Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category
- In: ACT OPINIONS | elections | Environment | Politics | Religion
- 1 Comment
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Ideas constipation is a political ailment
One thing’s become clear to me during the current election campaign: the side that will win Saturday’s election is the one giving voters a sense of confidence that the future will be better than the past.
One would think political parties would have learned this lesson by this time. Labor however, has chosen to continue in the same vein by producing ideas they say are innovative and the basis of new and constructive policies for the future but which, when examined seem like echoes of past ideas and policies that were tried and found wanting, which is why I say ideas constipation is a political ailment.
More to the point, Labor tried to cure its constipation when its Treasurer increased its dosage of financial debt medication and changing Prime Ministers. But the new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd instead of suffering from constipation, seemed to suffer from verbal diarrhoea with words tumbling from him in torrents.
And did voters understand him? Unfortunately, he was the only one who seemed to understand them with opinion polls not only suggesting they did not understand him but wished him gone. Unfortunately for him, many ministers in his government felt the same.
His opponent Tony Abbott started off with the same level of popularity as Kevin Rudd is now enjoying though I doubt based on his narcissistic persona, he’s finding it enjoyable. Clearly too, Mr Abbott read the electorate better than Mr Rudd. Indeed in some respects the race to the finishing line in the election could be likened to that fabled race between the tortoise and the hare because despite Abbott’s slow speed it looks as if he will get there before Rudd.
Of the other parties none, except the Palmer United Party, expect to win. But not does its constant optimism lighten the political arena it is one of the best examples of political bravado I’ve seen for a long time, even that of the Greens.
The Greens are an odd party. Apart from members with a strong left wing socialist bias it attracts the odds and sods of politics. How any sane person can think the adoption of its policies will keep the world of the future in its current environmental state is beyond belief. And its fanciful ideas on how to cure global warming are in the same category. A world powered by windmills is symptomatic of its delusional fancies and total disregard of Mother Nature’s role in guiding the world since it began which includes the attraction of opposites and the creation of children, which brings me to its push for gay marriage.
I am sick to death of hearing that unless “LOVE” between members of the LGBTI can be translated into marriage they do not have equality in society. Nor do I have time for religious zealots who think marriage a religious sacrament.
Not being of any religious persuasion myself, I do not believe love is necessary for marriage and if LGBTI people cannot understand that, then they really don’t understand marriage and alsoy clearly have little understanding of what equality means.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.
Life’s four great professions
Posted on: 12 May 2013
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Humour | Politics | Religion
- 29 Comments
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Life’s four great professions
This particular blog did not come as the result of inspired thought but because an old envelope with a large and bright red capital P stamped on it that I had rescued from a collection of old envelopes, was sitting on my desk in front of the computer. For the life of me I can’t remember where the envelope came from but, no doubt when it came a letter was enclosed advising me of some wonder product that would make my life better, or a request for a donation from a charity I had never heard of.
However, while musing about what the P stood for it suddenly dawned on me that P was the first letter of four words that described four great professions: performer, priest, politician and prostitute professions which, in many ways, are associated with acting, a career I always wanted to take up. In fact my army discharge book shows acting as the choice of my future.
You might disagree and favour philosophy, psychology, policing and psychiatry. If you do, so be it. Perhaps you’re right, but nonetheless I’ll stick to my chosen four.
The reason for my choices:
First choice: Performer
Throughout my working life I have been described as many things, often uncomplimentary, as a performer as, indeed, as have many of you. Don’t believe me? Indeed, if you could look at reports about your working life almost certainly you will have been described as excellent performer; good performer; moderate performer; or poor performer. I am sure also that, like me, while you will be in complete agreement with the first description you will quarrel with the second and strongly refute three and four.
Second choice: Priest
A lot of people won’t agree with me that being a priest is a great profession but for millenniums the priesthood has attracted many people, even if for the wrong reasons. In my own case though it was only for a short period, I felt called to the priesthood, which, when I gave it up, left my mother distraught. And while my mother was distraught at my decision, the order I had entered was probably thankful.
