What about the Father Son rule?

Felt proud that the AFL and my football club the Western Bulldogs (reigning premiers for 1 more week) came out in support of the YES campaign. 

And yet a lot of people aren't happy about it. Sam Newman of the Footy Show (which I haven't watched in many years cos he generally makes me want to vomit) was particularly vocal in his scorn for the decision. Referring to the AFL as a bunch of obsequious, fawning, sycophantic political whores that had no right to get involved in political messages. Essentially asking who are they that they should tell people what to think and how to vote?

Eddie McGuire countered with that there is an old saying that if you don't stand for something you stand for nothing. Was also particularly scathing of elected officials who won't do anything unless there is a vote in it, hence leaving a leadership vacuum that it is the responsibility of others - organisations included to fill.

I thought about it.

Sam had a point. And I've since read lots of comments from people who would agree with him and seen many a facebook post reading likewise or congratulating the few clubs that made statements distancing themselves from declaring for one side or the other. It would have been a stronger arguement if Sam had said that the AFL don't own the game, the people do, and that's a statement I'd have to agree with.

Eddie scored a point too, albeit a rushed one. Finding myself agreeing with Eddie was almost as a hard a leap for the ball as conceeding that Sam might be lining up a goal. Having put their feet in their mouths so many times over the years I generally just boo them from the cheap seats . Yet I'm angry that obsequious, fawning, sycophantic political whores that are as weak as shit have plunged a whole Nation into this divisive debate. Pitting friend against friend and families against each other on a $122 million survey as to whether their party should allow a conscience vote. I'm not a member of the Liberal party, why am I being asked? Have a conscience vote or don't. But if this is how it gets done then so be it.

The debate has most certainly been ugly at times and the NO team rightly has jumped on a headbutt to Tony Abbott, a sacking and name-calling as showing that the YES side has the capability to play dirty. But when I see someone railing against AFL political correctness on social issues being offensive to them, I wonder if what they want is to be politically incorrect and unsociable. I'm not always empathetic to those feeling persecuted and silenced for saying its ok to say no. I've tried really hard to keep quiet and not get in peoples faces but feel compelled to write this with my social media filling up with people who feel silenced. I hear you! Your voice is loud and clear. And while I might agree that some things that are said or done aren't warranted, have you ever stopped to think, just for a second, that maybe that's how the homosexual community have felt for eons?

I'm one that subscribes to that everything is political. I also think everything is spiritual. I believe in the seperation of church and state in that one should not have power over the other. You cannot however remove politics from spirituality or spirituality from politics. You can't expect someone who believes in a God to not carry some bias with them into parliament. We are all biased in all we say or do or choose not say and do. And you can't expect a believer to not hold political views. Do some really want a parliament of only atheists? That's problematic in itself in that it will not represent a large portion of the people. And to suggest atheists don't hold their own biases is ludicrous. There has to be a place for all. A place for all is what this is about to me.

When many Churches or Religious groups tell people what to think - and when they hire and fire on their values. Well the AFL and clubs have a right to at least declare what they think which is hardly telling someone how they should vote. Everything is political and spiritual and art and inextricably tied together. Including us. All our choices have consequences. I choose inclusivity, I'm glad the AFL does too.

P.S. To those few that actually fear for the father son rule (those making the joke are fine) or that we will end up in a position in the near future with no new players being born due to everyone suddenly turning gay. Please God, help me refrain from belittling their insane lack of logic, it's so hard.

Misrepresenting

The definition of the word 'indoctrinated' on google is given as: to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

In the wake of Monday night's QandA with Kevin Rudd and the whole episode of the question about Gay Marriage I have since seen many Christians attacking Mr Rudd for misrepresenting the Bible. I have found their misrepresentation of Mr Rudd very frustrating. They have focused solely on his summary of a Bible verse stating that 'slavery is a natural condition.' Arguably he may have been a bit off the mark in making this summary but you could make a myriad more by using the book of Leviticus. What was clear to me was that it was not a summary that he was ascribing to believing in. He was pointing out how just taking verses out of the Bible to say what you want them to say is a weak and dangerous thing to do to base your beliefs on.

