially becoming a terrorist...
Now, if expressing the view that you want to fight terrorism is a step towards radicalisation, then the whole UK and US governments are also in that very same boat.
I think we need someone in politics who is competent in logical reasoning.
(Not me.)
So, the UK now has laws whereby institutions such as schools now have a legal duty to report anything which might possibly be contrued as 'radicalisation' in order to avoid anyone becoming a terrorist.
On the surface, a good thing.
But UK society is so scared of not doing their duty, that - as is so often the case now - they go overboard...
A school puts on a charitable event to help Syrian refugees, and in the process explains the role of terrorism in creating this situation.
The result? One pupil thinks that terrorism needs to be dealt with (hence the government policy), but by expressing this view - that he wants to fight terrorism - he is reported for potential radicalisation!
It wasn't so long ago when the newspapers were reporting on the 'war on terror' and of course the government's emphasis on fighting terrorism over the last decade. Instead of thinking that here's a person who could be a good agent to fight terrorism, they accuse him of potentially becoming a terrorist...
Now, if expressing the view that you want to fight terrorism is a step towards radicalisation, then the whole UK and US governments are also in that very same boat.
I think we need someone in politics who is competent in logical reasoning.
(Not me.)
Saturday 5 March 2016
Learning to haggle
Here are a few observations I've made recently regarding successful haggling or negotiating:
1. You must be happy to accept all outcomes.
If you try to avoid one particular outcome, this will be picked up by the other party and you will be on the back foot. But if you are truly happy to accept either outcome, then you have already won: either way, you will walk away happy. Essentially, the ball's in their court, but you have all the cards!
2. Offer something the other party needs.
If you walk into a negotiation with the wrong offer, you will be turned down immediately. In the marketplace, going to a bicycle dealer offering to part-exchange a car engine for a bike, it probably won't work... unless the person you speak to is in desperate need of a car engine. But offering them a decent frame or other bicycle parts might open the door. If a company is short-staffed, your services might prove valuable.
3. Start with an outageous offer.
If you walk into the negotiation with a 'sensible' offer, you will be talked away from it. This offer needs to be the 'meet in the middle' offer: the outcome of the negotiation, not the start. If you want to buy a car for £2000, and say that at the start, you could easily end up paying £2500. So start with £1000, 'meeting in the middle' with £2000 (or even less, if you get lucky). If you offer something the other pary needs, they will be happy to negotiate. A car dealer might have a target to reach, so you will be helping them. If it is your services on the table, and you know they are valuable, you can set the price! But if your services aren't needed, the negotiation will get shut down before it even begins.
4. The longer the other party ponders is important.
If the other party takes plenty of time to consider your offer, you are in a strong position: you have something of value. If they are quick to settle, effectively saying, "Take it or leave it," then you must also be quick to respond. You can either stick with your initial offer and walk away, or continue the negotiation. But if you take the time to consider their offer, then their position becomes stronger: they know that you want what they have.
The key is to not be in want of anything: be content.
But this is difficult in a society that tells you that you 'should have' or 'deserve' everything on offer!!
Essentially, the non-materialist has the upper hand.
1. You must be happy to accept all outcomes.
If you try to avoid one particular outcome, this will be picked up by the other party and you will be on the back foot. But if you are truly happy to accept either outcome, then you have already won: either way, you will walk away happy. Essentially, the ball's in their court, but you have all the cards!
2. Offer something the other party needs.
If you walk into a negotiation with the wrong offer, you will be turned down immediately. In the marketplace, going to a bicycle dealer offering to part-exchange a car engine for a bike, it probably won't work... unless the person you speak to is in desperate need of a car engine. But offering them a decent frame or other bicycle parts might open the door. If a company is short-staffed, your services might prove valuable.
3. Start with an outageous offer.
If you walk into the negotiation with a 'sensible' offer, you will be talked away from it. This offer needs to be the 'meet in the middle' offer: the outcome of the negotiation, not the start. If you want to buy a car for £2000, and say that at the start, you could easily end up paying £2500. So start with £1000, 'meeting in the middle' with £2000 (or even less, if you get lucky). If you offer something the other pary needs, they will be happy to negotiate. A car dealer might have a target to reach, so you will be helping them. If it is your services on the table, and you know they are valuable, you can set the price! But if your services aren't needed, the negotiation will get shut down before it even begins.