But my brief association was illuminating. Indeed as I spoke to others who professed the same call it seemed to me that some wanted to be priests because subconsciously, they found the public rituals of priesthood satisfied their desire for recognition in the same way as actors.
Third choice: Politician
For many people being a politician is no longer a vocation but a profession because like the priesthood, it satisfies peoples’ need for recognition, something they achieve when playing in a parliament’s comedy of error. Unlike actors, many stay on the political stage until the audience decides they have had enough of their bad acting.
Unlike actors, however, most politicians are well paid with good conditions and very good perks. It is unfortunate, however, that some gain fame not because of their acting prowess in their parliamentary comedies of error but for exceeding the lawful use of their political power in the search for even better perks.
Fourth choice: Prostitute
Now you might find it strange to find me saying that being a prostitute is to be a member of a great profession. These days, of course, in civilised parts of the world (with some exceptions) prostitutes have been replaced by sex workers.
I can’t speak for male philosophers or psychologists but it is known that, over the years, priests and politicians have enjoyed the professional services of sex workers. But what makes it a great profession is that having members of two two such professions using their services they seem to have the best of all worlds: priests to save their soul; and politicians as patrons. I can only add that my research indicates low unemployment in this profession.
Comment welcome.
If you would like to receive these blogs automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page
- In: ACT OPINIONS | ACT Politics | Legal | Politics | Religion
- 4 Comments
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
Forget marriage: introduce wedding contracts
Although I do not believe in God but because I am an opponent of what is described as same sex marriage not only am I described as agnostic but homophobic. Not only do I object to the latter description, so do many other people in Canberra of the same disposition.
What gets lost in the arguments about same sex marriage is the claim by its proponents that it is a human right. The fact is, since time immemorial, marriage has been seen as a contract between a man and a woman and nor can I find any reference to it as human right. That religious groups decided to make marriage a rite does not validate it as a human right.
Supporters of same sex marriage also talk of it as an issue of equality. Indeed the idea of same sex marriage could be likened to some kind of Utopian philosophy which, like every Utopian philosophy in history will end up a successful failure. That is not to say that no good comes of trying to get these philosophies accepted.
In any case, what is equality? For me equality is an abstract quality that cannot be defined because what is equality for one person will be seen as inequality by another. Equality, in fact, is like a colour spectrum with infinite stages and a spectrum on which hetero sexual unions and same sex unions occupy different places.
Much of the debate about same sex marriage has centred on religion, particularly the various brands of Christianity with many Christians citing the bible as the defining authority on marriage. The bible, unfortunately, is a collection of stories that, although I do not believe in God, nevertheless have valuable lessons to teach us. However when marriage pre-Christianity is mentioned, it is described as being between a man and a woman. I suspect too, that even in the days of the Neanderthals when a man and a woman got together as a family their union also was called marriage.
That said, let’s get down to the nitty gritty. I find the absence of sex in the same sex marriage debate more than passing strange. I have no qualifications in psychology but I feel safe in saying that sex is the underlying attraction of a man for a woman; in many, if not most, cases love comes in second and union with the possibility of children, even if not in every case, comes third. Yet the mantra of the same sex lobby is that love is the attraction.
Having been married for 54 years and having the joy of one living daughter from a family of three, I think qualifies me to say the life of a male and female couple is infinitely different to that of the lives of two men and two women. Strangely too, I hear LGBT couples talk of ensuring the future of their children as if through their sexual coupling they had procreated. Sad it may be, but no matter what law of equality is introduced, that will never be the case.
And yes I know they can have children as individuals but if they have children they came because of third party intervention. This does not apply to couples who having married and become fathers or mothers clearly thought that being in love with a reflection of themselves was better than the opposite.
Is there a solution to this complex question? I believe there is and also believe it a better solution than merely covering LGBT unions under the Marriage Act. Not to offend anyone but doing so is like trying to mix oil and water or trying to put square pegs into round holes.