He actually went on to explain what he does believe and how he forms those beliefs yet in the articles critising him they always fail to mention (even one word) of his summary of the New Testament as having a message of universal love. He explained how he goes about wrestling with his beliefs over time, using critical thinking, using science, using the greater context of the Bible as opposed to singular verses and using his Christian concience. Is it wrong of him to do that as a Christian? I would say that it is imperative that every Christian walks this road.

It seems some Christians give no validity to the rest of his statements regarding the New Testament simply because he said something critical of the Bible. Those people that hold the Bible up as the arbiter of all wisdom are dangerous. Interpretations can be wrong, verses can be twisted to say near anything. If you accept everything as black and white then you miss the nuance of colour and diversity (thank you Cecily Rosol for turning the grey areas into colour for me). The Bible is important to the Christian but it is not to be worshipped lest you make an idol of it, and besides; the Christian story goes on with every new day, it hasn't ceased moving.

The verses most couples use at their marriage from 1 Cor 13:1-13 speak to what love is and from verse 11 (with the danger of using a verse from the Bible) it says “When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.” It goes on to say that all that I know is partial and incomplete and further - that three things will last forever-faith, hope and love-and the greatest of these is love. Was Rudd wrong in stating the message of the Gospel to be one of love? Was he wrong to doubt his earlier beliefs around homosexuality and reconsider?

William Hughes an expert on critical thinking said “If we are not prepared to think for ourselves, and to make the effort to learn how to do this well, we will always be in danger of becoming slaves to the ideas and values of others due to our own ignorance.” I applaud Rudd's faith and logic in arriving to his conclusion on Gay Marriage. And as uncomfortable as it was to see the Pastor who asked the question having questions thrown back at him and the audience turn on him it appeared that in the moment he had nothing much more to stand on than indoctrinated beliefs.

Indoctrinated beliefs are dangerous and not just in the realm of Christianity and other religions. Indoctrination is a controlling mechanism – the google definition of 'indoctrinated' goes on to give an example of its use: “broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses” and by golly haven't we seen that in widespread use over the last few weeks by a Murdoch controlled press that want people to accept its view of the world and its choice of Prime Minister in Tony Abbott. And Christian media is doing the same now with their attack on Rudd, trying to persuade people to vote on their agenda. 

The right's views on asylum seekers and mining and a carbon price and just how badly our AAA credit rated economy is going has seen the public debate around this election as a race to fan the flames of fear in people and then come running in dressed up for the photographers in firefighting gear. Peter Hitchens, brother of prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, followed a different path as an atheist that came to faith. He said “Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” I think that applies here.

So don't attack Rudd for thinking for himself, turn the heat up on those that don't. I'm finding it my responsibilty to no longer stand idly by when a bloke at a BBQ starts spouting that climate change is crap – that is ignorance – as if he knows more than 98% of the world's top climate scientists. Or when someone accuses asylum seekers of clogging the roads despite the fact that they can't afford cars.

If you want to attack Rudd on his Christian values then ask him why his asylum seeker policy is what it is now or why he has put off increasing aid to the worlds poor, those may deal breakers for you but to turn off him because he espouses loving thy neighbour as a tenet of his faith is just hearing what you want to hear.

Jesus was not about controlling people, he was about freeing people, often from themselves. Christianity is not a cage, the New Testament repeatedly says that we have a new covenant and repeatedly Christians pull out the Old that should have been put to bed around 2000 years ago and frankly I'm sick of it. The Gospels record Jesus saying “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.”

The indoctrinators from what I see around me do not want you to use your heart or your mind or to love your neighbour, just to pay lip service and maybe they'll give you what you want, regardless of what we need.