Translate

Sunday 19 April 2015

The Pope: Progressively Regressive?

Pope Francis seems like a really nice guy. He comes across as a normal bloke and is somewhat cuddly, which isn't a bad thing for a pontiff.

Without a doubt, he is far more media-friendly than his predecessor, and seems to be pushing all the right buttons when it comes to winning over the broader community. So the announcement that he will be hosting a major summit on climate change on April 28, can only improve his standing, and draw the admiration of the younger generation who no doubt see this gesture as a sign that the church has become progressive and proactive.

I am curious, however, to see how the pontiff marries his support of sustainable environmental practice with the church's traditional views on family planning. The endorsement of the idea that the most blessed act of Catholicism is the conception of a new life, has contributed to the economic and environmental woes experienced by many developing communities that have either embraced or submitted to the Catholic faith.  Unchecked population growth is detrimental in such communities, straining resources and lowering the quality of life and health, especially for women and children.

As recently as January of this year, Pope Francis reiterated his firm opposition to contraceptives, comparing their use in Western culture to the strategies of "ideological colonisation" allegedly instigated by such regimes as the Nazi Party in Germany, in their effort to control and manipulate the populace.

Really, Your Holiness?

As nice as he seems to be, that is very nasty and undeserved analogy to invoke at a time when so many cultures still view women as breeding stock, when life-threatening STDs are rampant in underdeveloped countries, and where the overriding philosophy behind social and economic progress in all developed nations is to just keep churning out the babies at all cost.

This conflict between the environmental and social impact of overpopulation and the church's stance on contraception is by no means a new thing.  Albert Einstein recognised the inherent danger in the Catholic policy on contraception well over half a century ago.

In 1954, he wrote:

"I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere.

I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet."


Einstein is of course long gone, but his point remains valid and contemporary.

Granted, in January the Pope did at least address an apparent misconception of Catholic ideology, by assuring us that the church does not expect Catholics to "breed like rabbits". This would be a revelation to my mother, my grandmother and no doubt all the women of my Roman Catholic family line, who were lead to believe it was their duty to fill the Earth with people of the one true faith.

In any case, this particular revelation met with some rather negative online feedback from hardline (and slightly scary) Catholics, who are obviously committed to their own policy of "ideological colonisation", as implied in comments such as:
"This pope tries real hard to sit above my King. I am going to mate until I pass and will be entering heaven. He will do neither."
…and...
"A pope that offends believers by calling them rabbits just because they follow the bible that says grow and multiplicate could be the famous black pope* that was predicted."
So I wonder how much influence Pope Francis will have in his joint-role as Environmental Spokesperson and Head of Catholic Church. Whatever stance he adopts, his credibility is on the line.

Will he embrace contemporary attitudes and support contraceptive strategies that many want to see adopted in vulnerable communities, or will he contradict his profile as the "Progressive Pope" by upholding his previous statements in order to keep traditional Catholics appeased?

One thing is certain: If he takes the non-committal middle ground - whatever that may be - then he risks becoming as ineffectual a social figurehead as his predecessor.

***

*(This alludes to one of the weirder theories floating around, that the coming of the Black Pope signals Armageddon.  Just FYI.)

Friday 17 April 2015

The Unwelcome Burden of Community Spirit

Child vaccinations should not be compulsory. Really, they shouldn't.

But in Australia, it will be mandatory from January 2016 for all parents to vaccinate their children, and conscientious objection will no longer be considered a valid exemption for parents who wish to receive childcare benefits and the Childcare Rebate.

Of course, many in our community regard this as a form of blackmail, and a regrettable development in a society that values freedom of choice.

Parents should be trusted to make an informed decision without pressure. They should be offered all relevant, scientifically supported information on the pros and cons of vaccination, and trusted to make their decision based on their own sense of community spirit and what they know, deep down, to be the most responsible course of action.

While we're on the subject of the Australian government's love of enforced choices, let's talk about road rules:

Many of you may not be aware of this, but in Australia it is regarded as an offence to drive on the right-hand side of the road.  In fact it is regarded as mandatory practice to drive on the left.  It's a law that is enforced with fines for non-compliance, and its implementation is clear proof that the government does not trust us to make our own informed choices, and totally ignores any ethical, cultural or religious beliefs that may be compromised by driving on the left-hand side.

Just as the proposed No Jab, No Pay policy is offensive to those who value personal freedom, so this law should also outrage many. Just because a majority of citizens has been lead to believe it is safer for all road users to comply with a single common practice, it does not follow that the law is right for everyone.

What is the real agenda here? Is it mere coincidence that a failure to comply with this law results in a fine?  Sounds like a perfect way to raise revenue, if you ask me.

What exactly is so bad about driving on any side we choose? What is so good about everyone driving on the left? If our lawmakers are truly unbiased, then surely there should be an objective study into the adverse effects of everyone driving on the left, not just the benefits. Where is that study? Has the dog eaten it?

Furthermore, if such a study exists, then why has no government agency ever released the data showing the results? What are they hiding?

And why is it so important to enforce a law that has proven to be totally ineffective in preventing DUI and speed-related fatalities?  To my knowledge, the rule of driving on the left has been enforced for as long as there have been roadways in Australia, and yet such fatalities have increased drastically.

Be sure to drive on the left, Mr Drunk Guy!
So many questions left unanswered, simply because the majority of citizens take the practice of driving on the left for granted, and have never thought to question it.

Wake up sheeple!!

*****

See, the problem with fighting for individual freedom at the cost of all else, is that while our fellow citizens should be trusted to make the right choices for their own family and the community as a whole based on the facts that are freely available to them, the reality is that many simply cannot be trusted to do so, because they feel their own liberty is more important than the wellbeing of the broader community.

This is why public laws exist in the first place, despite most - if not all - such laws simply enforcing actions that are based on common sense that most of us are intellectually equipped to exercise of our own volition; regardless of an obligation to consider fellow community members, many of us can't resist being adversely self-indulgent, and sometimes this indulgence comes at a high price - a price that is paid by others, and not just by those who indulge.

The solution is to remove the burden of choice that comes with unlimited liberty, and simply enforce a socially compatible practice that carries a punishment for non-compliance.

This is the price of living in a reciprocally supportive community; You are obliged to act for the greater good.

It sucks, but there it is.


Tuesday 14 April 2015

Faith trumps Science!


Richard Dawkins, that champion of atheism and critical thinking, once said:
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence”.
Well! To staunch creationist and popular evangelist Ray Comfort, who currently boasts over 450 000 followers on his Facebook page, that statement was like a red rag to a bull, and he responded by producing the short film Evolution versus God, in which he takes several university-educated atheists head-on and demonstrates that 100% of all those interviewed on camera (and not subsequently edited from the final draft) willingly concede that their own unwavering belief in evolution is based not on proof that they have themselves observed, but merely on a conscious decision to place their faith in the opinion of the scientific community.

Comfort therefore champions the argument that belief in a deity has equal merit with belief in evolution, and that scientific endeavour has merely been a distraction in establishing the truth of evolution, when in fact it is faith itself that renders evolution to be as true as the existence of deities.

So there you have it: As long as there are those who have complete faith in evolution, then evolution is fact.

Take that Dawkins! Evolution is true whether or not your science-cronies waste time trying to prove it.