4. The longer the other party ponders is important.
If the other party takes plenty of time to consider your offer, you are in a strong position: you have something of value. If they are quick to settle, effectively saying, "Take it or leave it," then you must also be quick to respond. You can either stick with your initial offer and walk away, or continue the negotiation. But if you take the time to consider their offer, then their position becomes stronger: they know that you want what they have.
The key is to not be in want of anything: be content.
But this is difficult in a society that tells you that you 'should have' or 'deserve' everything on offer!!
Essentially, the non-materialist has the upper hand.
Thursday 3 March 2016
The paradox of an atheistic viewpoint
A hot topoic in many debates regarding ethics: Hitler, Stalin and other dictators.
These people are often considered the most evil of people to have ever lived, because of the huge numbers of deaths they caused.
A number of people even go so far as to conclude that 'God cannot be good, because He is the one who created such people.' And this is usually followed by a statement that God not being good is a contradiction, and therefore God surely cannot exist at all.
So, it is a problem for there to be evil people on the earth.
And yet, in the Bible there are numerous accounts of evil people being killed: Noah and the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to name just two. The very same people mentioned above also often say that 'God cannot be good, because He caused so many deaths.' This is often followed by a statement that God is essentially the same as Hitler.
So, it is a problem for evil people to be removed from the earth.
The bigger problem - the problem that continues to go unsolved - is that this paradox slips by unnoticed. Two views which seem to be good - no one should create something that is evil, and mass muder is inherently wrong - rule out the possibility of a supreme Goodness (God).
So, if God does not exist, and there is no absolute good standard, then who are we to rule that ethnic cleansing is evil?
But the problem can be solved:
- God created people to have free will (which includes the freedom to rebel).
- Some people rebel.
- God doesn't like the evil behaviour.
- In the Bible, God destroyed the evil behaviour by also destroying the human it came from.
- Jesus came to bring God's mercy (not destroying the human), giving more chances for people to change their behaviour.
The problem we have now is that people turn God's mercy against Him, by saying that a loving God would surely not allow such evil in the world.
Of course, the other problem is that people abuse the chances that God gives: they live a life however they please, because they think God allows all behaviour (or say that He doesn't exist because there is not immediate punishment), then they get angry at the notion that God might deem them 'not worthy.'
These people are often considered the most evil of people to have ever lived, because of the huge numbers of deaths they caused.
A number of people even go so far as to conclude that 'God cannot be good, because He is the one who created such people.' And this is usually followed by a statement that God not being good is a contradiction, and therefore God surely cannot exist at all.
So, it is a problem for there to be evil people on the earth.
And yet, in the Bible there are numerous accounts of evil people being killed: Noah and the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to name just two. The very same people mentioned above also often say that 'God cannot be good, because He caused so many deaths.' This is often followed by a statement that God is essentially the same as Hitler.
So, it is a problem for evil people to be removed from the earth.
The bigger problem - the problem that continues to go unsolved - is that this paradox slips by unnoticed. Two views which seem to be good - no one should create something that is evil, and mass muder is inherently wrong - rule out the possibility of a supreme Goodness (God).
So, if God does not exist, and there is no absolute good standard, then who are we to rule that ethnic cleansing is evil?
But the problem can be solved:
- God created people to have free will (which includes the freedom to rebel).
- Some people rebel.
- God doesn't like the evil behaviour.
- In the Bible, God destroyed the evil behaviour by also destroying the human it came from.
- Jesus came to bring God's mercy (not destroying the human), giving more chances for people to change their behaviour.
The problem we have now is that people turn God's mercy against Him, by saying that a loving God would surely not allow such evil in the world.
Of course, the other problem is that people abuse the chances that God gives: they live a life however they please, because they think God allows all behaviour (or say that He doesn't exist because there is not immediate punishment), then they get angry at the notion that God might deem them 'not worthy.'
Wednesday 2 March 2016
UK becoming totalitarian?
