A Lesson in Ethics

Rev Fred Nile has been in the news a lot of late specifically with an agenda to ensure that Ethics classes don't become an option in schools for students to attend instead of going to Scripture classes. I'm not really one for defending Fred Nile because I often find his own ethics to be poorly lacking. I am a Christian and am actually rather uncomfortable with the concept of Scripture classes or R.E. Reason being that while some people deliver this subject with the best of intentions and some even deliver it with ethics the priority, for others their intention is to indoctrinate students to a belief or to try and save their souls from damnation. A noble thing if you believe that but hardly appropriate when dealing with impressionable and sometimes vulnerable young people.

I am also not comfortable with dismissing some form of ethical classes alltogether. If young people are impressionable and sometimes vulnerable we cannot leave their moral guidance to the media and fashion magazines. It needs to be addressed. Most teachers and parents (not all though) do this already to some extent and Ethics classes seem like a good way to build on that.

One issue I have with ethics classes is that we could end up with students choosing to go to ethics class or scripture class and that means we potentially set up the division in the playground between those that believe and those that don't before they even leave school. That division in the public forum at present is often filled with fear and loathing, is that the road we want to continue down?

How about bringing them together in a class that helps everyone understand where everyone is coming from. How about we call it a Values class that covers ethics and spirituality in a broad and informative way so that students could be encouraged towards making an independant decision on what beliefs (spiritual or humanistic) inform their ethical value set. By bringing them together and trusting them to take on information and make up their own minds instead of telling them what they should believe they can form their own view and learn to respect differing ones.

Students should be educated on where our ethics have come from and why people believe what they believe. Our beliefs and values are tied up with who we are and informs our choices and actions and consequences. That's my other issue with ethics classes, that ethics stem from our beliefs and you cannot cottonball someone from all the beliefs that are out there so please don't put ethics up as anti belief. You can however give young people some tools in trying to understand it all and trying to find their place in the great big melting pot of humanity.

The Collective Wisdom

I read an article on the opinion site 'The Punch' the other day that was discussing the failings of a right and a left wing perspective and the division and hatred that has been brewing between the camps. I too have been concerned with the growing bitterness that is dividing the nation. The author sort of summed up the differences by saying that 'At its most basic level it’s a battle between heart and head.' While that may be a generalisation and an over simplification of the make up of ones political leanings I think there is some truth in that statement.

On the battleground of the heart and head or the emotional and the rational insults are flung. Lefties are called bleeding hearts and can claim the high moral ground by pointing to the right wing's agenda as one of self interest or xenophobia or any other myriad of phobias that threaten the self interest. The conservative right can put down the left as self righteous communist radicals. On a leftist publication I saw someone say “I've always wondered if the reason people on the right apear loony is because they are all secretly a split personality. Democracy is by its very nature collectivist and the right are by their nature individualist. Therefore if you stick a group of people who's only cry is "me me me me me me me" into a room and expect them to discuss "us" they just lose the plot and go spontaneously bonkers.”

As much as I chuckled I think It's more complicated than that. I think a right perspective can be more personally an honest perspective whereas to have a left perspective you have to battle with your own selfish nature to hold everyone elses interests ahead of yours...does that make the lefties the ones with the split personality? Either way I'm not sure that any of this characterisation and character assasination is helpful, the fabric of our society is being worn thin with people treading over one another disrespectfully. Scientists and Economists are dismissed by one man who claims to know more than them all put together for example, but I digress.

Why are we choosing to be right or left at all, shouldn't every issue be addressed on its merits where an individual can come to an independent conclusion?

“At its most basic level it’s a battle between heart and head.”

To the ancient Hebrews wisdom was when the heart and the head worked together to evaluate and inform the worth of an idea or a decision. Maybe the most whole individuals are those with a bit of right and left in them...or failing that we should at least recognise that together we can have wisdom. I think we all want to see wise decisions being made so let’s meet in the middle, not let the middle be a warground. And we can have robust debate around it so long as robust isn't used as an excuse for offensive.

Rational vs Emotional...the answer isn't just somewhere inbetween, the answer is when you can say yes to both.

I think we are at our best when we are helping others and through doing that I've seen it to be the most effective way of helping yourself to be happy (not necessarilly rich though). Maybe that's the secret. To fulfill our self interest, to make us happy, we have to help others. Self interest is about winning but winning doesn't have to come at the cost of someone else losing. Even right wing folk understand win win situations, it is what an economy thrives on (that or oppressing others). But it has to be a global economy that thrives not a national one. National interest is self interest under another name and it too can have winners and losers or winners and winners.

Am I convinced by everything I say here...not sure...maybe I need a friend opposite me on the spectrum to debate respectfully with...who wants to be that friend?

No Flying Spaghetti Monsters

The atheist movement are mounting a campaign at the moment cos of the census to make sure people list 'no religion' cos they want to take religion out of politics. I agree with them to a point but beyond that point I almost don't have the heart to tell them that they've already succeeded due to the fact that we already have the seperation of church and state so that neither one can have power over the other. How far do they want to go? If you believe in the great flying spaghetti monster (no one believes in the great flying spaghetti monster) then you cannot hold a position in government – that seems very extreme and controlling. Others might as well start a campaign to remove atheism from politics, if we all succeed then we'll have done away with government forever, hooray!

The other disturbing campaign is the one that screams at you in CAPITAL letters to make darn sure that even if you don't call yourself a Christian you better mark down that you are or we will be overun by millions of Muslims and you can kiss our Easter parades and Christmas carols goodbye. I reckon Muslims probably get sick and tired of being blamed for political correctness gone mad when they are on the whole totally fine with others celebrating whatever religiousy stuff they want to celebrate. So for God's sake, if you believe in God, say so, if you don't, then state that, don't be a census troll. It's just a frikken census, nothing to get hysterical about. 
 
And why isn't there a question about sexuality, is data not helpful? The census is hardly an invasion of privacy because they destroy all the records after the raw data has been gathered. They say one concern is that those collecting the form especially in small towns could read it and invade someone's privacy, which would be illegal. Surely we could fix that with sealing the forms in an envelope that explodes when meddled with or something. One other concern might be that there would be a campaign from certain elements to encourage people to inflate the gay and lesbian number in an attempt to move things like the gay marriage debate along quicker.

I'd like to know the statistics on all manner of things and I'd like to trust that those statistics would be used to help meet the Australian people where they are at. And I'd like to trust that people would answer it honestly. I'm fairly certain that the 64% that put down Christian in the last census will be significantly lower this time around but that's ok as it will be an accurate reflection of where we are at. I guess the danger is that some people will use the statistics to oppress others but if the statistics aren't there they'd probably just make them up anyway. 
 
I wish it wasn't a religion question as I don't consider myself as belonging to religion (depends on your definition) I wish it were a question about belief but I will be putting down Christian because that best represents what they want to know if I don't want to get all uppity about the wording. If you don't believe in a God and if you feel 'no religion' best represents that then I'd encourage you to put that down. Religion, spiritual beliefs and atheism etc. are all here to stay and cannot be gotten rid of so live with it. I'll say it again, It's just a frikken census, they happen every 5 years, it's not big brother out to get you, there is nothing to get hysterical about.