I am thoroughly sick of people who think that they know what God says.
A typical example would people from Westborough Baptist Church who have signs saying 'God hates fags', 'God hates America', etc.. On the other hand, in a direct response to this there was a billboard poster which said '"Contrary to popular belief, I don't hate anyone who is gay." - God'. While the second example is certainly preferable, I feel that there is a problem with it as well, because it too, like the WBC signs, tries to speak for God.
Recently on a discussion forum I saw someone say that it is not in God's nature to go against His word. There are three assumptions being made there: 1. that this person knows what the nature of God is; 2. that the Bible is indeed God's inspired word; and 3. that this person's interpretation of 'God's word' is correct.
What angers me so much about this kind of thing is that people just throw around statements of "God says this..." and "God says that...", as though those are valid arguments. If you quote anyone else you have to be able to reference your sources and provide proof that, yes, it is what they said, at this time and place, etc.. But with God people think they can just say "God says...", and that is enough. Anytime someone tells me what God says I want to hear a full recount of their encounter with Him, or to be provided with Bible chapter and verse, along with extensive commentary from Biblical scholars and theologians, at the very least.
Really though, I wish people could just be honest and say "I think..." instead of "God says...", or maybe even "I think that God says...". If people would just own their opinions we wouldn't have this problem.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
4. ON REFUGEES
A wonderful change has just taken place in Australia. We now have fast-track onshore processing, and a definite possibility of bridging visas for refugees. This is hugely different from the previous slow, off-shore processing, which was neither humane nor economical. While I am overjoyed by the change, I can't help but be a little bit disgusted by the way in which it came about.
This link shows Julia Gillard grudgingly announcing that they will revert to onshore asylum processing, as a kind of last resort. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-13/government-reverts-to-onshore-asylum-processing/3570302 Not only that, but she continues to speak in favour of the Malaysia 'Solution', which a High Court ruling found to be inhumane and unethical. She even said that it is in "the national interest". Well excuse me Ms Gillard, but if a system proven to be physically and psychologically unsafe is in the national interest, I think the nation needs to get over itself and look after the interests of others. And surely we should be especially concerned about the interests of those who are helpless, who have been on a very dangerous journey even to get here, and who have come specifically to us to seek asylum.
Of course, this kind of idiocy isn't new. The Australian Government's policies regarding refugees have been consistently horrendous, and looking at our track record only makes today's change seem like even more of a leap forward, when really it's simple common sense which should have been implemented years ago.
I am very happy that things have been decided in favour of humane practice (why it was ever otherwise I still don't know), but I am also very angry that it has been treated as a terrible thing. And of course, another election will come around, and the fear-mongering will begin. We'll all be fed mind-numbingly stupid fairy tales about the scary 'boat people', and both major parties will make promises to keep them away. And while the politicians say that their aim is to stop people-smuggling, it is all too evident that what they are really trying to do is play off Australian's fears, which are born of ignorance, in order to win votes.
This link shows Julia Gillard grudgingly announcing that they will revert to onshore asylum processing, as a kind of last resort. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-13/government-reverts-to-onshore-asylum-processing/3570302 Not only that, but she continues to speak in favour of the Malaysia 'Solution', which a High Court ruling found to be inhumane and unethical. She even said that it is in "the national interest". Well excuse me Ms Gillard, but if a system proven to be physically and psychologically unsafe is in the national interest, I think the nation needs to get over itself and look after the interests of others. And surely we should be especially concerned about the interests of those who are helpless, who have been on a very dangerous journey even to get here, and who have come specifically to us to seek asylum.
Of course, this kind of idiocy isn't new. The Australian Government's policies regarding refugees have been consistently horrendous, and looking at our track record only makes today's change seem like even more of a leap forward, when really it's simple common sense which should have been implemented years ago.
I am very happy that things have been decided in favour of humane practice (why it was ever otherwise I still don't know), but I am also very angry that it has been treated as a terrible thing. And of course, another election will come around, and the fear-mongering will begin. We'll all be fed mind-numbingly stupid fairy tales about the scary 'boat people', and both major parties will make promises to keep them away. And while the politicians say that their aim is to stop people-smuggling, it is all too evident that what they are really trying to do is play off Australian's fears, which are born of ignorance, in order to win votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)