From reading another recent article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12176380/Christian-student-expelled-for-opposing-gay-marriage.html?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=064303125a-BN-2016-02-29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-064303125a-127507157
Regardless of the main content of the article, there's a paragraph regarding this individual "... that he was entitled to his opinion ... but that there was a danger he "may have caused offence to some individuals" by voicing it."
Am I getting this right? Is there seriously the suggestion that we're only allowed our own opinions as long as we don't voice it?
Surely this is just another way of the government - or just those in authority over us - keeping us silent. It's essentially a gag order: be quiet or lose your job.
Aren't we thrilled to live in such a free country?!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12176380/Christian-student-expelled-for-opposing-gay-marriage.html?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=064303125a-BN-2016-02-29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-064303125a-127507157
Regardless of the main content of the article, there's a paragraph regarding this individual "... that he was entitled to his opinion ... but that there was a danger he "may have caused offence to some individuals" by voicing it."
Am I getting this right? Is there seriously the suggestion that we're only allowed our own opinions as long as we don't voice it?
Surely this is just another way of the government - or just those in authority over us - keeping us silent. It's essentially a gag order: be quiet or lose your job.
Aren't we thrilled to live in such a free country?!
Sunday 7 February 2016
Freedom of speech?!
My attention was recently drawn to an article regarding a Primary School headteacher who had a chunk of abuse thrown at her for stating her belief that there is more evidence for the Bible's creation story than for modern science's evolution theory.
The article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3428056/Church-England-primary-school-headteacher-sparks-online-ridicule-claiming-evolution-theory-evidence-Bible-true.html#ixzz3zKPbxAba
A few things to note:
- It's a Church of England school.
- Teachers have views about the world too.
- We're meant to live in a society of free speech.
Things people said include:
1. She is 'stupid and ignorant.'
2. She should quit her job.
3. Her comments are tantamount to 'child abuse.'
I want to go through these.
1. Many people hold to 'scientific fact' when they don't actually know the facts themselves. They essentially think, "Someone more intelligent than me has done some research and says it's true, so it must be true." Any non-science-literate person who accepts scientific theory as fact is themselves 'ignorant' and (therefore) essentially 'stupid.' This is because it is hypocritical to claim that 'religious people' are 'brainwashing' people into their belief system ('preying on the weak-minded,' as it were) because they believe such a belief system is delusional, when in actual fact they are believing a number of things to be true that they do not actually hold the evidence for or can prove to be true. What we essentially have in the UK education system is 'scientific brainwashing' whereby children are told, "This is what the scientists say, so it must be true."
We also need to be careful that we are not ignorant of the assumptions made when people talk. From a mathematical point of view, we accept that 1+1=2. If I were to suggest that 1+1=10, people would call me a fool. However, 1+1 does indeed equal 10. What you may not have realised up until now is that my first statement was using the decimal number system, and the second using binary. What's the boiling point of water? 100 degrees, 373.15 degrees or 212 degrees? All are correct. The first answer is Celsius, the second Kelvin, the third Fahrenheit.
It wasn't so long ago that 'evolution' meant evolving from apes. Now the scientific community suggest it is more likely from a 'common ancestor.' Given that scientific research, theory and experiementation requires the tweaking of pre-existing theories as new evidence is found, how we ever say that it is 'fact'?
When people talk, especially when science is involved, we need to know the assumptions they are making. Unfortunately, many assumptions are not stated. The hearer 'fills in the blanks' and may well come away thinking that something was said that really wasn't.
A nice, recent example was with an article stating, "NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars." When this (and many such articles) emerged, I was intrigued. Careful reading actually showed that there are some streaks on some of the slopes which contain some minerals that have been found in water on Earth. This is not evidence. This is one hypothesis after another. It is an assumption that water would be the same on every planet (unless they actualy refer to the water of Earth when they talk of water on Mars). It is an assumption that the identification of certain minerals demands a conclusion of water. It is an assumption that the streaks on the slopes were formed by liquid water. The evidence might 'point in that direction,' and it may well be proved sometime in the future (or proved false), but at the moment it certainly isn't a scientific 'fact.' And yet I heard people saying, "Isn't it amazing that they've actually found water on Mars?!"