My solution: scrap the current Marriage Act and create two separate acts covered by contract law: The Hetero Union Act and the LGBT Union Act will create contracts of union that couples will have to sign. Both contracts will spell out the differences between hetero and same sex union based on how each can be affected by host of societal issues.
The contracts will grant each couple the same legal rights with the latter group having to accept that nature has never seen their union as equating to hetero unions nor will it ever do so. Churches can, if they wish, bless the contract as has been done in days gone by.
As a last paragraph, the words same sex marriage has become a marketing slogan iterated by many people who know nothing about it or the people involved. Indeed I think many of them say they support same sex marriage because they think it makes them radical and up to date.
Comments welcome.
God is shrouded in mystery
Posted on: 7 April 2013
My latest blog is always available at: https://donallan.wordpress.com. To make direct contact e-mail me at: dca@netspeed.com.au
God is shrouded in mystery
At the every outset I should make it clear that I don’t believe in either the God of Christians or the Allah of Muslims.. Believe me, too, when I say my name has not been misspelled, it is Allan even if the name derives from the followers of an Arabic tribe that moved to Europe in the third century AD and settled in France.
How their descendants arrived in Scotland I have no idea. In any case I don’t know of anyone who has any idea about where their family originated. While the TV programme “Who Do You Think You Are?” has been successful in tracing the ancestry of certain guests I don’t think it has ever traced the particular ancestry of any to pre 3 AD.
This brings me to God, Allah and the multitude of Gods that existed pre Islam or Christianity. Of Christianity it is said that its leader, a young Jewish man called Jesus Christ was the Son of God which is the start of the God mystery as his mother, married to a man called Joseph, was a young Jewish lady called Mary.
The mystery about this relationship is that, the seventh of the Ten Commandments allegedly handed down by God to an old Jewish leader called Moses centuries before Jesus Christ about how people should live, condemns adultery, yet biologically Jesus was the son of an adulterous relationship. And the fifth of the commandments says mothers and fathers should be honoured, a commandment that in this case would seem not to have been honoured.
As for Jesus himself, apart from gospels stories by itinerant writers after he had been crucified and died, nothing much is known about him except he was said to be unmarried. However, recent discoveries suggest Jesus had married a woman called Mary Magdalene who clearly subscribed to his religious philosophy thus making Jesus as mysterious as his God, his alleged father.
That said it seems strange to me that although a lot is known about the creators of pre Christian civilisations (Roman and Greek et al), God remains a hypothetical figure although the religion known as Christianity is, despite its many ups and downs, the West’s major religious belief system.
As for Islam’s its founder is known as Muhammad with the Quran (Koran) the central text of the Islamic philosophy that Muslims believe was revealed to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. While mention of Muhammad in the Quran is scarce, it has verses that can be interpreted as allusions to Muhammad’s life. Of itself the Quran however provides little assistance for a chronological biography of Muhammad thus, in many respects, like the life of Jesus it lacks historical context.
It must be said that lack of historical context seems not to have been a problem because the combined total of believers in the 2,000 year old religion and 1,500 years old religion is greater than the combined total of all other religions. That this is the case says much for the persuasive powers of the originators and followers through the ages.
However, it has to be said also that these persuasive powers were often exercised by armies wielding swords and later guns while their leaders continually said they followed a God of peace. Sometimes these wars were also internecine affairs, a situation that still applies and a situation that will apply for centuries to come or until even more persuasive leaders will emerge preaching new philosophies.
However, instead of bringing peace I suspect these philosophies will bring new wars that again will be internecine, inter-territorial and inter galactic.
Had I even the faintest idea of what these new philosophies will be about I would say so, but I don’t. That said I will end by say that if Scottish poet Robert Burns were alive today he would probably amend his 1784 Dirge to end with the words: Man’s inhumanity to man makes millions mourn. Unfortunately, as in past centuries, man will not heed these words.
