mellowing in my old age....kind of. ok maybe not.

a few weekends ago i attended a lovely wedding. the best kind, with a bride and groom that you actually like and can stomach how much in love they are, without day-dreaming about taking a firearm to the crowded reception. not that i'm bitter. well, that's not entirely true. i am, but i wasn't that day. furthermore, i think the experience of actively enjoying a wedding, sans feeling the need to get completely trollied on free wine, has softened my view on god.

ok so let me explain. religious weddings usually make my very cynical atheist side come out. that day, i tried really hard not to mock or giggle. right, so i giggled a little bit.... still, in my active repression (of which i have years of catholic church-going practice) i found myself listening. i'm not saying i believe in god now. i haven't seen the light and i still think strong belief in god is a bit mad BUT maybe, just maybe, denying the existence of god is as moronic as believing in one.

as a result of this, i did what i have always done. go a reading. so i read-up a bit. philosophy is generally fun for me, saves me having to think up my own ideas, and i found a very interesting guy called robert g. ingersoll. an american political leader, don't worry he wasn't very 'good' at that, and orator during the 19th century. he gave a speech in 1896 entitled, 'why i am an agnostic'. it spoke to me, answered some questions i hadn't known to ask.

ingersoll wrote, "is there a supernatural power-an arbitrary mind-an enthroned god-a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world-to which all causes bow? i do not deny. i do not know-but i do not believe. i believe that the natural is supreme-that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken-that there us no supernatural power that can answer prayer- no power that worship can persuade or change-now power that cares for man.

i believe that with infinite arms nature embraces the all-that there is no inference-no chance-that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be necessary and countless effects.

is there a god? i do not know. is man immortal? i do not know. one thing i do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, change the fact. it is as it is, and it will be as it must be."

i like this on many levels but, to name just two. nature, science, evolution and humanity in my mind are all linked. to stop looking to the heavens for answers and instead look at each other i think is, not only powerful but, also sensible and practical if you want actual answers about life, the universe and everything. secondly, his ideas of prayer as essentially scripted hoping. this desire for certain things to happen if we hope/pray really really hard will make some blind bit of difference. good people that do good things for the right reason, is in my mind, far better use of their time on earth than spending hours and hours of their life in a draughty old church (where god lives) and recite barely remembered scripture like it was a song from childhood.

so this is me softened. hmmm maybe not in hind sight, but still i was genuinely happy for the bride and groom even if i do think they were brought together by a random series of events over thousands and thousands of years and not god. because if so, where is my knight in shinning armour? ok maybe a lot bitter.

congrats guys! hope you like the egg rings.

seriously, who cares?

answer, the governator!

as i put of studying for a psychology quiz, i began having a look around the new yorker online site for blog post inspiration. i forgot how much i really enjoy writing on this thing. what i expected to find was not what has me angry today. i thought, i would uncover some cool new book, movie, play or music review to pique my interest but instead, i found this.

last wednesday in california a lot of people thought that they would be getting married. not a big deal, people get married every day. except this day all wedding parties were disappointed. the 18th of august, 2010 was set to mark the day when preventing same sex couples from marrying would be deemed unconstitutional. a federal judge thought that this would be a great day to appeal the decision of 'perry v. schwarzenegger'. hence gay marriage is still illegal in the state until at the very earliest the 17th of september or the latest after a supreme court decision in 2011.

ok so what is in a month? it's surely isn't that long, and what is one more year? the answer is, a lot! i have a few friends who are planning weddings and really excited about starting a new chapter of their lives with the person they love. i can't imagine the heart ache they would all go through if, on their wedding day, they were told, 'sorry not today, maybe sometime in september. though, i wouldn't start re-organising'.

my problem with this decision is obvious. but, i guess i don't understand why there is such a fuss over same sex marriage. how can we live in a society that openly allows gay people all other opportunities, but legally binding themselves together is for some reason offensive to the publics moral sensibilities? i'm not going to speak for the christian right who oppose such a union, but i will ask them this. gay people don't choose to be gay, they were born that way, there is nothing wrong with that. it isn't a disease that they caught and the gay men and women i know are good people who deserve to be afforded the same rights as any straight person. moreover, how does it at all affect you?