So who is 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science?
Not only this, but most of the common people who like to hold tightly to the infallibility of scientific theory ridicule people who believe religious texts such as the Bible. The irony is that such people have not often read the Bible, and those who have often have only read it once, not realising that a single reading cannot possibly give the fullness of understanding that they claim to have. They do not fully realise the difference between poetic, historical, and prophetic writing. They do not fully understand the cultural significance of the laws that were given (instead, claiming it is just a 'primitive' society), nor that parables appear in many places, not just when Jesus speaks.
Many people call religious people 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science, but these people could be considered 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to religious texts.
Just have a look around to see what 'science' has done for the moral standards of society.
2. Forcing someone to quit their job because of their views... isn't that called 'intolerance'?! What a civilised society we are!
3. It could be considered 'tantamount to child abuse' to allow young people to experiment with ouija boards and tarot cards. Just because some people choose not to believe in the existence of demonic influence, is that really sufficient evidence to prove it is not real?
What about parents shouting angrily at each other in the presence of their children? What example are they setting for their children?
What about people who encourage their children to accept scientific 'facts' without detailed scrutiny of them?
To suggest that expressing views to children is 'tantamount to child abuse' is a very risky position to hold.
The article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3428056/Church-England-primary-school-headteacher-sparks-online-ridicule-claiming-evolution-theory-evidence-Bible-true.html#ixzz3zKPbxAba
A few things to note:
- It's a Church of England school.
- Teachers have views about the world too.
- We're meant to live in a society of free speech.
Things people said include:
1. She is 'stupid and ignorant.'
2. She should quit her job.
3. Her comments are tantamount to 'child abuse.'
I want to go through these.
1. Many people hold to 'scientific fact' when they don't actually know the facts themselves. They essentially think, "Someone more intelligent than me has done some research and says it's true, so it must be true." Any non-science-literate person who accepts scientific theory as fact is themselves 'ignorant' and (therefore) essentially 'stupid.' This is because it is hypocritical to claim that 'religious people' are 'brainwashing' people into their belief system ('preying on the weak-minded,' as it were) because they believe such a belief system is delusional, when in actual fact they are believing a number of things to be true that they do not actually hold the evidence for or can prove to be true. What we essentially have in the UK education system is 'scientific brainwashing' whereby children are told, "This is what the scientists say, so it must be true."
We also need to be careful that we are not ignorant of the assumptions made when people talk. From a mathematical point of view, we accept that 1+1=2. If I were to suggest that 1+1=10, people would call me a fool. However, 1+1 does indeed equal 10. What you may not have realised up until now is that my first statement was using the decimal number system, and the second using binary. What's the boiling point of water? 100 degrees, 373.15 degrees or 212 degrees? All are correct. The first answer is Celsius, the second Kelvin, the third Fahrenheit.
It wasn't so long ago that 'evolution' meant evolving from apes. Now the scientific community suggest it is more likely from a 'common ancestor.' Given that scientific research, theory and experiementation requires the tweaking of pre-existing theories as new evidence is found, how we ever say that it is 'fact'?
When people talk, especially when science is involved, we need to know the assumptions they are making. Unfortunately, many assumptions are not stated. The hearer 'fills in the blanks' and may well come away thinking that something was said that really wasn't.
A nice, recent example was with an article stating, "NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars." When this (and many such articles) emerged, I was intrigued. Careful reading actually showed that there are some streaks on some of the slopes which contain some minerals that have been found in water on Earth. This is not evidence. This is one hypothesis after another. It is an assumption that water would be the same on every planet (unless they actualy refer to the water of Earth when they talk of water on Mars). It is an assumption that the identification of certain minerals demands a conclusion of water. It is an assumption that the streaks on the slopes were formed by liquid water. The evidence might 'point in that direction,' and it may well be proved sometime in the future (or proved false), but at the moment it certainly isn't a scientific 'fact.' And yet I heard people saying, "Isn't it amazing that they've actually found water on Mars?!"
So who is 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science?