Comments welcome
A short Christmas blog
Posted on: 24 December 2012
- In: ACT OPINIONS | Politics | Religion
- 14 Comments
As I write this short blog it is 7.30pm on Christmas Eve in Canberra, Australia. The temperature is still 18 degree C a drop from 35 degrees C. Even after forty three years in Austraiia I still find it difficult to equate the latter temperature with Christmas.
Also an agnostic, I had almost decided not to do a Christmas blog but then changed my mind. That I changed my mind was not because I had suddenly been reconverted to a belief in God but because I think the idea of a God might be no more fanciful that some of the ideas in history that people have come to believe in.
The fact is that as a religion only 2,000 years old, Christianity is only a babe in arms compared to other religions still being practiced today. For example Paganism is still extant and practiced, as is Animism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and a host of other beliefs that existed long before Christianity was born. And that is not to mention the many other religions in Asia that were not known about in the Roman world.
And who can prove that Animistic, Jewish or Pagan Gods didn’t have the same powers allegedly held by the Christian God. Although the foundation of these beliefs took root thousands of years before Christianity, their followers all managed to invest them with a hierarchy of high and low priests a practice that continues to this day even in the Christian church.
At the same time, some of these ancient religions had priestesses. Unfortunately the males in the larger groups of pre Christian believers identified God as male, also an identification that continues to this day. Curiously smaller Christian Churches today have re-appointed women as priests while the larger Christian Churches are split on the matter. Little wonder that the proverb attributed to Jean-Baptise Alphonse Karr (1808 -1890) but likely based on a phrase by Aristotle that ‘everything changes but everything stays the same,’ is still in common use.
A prime goal of all churches is the pursuit of peace. And while my wish for Christmas is fanciful and having realised long ago that not only is it unachievable but that it would take the miracle of miracles for it to ever happen, nonetheless my wish for Universal Peace in the world remains.
Now you might think that by my words I am unduly pessimistic; not so: I am merely expressing an opinion that has grown in my thinking over many years. To some extent peace is a universal value. Unfortunately it has also become a commodity that some people use as they pursue their ambition for power.
Indeed the word peace has become so devalued it has lost its meaning and become the shibboleth of politicians, demagogues, dictators, religious leaders and leaders of military regimes who use it to support the falsehood that theirs is the way to peace if people would only support them.
Would that it was otherwise, but unfortunately, no one can guarantee peace.
But fanciful or not let me say to all my readers, do what you can for peace because it seems to me that peace will come only when those whose religion is war are defeated when they meet the might of all people who want peace.
Merry Christmas Blog: Allan Takes Aim; web: https://donallan.wordpress.com; e-mail: dca@netspeed.com.au v
- In: Community | Education | Politics | Religion
- 34 Comments
The Chronicle Canberra. A great Comumnity newspaper published online every Wednesday.
One would think citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, Australia’s national and political capital with its allegedly ‘independent’ parliament, the ACT Legislative Assembly, would be knowledgeable about politics. I say allegedly because the Assembly is really only independent when allowed by the Federal Government.
Like every Australian, ACT citizens are told voting is compulsory so that, independent or not, if a citizen does not exercise their right to vote but later claim the services for which the Assembly is responsible do not meet the standards they expect, it seems not unreasonable to suggest that, in part, this can be attributed to them not voting. The encouragement to vote: avoidance of a fine.
Australia is also a country which, in common with other Western and Christian based cultures, claims to be a democracy. However, in a democracy that considers free speech one of the greatest human rights, the possibility of a fine for not voting seems less than democratic although it is compulsory to attend a voting booth so that you can get your name temporarily crossed off the electoral roll.
If you think that seems strange consider this: a country that coerces its citizens into voting by telling them a lie and imposing a fine if they fail to vote, still claims to be a great democracy. And doesn’t it seem more than passing strange that, midst all the rhetoric published in the press and broadcast by the electronic media about the values of free speech and democracy, that these aspects of the voting process get little media exposure.