the answer is, it really doesn't. one line, in a deeply disturbing historical text (i'm speaking of the bible, of course) is all it takes for religious people to oppose gay marriage. god said, "sorry boys if you like streisand and eachother 'like that' you can't get married". ok so that might not have been his exact words, but the sentiment is there. and lets face it, gay people are not the only people to be excluded by doctrine. the catholic church, continues to receive its tax exempt status from the government when its institutional sexism runs rampant. they don't allow women to become priests and openly gay men are disallowed from entering seminal school under the very vague excuse, god said no.

but, most people who aren't religious, and this is a large chunck of the australian population according to the latest census data, don't really mind. and why should they? gay marriage affords couples with legal rights regarding their children, spousal privilege and tax incentives that are made available to all straight married citizens.

seems fair to me. gay couples are just asking for what is given to straight people without question. vermont had the right idea, 10 years ago. come on australia, catch up!

the cut.

new york magazine's online fashion blog the cut is one that i follow fairly religiously. it's not for just the obvious superficial 'oooh so pretty' reasons, they actually have something to say. the cut heavily critiques fashion lines, questions ethics of the fashion industry, and opens up debate on topics ranging from elle mcpherson eating powdered rhino horns to michelle obama's obvious love for all things metallic to australia's push for more realistic looking plus sized models. still, to date the weirdest thing i have come across on this site is regarding the power of the mullet.

everyone, who owns a mirror and lives in a community that would mock you mercilessly if you sported the dreaded hairstyle understands the 'yuck' factor when you see someone sporting a mullet. business in the front, party in the back, is terribly outdated but more than that has a very unattractive socio-economic connection that can't be ignored.

still, like most things the iranian government has taken the eradication of the ghastly hairstyle way too far. earlier this week, the telegraph (which i don't usually go anywhere near) reported that, "in an attempt to rid the country of 'decadent western cuts', iran's culture ministry has produced a catalogue of haircuts that meet government approval. the list of banned styles includes ponytails, mullets and elaborate spikes. however, quiffs appear to be acceptable as are fashioning one's hair in the style of simon cowell or cultivating a 1980s-style floppy fringe."

and yes, if you are caught sporting one of the banned styles you will be arrested. these new laws have been enacted under the guise of strict islamic law and coincide with iran police who carry out regular morality checks. ok, fine. it's only a mullet it probably should be stopped but come on, where does this stop?

i am very lucky, like all of you, to live in a country that although it is heavily regulated by governing officials, have not (yet) gone to such extremes as to prevent this form of personal expression. the mullet might be hideous but it is just that. a choice.

hope there really isn't a hell or i'm pretty screwed!

i have recently begun reading a book called 'the end of faith' by sam harris. it is a continuation of my research into the idea of atheism and how it is connected to the way i feel about the existence of god(s). i have come to the conclusion, that, i in fact don't believe in god. an all knowing, all powerful being who participates in the day-to-day affairs of human beings to me seems ludicrous, but more than anything that such a baseless belief is actually dangerous.

now, before you get your angry typing fingers ready this is what i think. this isn't what i think everyone should think and i'm certainly not so deluded that i posit that i can change a single persons mind about the importance of religion/god to them. that is not the point of this post. all i seek is a conversation on the topic that is civil, thought provoking and honest without it descending into anger and/or fear mongering.

as such, i'm going to tell you a bit about what i think. firstly, i do 'think' as opposed to 'believe' when talking about faith. the only reason is because thoughts can be changed, beliefs seem, to me anyway, more solid and i'm not sure they should be. we as people are forever changing is seems slightly silly to have a belief that can't be altered or even reversed when given further consideration. ok moving on, i was raised catholic and the dogmatic way that such an old church conducts itself never really appealed to me. i suppose, all the poetic revelations spoken about by devout people, in all the iconic literature was never experienced by me and as a result it left me feeling as though i was missing something that everyone singing in church clearly understood. the 'oh. huh. cool.' revelations about the world came to me rather from books. poetry, literature, philosophy, psychology, history helped me understand why i was standing here, now, living the life i lead.