Not only this, but most of the common people who like to hold tightly to the infallibility of scientific theory ridicule people who believe religious texts such as the Bible. The irony is that such people have not often read the Bible, and those who have often have only read it once, not realising that a single reading cannot possibly give the fullness of understanding that they claim to have. They do not fully realise the difference between poetic, historical, and prophetic writing. They do not fully understand the cultural significance of the laws that were given (instead, claiming it is just a 'primitive' society), nor that parables appear in many places, not just when Jesus speaks.
Many people call religious people 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science, but these people could be considered 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to religious texts.
Just have a look around to see what 'science' has done for the moral standards of society.
2. Forcing someone to quit their job because of their views... isn't that called 'intolerance'?! What a civilised society we are!
3. It could be considered 'tantamount to child abuse' to allow young people to experiment with ouija boards and tarot cards. Just because some people choose not to believe in the existence of demonic influence, is that really sufficient evidence to prove it is not real?
What about parents shouting angrily at each other in the presence of their children? What example are they setting for their children?
What about people who encourage their children to accept scientific 'facts' without detailed scrutiny of them?
To suggest that expressing views to children is 'tantamount to child abuse' is a very risky position to hold.
Wednesday 20 January 2016
Brainwashing by alienation?
I continue to hear many things regarding the increased acceptance of homosexuality, especially the hatred thrown at those who hold fast to traditional marriage.
What I find interesting is that most homosexuality supporters (abbreviated to HS for this post) label the traditional supporters (TS, for this post) as 'intolerant' and 'bigots.' But, if we are to understand 'intolerance' as a feeling or act of hatred towards those who disagree to our own view, then surely - by the very act of calling a TS a 'bigot' - the HS group are displaying strong signs of intolerance and bigotry?
How is it 'tolerant' to say, "You don't agree with me, so you're a bigot"? Or, in its most ironic form, "I can't tolerate your intolerance!" Surely 'tolerance' would be to say, "We accept people, regardless of their view"?
It seems to me that this whole issue is a very clever piece of social peer pressure - brainwashing, if you will. People don't like being called names, especially to be labelled as something like a 'bigot.' For a TS, the options are to either change their thinking to become a HS, or to be irrationally and intolerantly labelled and insulted.
The HS agenda is moved forward, not with logical reasoning or scientific evidence, but with schoolyard bully tactics. The TS group are made to feel alienated by their own people unless they change their view. The feeling of alienation is unpleasant, and it doesn't require much conversation to find that many people (in UK, at least) do not have enough foundation to their beliefs, that many will move from a TS to a HS (still without solid conviction).
To top it off, 'tolerance' laws are then added to society, jeopardising the jobs of the TS if they should voice their opinion in the wrong environment. How is this equality? How is this tolerant?
It seems - to me at least - the hallmark of a society that does not really know what it wants to be. An act of people-pleasing that only results in confusion, anarchy and alienation.
What I also find ironic is the offence caused by turning the name-calling around: the next time a HS calls a TS a bigot, tell them that such a statement is a sign of intolerant bigotry and see what happens!
What I find interesting is that most homosexuality supporters (abbreviated to HS for this post) label the traditional supporters (TS, for this post) as 'intolerant' and 'bigots.' But, if we are to understand 'intolerance' as a feeling or act of hatred towards those who disagree to our own view, then surely - by the very act of calling a TS a 'bigot' - the HS group are displaying strong signs of intolerance and bigotry?
How is it 'tolerant' to say, "You don't agree with me, so you're a bigot"? Or, in its most ironic form, "I can't tolerate your intolerance!" Surely 'tolerance' would be to say, "We accept people, regardless of their view"?
It seems to me that this whole issue is a very clever piece of social peer pressure - brainwashing, if you will. People don't like being called names, especially to be labelled as something like a 'bigot.' For a TS, the options are to either change their thinking to become a HS, or to be irrationally and intolerantly labelled and insulted.
The HS agenda is moved forward, not with logical reasoning or scientific evidence, but with schoolyard bully tactics. The TS group are made to feel alienated by their own people unless they change their view. The feeling of alienation is unpleasant, and it doesn't require much conversation to find that many people (in UK, at least) do not have enough foundation to their beliefs, that many will move from a TS to a HS (still without solid conviction).