Despite my comments not only am I not anti-voting but of the view that the right to vote goes hand in hand with the right to free speech. No, my comments are made to try and encourage people to use both of their great rights by questioning whether or not compulsory voting is anti-democratic
Free speech and the right to vote (the latter also implies that people have the right not to vote) are the two greatest jewels in the jewel box of human rights besides which, the confected rights that some politicians keep trying to shove down peoples’ throats, will be seen for being the meretricious baubles they are which eventually will be dumped in the dustbin reserved for bad political history as so that more time can be given to curing serious social issues.
One of those meretricious baubles is the claim currently being made by some, but not all Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender people, that unless they can marry they are being deprived of their right of equality. Unfortunately this claim has gained undeserved prominence in both federal and ACT politics. More unfortunately, the media gives it more attention than it deserves.
The fact is, equality is mother- nature’s gift of an inalienable right to individuals that cannot be taken away nor legislated for. On the other hand marriage is not a right but a custom that has existed for centuries in the form of a union between a man and a woman that has been regularised and legislated for by society in recognition of its many benefits. On the other hand while society has accepted same gender unions it has never recognised them as marriages.
Unfortunately, there are many people who, on the basis of religious belief and for reasons unintelligible to me, describe people of the same sex who wish to marry as being depraved. Just as unfortunate, but equally wrong, is when one of Australia’s most eminent and deservedly respected jurists, Michael Donald Kirby AC. CMG, recently retired from Australia’s highest court, who also enjoys a same sex union, said recently during an interview on ABC Radio National that the former needed educating. Let me say that demeaning their intelligence is unlikely to convert them to his view.
It seems to me also, that because he and many others in same sex unions have climbed and reached the pinnacle of eminence in all walks of life, gives lie to claims of inequality and discrimination, particularly as many people within and without marriage make the same claim. Perhaps the reason is, that in some way both groups are simply inadequate?
dca@netspeed.com.au
This article also at: chronicleonline.com.au
- In: Legal | Politics | Religion
- 39 Comments
This is the full text of the article, abreviated for lack of space,published in The Chronicle, Tuesday, 6 December, 2011
Why do I, a non – scientist, believe in cold fusion? It’s not because I suffer from the martyr syndrome having been laughed at for my belief and been described as deluded and a cent short of a dollar. But let my detractors laugh: I will have the last laugh even if it comes from the urn containing my ashes.
The fact is I am entitled to believe in cold fusion just as much as IPCC scientists, economists such as Stern and Garnaut, not to mention Al Gore, the High Priest of the global warming/climate change religion whose bible is his film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Unlike them, my belief is not based on models but on the work of two Italian physicists, Professor Focardi and Professor Rossi from the University of Bologna. Like the Americans Fleischman and Pons, they claim to have developed Cold Fusion (LENR) in a small device called the e-cat. However, unlike Fleischman and Pons their device has been demonstrated publicly and successfully. The latest demonstration was early in November.
After this demonstration, a big US organisation purchased a device and while it wished to keep its identity secret, on November 6, Fox News said it was the US Navy. That the US Navy, with it huge number of ships, would want to use their device is not surprising. A small device that could produce limitless clean energy that would power ships without the need to refuel would clearly be of benefit to any navy. But that leading media outlets – Wired, Discovery, CBS News, Fox, Yahoo News, Daily Mail, MSNBC, LiveScience, Forbes, EE Times – have now reported favourably on the device shows that cold fusion has come in from the cold.
Adding to the credibility of the device, eminent Swedish physicist Professor Hanno Essen, a member of the Swedish Skeptics Society (recently President) an observer at the last demonstration, has given the device his stamp of approval. So too has Eminent physicist, Emeritus Professor George H Miley from the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign.
The fact also, that a further thirteen devices have been sold also helps rebut the idea that cold fusion is a hoax and Focardi and Ross modern alchemists. That some physicists still regard the device as a hoax smacks to me of jealousy, a condition not unknown among the less talented. The inconvenient truth: they are sceptics.
This leads me to ask what these sceptics would say to the physicists at Daresbury, England (an Oxford campus), currently working on a large cold fusion reactor they hope will be commercially available in 2019 or physicists working hard on cold fusion in research establishments around the world. Were he still alive, I’m sure world-renowned Australian physicist Sir Mark Oliphant would be pleased and be pleased also that his idea of fusion as a power source has now been confirmed.