most simply put, i have no faith in god and for a long time was really very angry about that. that was until i realised, you can't be angry at god and then not believe in him/her/it. i'm happy to say i'm no longer angry at god, and haven't been for some time, but rather was just ambivalent. this came from the realisation that the ceo of the universe could never be understood and so i devoted my time to understanding other things.

in most circles that i travel in being an atheist isn't a good thing, not that i habitually share the fact, but rather you instantly get the response, 'oh michelle that's really sad.'. but, it isn't and why should it be? oh, i'm going to hell? well according to the old testament, as i haven't been to church in about 5 years and even then my heart really wasn't in it, i'm going there anyway so i may as well leave the world slightly better off than i found it. so, i go to university, i learn some stuff, i go to work, i hang with friends, be good to my family, vote with a conscious and pay my taxes. that's better than some people and god hasn't even entered into the equation yet.

by the way, i just realised this might be a long post so buckle up kids. next, i have a rather large problem with the thing most religious people (specifically christians, it's what i know so...) habitually and very successfully seek to ignore. the past. i'm not about to go all richard dawkins on your ass' mostly, because he is far too militant in his views. declaring war on organised religion as a fantasy that needs to be extinguished, as an example. not my view, but he does have a point. it is the almost stereotypical point presented by atheists for their lack of belief in god. still, it needs to be said. the crusades, inquisitions, the burning times (witch trials), priests interfering with children, and even the current war on terror have links to organised religion as one, if not their entire, root cause. genocide is a common theme. it is even thought by some historians that the dark ages, that followed the fall of the roman empire and saw about 800 years when all science and critical inquiry were considered religious heresy, had not occurred we today may have ventured outside of our own solar system. this is all academic of course, and entirely my point.

most atheists that i've met merely transfer their faith from god to science. i'm not usually one to follow a crowd but i do agree with this. not that science is our saviour or anything but rather is can be rationally argued. it has a rich history of great thinkers who dared to look past religion and seek for an answer that was tangible. moreover, in our growing secular society this is also more relevant. we all like to think there is something bigger than ourselves, something for us to hitch our wagon to. for some that is god, and for others that is science. it's a social reflex. we are primates, we enjoy the comfort and security that a community provides and if that community believes as you do, then the group is strengthened. so, i guess i hope for the day where, dare i say we become evolved enough. or a future when we don't feel the need to rely on a personal god, to steer us in the right direction and then judge us for our ability (or lack of ability) to follow instructions BUT rather put that faith and trust in ourselves.

this brings me to what i believe in. as the atheist range is large, simply because it is linked with defining 'god' or 'deity', there are many different types of atheism (not even including agnosticism) and i suppose i find myself sitting in the 'practical atheism' corner of the metaphysical boxing ring. individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. the existence of gods is not denied, but is designated unnecessary or useless. it is seen that gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life. i agree with this and perhaps most strongly think that belief in gods does not motivate moral action but rather that people are innately humane and make decisions about their moral actions according to this code rather than their wish to go to heaven. this isn't to say that the law plays no part. i mean, no one wants to get shived in jail.

i suppose in many ways this makes me a humanist. to me, it is more powerful and meaningful than a belief in god. we shape our own lives. autonomy as opposed to fate. the international humanist and ethical union is an organisation that requires its members to accept one minimum statement about its beliefs and politics. "humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. it stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. it is not theistic, and does not accept supernatural views of reality". i really like this concept. i guess it's everything i always wanted catholicism to be; a pope without prada? scandalous!

so, not all atheists are angry liberal god haters who despise their own rational nature. i hope i have shown that some of us just have chosen to back a different horse in this race. i hope there really isn't a hell though. oh, wouldn't my face be red!

-------------------------------------

note: the picture that i chose to use is of the eagle nebula's 'pillars of creation' taken by the hubble telescope in 1995. it shows the early formation of a star and thus, is a nice combination of science and things believed to be crafted by god(s).

this is australia!

not america! and definitely not sparta. though some days i do get this strong urge to kick certain people into a big bottomless pit. but, i digress...

in my daily stroll through internet news sites i came across something so deeply disturbing that it has awoken a fierce angry fire breathing dragon within me....and not the cute puff kind! lateline is a goldmine, full of wonderful political commentary and today it did not disappoint.

check this video out!