To top it off, 'tolerance' laws are then added to society, jeopardising the jobs of the TS if they should voice their opinion in the wrong environment. How is this equality? How is this tolerant?
It seems - to me at least - the hallmark of a society that does not really know what it wants to be. An act of people-pleasing that only results in confusion, anarchy and alienation.
What I also find ironic is the offence caused by turning the name-calling around: the next time a HS calls a TS a bigot, tell them that such a statement is a sign of intolerant bigotry and see what happens!
Saturday 2 January 2016
Increase in modern mental health problems
Is it clear that recent years have shown an increase in mental health issues such as depression. There is also a massive increase in people being diagnosed with things such as ADD, ADHD, ODD, many other acronyms, as well as Asperger's syndrome and the fairly recent conclusion that autism is a 'spectrum' that we are all on at some point.
Perhaps we have just managed to come up with more names to label the behaviour of various people (especially as it is now considered offensive and politically incorrect to call someone 'retarded', a 'delinquent' or an 'idiot'), or perhaps there is a reason behind it - an inconvenient reason, given the state of modern British society.
Scientists are slowly convincing the Western world that they have (or, are developing) the answers and understanding to everything pertaining to life on earth. Religions are more commonly being described as primitive belief systems, for people with limited understanding (some staunch atheists thrive off such name-calling).
However, could it be that since 'tampering with the supernatural', such as playing with ouija boards and tarot cards, has now been described as innocent and harmless play (by those very same academically advanced 'professionals'), their effects are no longer being treated in the correct manner?
'Primitive' peoples would look to witch doctors or spiritualists if there was something happening in their life that they couldn't understand. In earlier Christian societies, people would turn to the priests for deliverance from the negativity they encounter.
But now, in an age where spirituality is increasingly brushed off as nonsense, we are seeing an increase in mental and behavioural disorders...
To top it off, churches and other religious gatherings can be subject to accusations of preying on the weak and needy when people with such disorders search for spiritual help with their problems. In other words, the very people needing spiritual help/deliverance are prevented from such treatment due to the accusations and assumptions of people who believe such things to be nonsense.
Some people would even go so far as to calling such help a form of 'brainwashing', despite such people having essentially 'brainwashed' society into believing that spirituality is just nonsense.
The irony is that 'serious academics' wouldn't 'tarnish' their career by properly researching the possibility of such connections, and anyone who would dare to put forward research which would suggest such a connection would be labelled as unprofessional or a supporter of 'pseudoscience'.
Perhaps we have just managed to come up with more names to label the behaviour of various people (especially as it is now considered offensive and politically incorrect to call someone 'retarded', a 'delinquent' or an 'idiot'), or perhaps there is a reason behind it - an inconvenient reason, given the state of modern British society.
Scientists are slowly convincing the Western world that they have (or, are developing) the answers and understanding to everything pertaining to life on earth. Religions are more commonly being described as primitive belief systems, for people with limited understanding (some staunch atheists thrive off such name-calling).
However, could it be that since 'tampering with the supernatural', such as playing with ouija boards and tarot cards, has now been described as innocent and harmless play (by those very same academically advanced 'professionals'), their effects are no longer being treated in the correct manner?
'Primitive' peoples would look to witch doctors or spiritualists if there was something happening in their life that they couldn't understand. In earlier Christian societies, people would turn to the priests for deliverance from the negativity they encounter.
But now, in an age where spirituality is increasingly brushed off as nonsense, we are seeing an increase in mental and behavioural disorders...
To top it off, churches and other religious gatherings can be subject to accusations of preying on the weak and needy when people with such disorders search for spiritual help with their problems. In other words, the very people needing spiritual help/deliverance are prevented from such treatment due to the accusations and assumptions of people who believe such things to be nonsense.
Some people would even go so far as to calling such help a form of 'brainwashing', despite such people having essentially 'brainwashed' society into believing that spirituality is just nonsense.
The irony is that 'serious academics' wouldn't 'tarnish' their career by properly researching the possibility of such connections, and anyone who would dare to put forward research which would suggest such a connection would be labelled as unprofessional or a supporter of 'pseudoscience'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)