That said, rather than persist in demanding money be spent on updating wind turbines et al, why aren’t environmentalists shouting from the rooftops for the accelerated development of fusion to reduce pollution and provide an inexhaustible supply of clean energy?
More to the point, why isn’t the Australian government giving more money to Australian physicists working on cold fusion, something that should have been done long ago, rather than burdening people with a carbon tax instead of entrenching themselves as politicians (and not to repeat my Galileo phrase of last week) of whom I would say: there’s none so blind as those who will not see.
If only to give heart to the fossil fuel industries and various purveyors of clean energy, let me end on a positive note. It will take time to introduce Cold Fusion. It will be introduced progressively and so, for some time to come, coal and oil will still be needed. Wind turbines and other clean energy technologies will also continue to be used, but like coal and oil, their future will be limited.
However, by investing in the development of Cold Fusion, Australia has the opportunity to lead the world and become the clean energy country. And so I say to those who want a clean environment for their children and grandchildren, start campaigning now for cold fusion.
dca@netspeed.com.au; http://www.donallan.wordpress.com
The Chronicle, for Canberra’s best Community News. Published every Tuesday
Why not a Gay Marriage Act?
Posted on: 6 December 2011
- In: Legal | Politics | Religion
- 28 Comments
This is not a Chronicle article but the follow up to an article “An agnostics view of same sex marriage” published in Online Opinion some weeks ago.
Regardless of what pop star philosopher Sir Elton John, some politicians in a few parliaments around the world and some members of Australia’s Labor Party think, marriage has long been understood by the wider society as a contract between a man and a woman whether or not the woman would bear children. Indeed, in centuries past, when obviously the latter would never occur, many marriages took place for business reasons or consolidation of power.
It must be said also that even before men began to put their faith in gods, wise people created what eventually became the institution called marriage to ensure that couples who bore children would also be responsible for them. The couples also became known as father and mother in a system that has served the world well and as it hasn’t broken down, it doesn’t need fixing.
However, supporters of same sex marriage – though gay is the word commonly used – claim that the Marriage Act does not treat them as equals of couples who become mothers and fathers. In Australia the fact that by adding Gay Marriage to its policy platform the Australian Labor Party (ALP) wearing its Utopian cloak, has bowed to one of the world’s silliest pieces of political correctness. In effect it has said that when it comes to marriage, homosexuals and lesbians whose sexual coupling cannot produce children are the same as heterosexuals. It seems to me this proposition lacks credibility a condition not unknown among politicians.
But unfortunate as it might be, no man made law can force nature to make it possible for two male homosexuals or two lesbians to produce children. It is that fact that bears on the Marriage Act fact because the law recognises that same sex couple will never face the physical pain attached to childbearing, the legal responsibilities of mothers and fathers or, for the benefit of society, participate in the continuation of family.
As a non-religious person however let me pose the question: is marriage really a right? This question would make for an interesting televised national debate along competition lines between competing groups of Australian Lawyers and Philosophers. The debate would, I feel sure, rate well. And if viewers were polled a few days later the result might well show whether or not the claim by supporters of Gay Marriage that the majority of Australians support same sex marriage is true.
More to the point, what concerns me about Gay Marriage in multicultural Australia is: what is the opinion of its many non Christians – Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and a whole raft of people who follow other faiths? Does their opinion count for nothing?
The claim by some homosexuals and lesbians that they are fathers or mothers because they have children is spurious. The fact is, the children they have are the product of heterosexual coupling or in-vitro fertilisation.
And Gay people often talk about love as if their love is the same as that experienced by heterosexuals. The love I felt, and still feel for my wife, that led to marriage is clearly not the same as the love experienced by non – heterosexuals because it was driven by a wish for family continuity, not something Gay Couples can claim.
With my niece in Scotland in a civil union, let me add that many homosexuals and lesbians do not want marriage. Why? According to my niece it is because they want to be accepted for what they are: they do not want to hide their difference in the “Marriage Act.” I agree with them.
Recently while discussing Gay Marriage with close friends in Canberra who are homosexual, some said that to try and put Gay Marriage in the same category as marriage between heterosexuals is the equivalent of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ears; others said it was the equivalent of making mountains out of molehills. And yet another suggestion was that a Gay Marriage Act should be enacted because it would ensure equality and recognise the difference.
It seems to me this last suggestion is worth discussing. While some parts of such an Act might follow the Marriage Act it would be different because the responsibilities applying to a heterosexual couple’s married life – particularly if they have children would be different. These responsibilities, so numerous I won’t deign to try and catalogue them, would not be the same as those that would face a Gay couple.
What say you?
dca@netspeed.com.au; web: http://www.donallan.wordpress.com
- In: Politics | Religion
- 14 Comments
An edited version of the colum published in The Chronicle, Canberra, Tuesday, 13th September, 2011
Socrates, born Athens – 469 BC and Jesus, born 470 years later in Bethlehem, a West Bank Palestinian City approximately 8 kilometres from Jerusalem, are two of the world’s most quoted philosophers. Perhaps they are the most quoted because they hoped the revolutionary philosophies they espoused would change the world?
Yet much as they hoped to change the world neither left any written material. However, as more and more of the ancient civilisations in which they lived are uncovered, perhaps personal writings of both men will come to light? On the other hand perhaps they didn’t write anything because as great talkers they had little time left to write. Alternatively perhaps they didn’t think their philosophies would take on? Thus it is that to understand their philosophies we must rely on accounts that, allegedly, are accurate records of what they said.
So what philosphies did they create? In simple terms Socrates created Democracy; Jesus a religious philosophty now known as Christianity. But what do we know of Socrates’ philosophy? We are indebted to Plato, a fellow Athenian and philosopher, about what we know about Socrates. In the case of Jesus however, we are indebted to hundreds of scribes but in particular four gospel writers called Mathew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote about Him only after He was dead.
Naturally their philosophies were different: not a religious belief, Democracy supported the idea of people playing a part in their own governance; on the other hand the philosophy of Jesus, who claimed to be the son of God, gave birth to a religion called Christianity. In some respects both philosophies are similar. Needless to say neither the philososphy of Socrates nor Jesus has ever been universally accepted. Indeed people who believe in one and/or the other do not always enjoy each others company, as reading of history will verify.
But apart from creating new philosphies, Socrates and Jesus had something else in common: both died because they offended the state. Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the minds of Athenian youth and of “not believing in the gods of the state” and sentenced to death by having to drink hemlock.
Nor were Socrates and Jesus alike. Socrates liked the good life which has given rise to the story that after taking his dose of hemlock, he offered this piece of wisdom to his mourners: “I go to die, you to live. God only knows which is the better journey.”
And this is only part of the Socrates story. What was the corruption he referred to? The corruption he referred to was excess, over-indulgence and the selfish pursuit of material gain. Strangely however, as if in contradiction of his philososphy, he questioned using democracy as an ideological banner.
Socrates also questioned the idea of city walls and glittering statues. If they don’t make us happy how useful are they, he asked? Clearly too, he was centuries ahead in thought as we now seem to be adopting, albeit not conciously, the philosophy entrenched in the second section of the Declaration of Independence which reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
As for Jesus, in His philosophy He expressed many of the same ideas as Socrates although unlike Socrates he did not think there were many Gods something that raises an interesting idea: if there is an after life and Socrates met and talked to Jesus I’d love to have a recording of their conversation.
But at a more earthly and local level, Socrates and Jesus suffered death as a result of berating the emebers of their respective Assemblies for their failings,. Well, in a way things haven’t changed much: speak up and as some people in the ACT can testify to, while one might not suffer hemlock poisoning, or crucifiction for criticising Assembly Members, one can suffer ostracism or what might be called social death.
Which leads me to me ask: on which rung of the philosophic democracy ladder do you think the ACT Asssembly stands and is there a Socrates or Jesus among its Members?
The Chronicle for Canberra’s best community news. Published every Tuesday.
- In: Environment | Humour | Politics | Religion
- Leave a Comment
First published The Chronicle, Canberra, Tuesday14 December 2010
I understand the new world wide Church of Planet Earth (COPE) will soon make an application to build its new international headquarters and first Climate Change Temple in Canberra. However, before ACT developers start salivating, I understand that, in keeping with COPE’s environmental principles, architects and planner members of the church will design and build the Temple using materials produced without causing any CO2 emissions.
While COPE HQ and the Temple will be built in Canberra the official launch of COPE will take place on a Pacific Island, allegedly sinking because of climate change. COPE believes that using the island will highlight the fact that saving planet earth will be a race against time unless Governments world wide take its advice.
And even though it is said it is more blessed to give than receive, COPE should realise also there’s more to religion than meets the eye. Not only will the Climate Change faithful need saints to pray to, they will also need to be advised about dangerous non believers.
However perhaps more important, who will be the first Supreme Leader of the new church? It is said discussions are already under way as to who that should be. Names already being bandied about are Gore, Stern, Rudd, Wong and Brown. Apparently the names of many others are being considered but because their credentials have not yet been verified by the COPE Council their names are being kept a closely guarded secret.
Naturally as a serious church, COPE will need Gods and Goddesses although it will need to be careful with its selections because to meet gender equity standards there will neeed to be an equal number of Gods and Goddesses. At the same time it will need to satisfy the demands of believers from various countries in the global village.
This will not be easy but willing to lend a hand to help COPE get started, I take the liberty of offering for their consideration a range of Gods and Goddesses from well known past civilisations that should enable them to get started quickly. The range I offer is, of course, only a guide; COPE might need to extend its search for Gods and Godesses it thinks better suited to its purpose.
Let me start by suggesting COPE might think of adopting the following Celtic Gods and Goddesses from ancient Britain: Eostre – Goddess off Spring. Rebirth, Fertility and New Beginnings; Amaethon – God of Agriculture, Master of Magic (I think magic will be in great demand in the COPE Church); Caillech – Goddess of Weather, Earth, Sky, Seasons, Moon and Sun (I feel sure this Goddess will be prayed to a lot ); and Latis – Goddess of Water and Beer, a Goddess I feel sure who will be popular, particularly with people who seek to find consolation by imbibing the latter beverage.
COPE might also take a look at Gods and Goddesses from ancient China: Kuan Ti – The Great Judge ( I think he might get called on a lot); Kwan Yin – Goddess of Mercy and Compassion; T’shai – shen- God of Wealth (Cope members who are developers will like this God); Tsao Wang – God of Hearth and Family ( might not be accepted because there’s little left of either hearth and family today).
From India I suggest: Kali – Goddess of Destruction (Canberra name: ‘the Developer God’); Sarasvati – Goddess of Speech, Wisdom and Learning ( Andrew Barr will probably adopt her as his personal Goddea); Shiva – God of Living and Happiness (Jon Stanhope please note.)
Returning to European deities I suggest COPE might adopt: Athena – Goddess of Wisdom and the Arts ( she will be snowed under with requests from Canberra); Dionysos – God of Wine (he will be a popular god in Civic pubs); Mars – God of War ( a god for drfnrcr forces worl wide); Venus- Goddess of Love, Protector of Gardens (specially suited to COPE believers in the Garden City ).
There are more Gods and Goddesses to choose from some of whom you might feel would be more suitable and as I’m open to suggestions,either send a letter to the editor or post them on this website.
The Chronicle for Canberra’s best community news. Published every Tuesday
A small addition to the published column. Any reader or friend of a reader going to the UK on holiday let me give you a website you might find useful for booking acommodation. This site is operated by a schoolfriend of mine from many years ago and a man of the highest integrity. Write the details down as they won’t be repeated: www.right-angle.org.uk
Allan Takes Aim Blog 