now, i'm not going to say that christian's don't deserve a voice, they do. i'm just not entirely sure that we should be going the americanised route on this. in god we trust? please. have any of them read the bible, god is vengeful. he killed more people in the old testament that anyone else in the entire book. not someone i am personally happy for my governing officials to be taking advice and guidance from with regards to taxation, immigration and environmental reforms. the guy got a little pissed off one day and FLOODED THE EARTH!

i'm not completely stupid, i do know that the whole jesus/god/bible deal is a metaphor blah blah blah and as i was raised catholic, i'm sure i have some latent rage regarding the subject of organised religion. you believe what you believe. i don't agree with you. the world keeps on a turning. politicians are no exception to this rule, they can have beliefs but i don't want to see them begin to seep into day-to-day policy making decisions.

then again, i conceed that they already have. western culture is drenched in christian morality. stealing is bad, adultery is bader and murder is the badest. in other cultures, with a different religious morality, that order is different. for example in some islamic states adultery receives a harsher punishment than murder. neither is right or wrong, it's just how it is. but, this morality is so imbedded in our societies that it will never be removed. most importantly, i don't like faith being used as a tool for self promotion.

as krudd and tony 'budgie smugglers' abbott freak out over how close the next federal election is going to be, they are willing to do almost anything to get a few more votes. if that means parading their religious beliefs out for everyone to see, then so be it. i really do worry about this 1. because people are eating this crap up and 2. THIS IS NOT AMERICA! that is just not how we roll here and also, well those idiots voted for bush (twice) who essentially made all his decisions with 'gods' council. it really is like talking to your imaginary friend, which is fine i had an imaginary friend when i was 2 years old, BUT these men are world leaders!

please take jesus/god out of the equation when you vote. god doesn't direct these men and if he does 'talk' to them then we have a much bigger problem. 'cause everybody knows, when you talk to god it's prayer but if god talks back then you probably have schizophrenia.

question time: the only thing that can make me that angry and bored at the same time.

now, don't tell anyone but i do on occasion partake in a nice afternoon of not wearing pants and yelling at the television. that might sound just a little bit bad but there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. here we go, this is hard, hi my name is michelle and i'm addicted to question time. wow, that wasn't so bad. but, seriously i really like watching politicians yelling at each other across a room about the politics of the day. does sometime worry me that these people control the country but then julia gillard speaks and i feel a warm glow of security again.

this is unquestionably the greatest thing on free to air television. it is the only thing that can make you absolutely furious and bored at the exact same time. not sure, what that says about me as a normal well rounded individual but hey if i let things like that bother me i would never have gone to bulgaria. which actually in hind-sight wasn't a good idea.

i digress. i do have a sordid voting past. i did vote for john howard (twice eek, please don't lynch me) but i was young and he was good for comedians morale. the latest federal liberal party re-shuffle has me scared. i might have voted for malcolm turnbull, he was quite left for a conservative, and seemed to be somewhat sane. BUT, tony abbott has this bizarre ability to both terrify and anger me without even opening his mouth. then when he does speak you can't not picture him in his speedos.

vomit! this is not america, this is not a country that elects someone because they can lift the heavy thing. i wasn't that worried about his ability to win the next election against our current prime minister but some very smart people are telling me that some aussies are buying what el doucho abbott is selling. tax hikes, outrageous policy shaped by jesus, internet sensorship comparable to china's, no national broadband, taking money away from school kids and giving it to their pals the mining industry. oh and lets not forget 'work choices' that i now believe is 'abbott's box of arse magic'. i could be wrong there but still, if the man had his way secular australian society would become as insane as americas 'in god we trust'. where one third of the population believing in an actual devil (with horns and a tail). that is true by the way. the country of operaology....

then there is julie bishop. i think she might just be the wicked witch of the west. and not the fuzzy singing one of 'wicked'. keep half expecting her to turn green and start running around the house of representatives cackling and calling for her flying monkeys. though, if the liberal party gets into power in the next election the witch will probably have a sexy new hat and her monkeys out of work. then again, abbott looks a bit monkey-like so maybe not.

a german in jail, scandalous!

when i get on a tangent its hard to get off it. germans. sport. what can i say i'm a creature of habit.

the famous atheist richard dawkins has started thinking big and i LOVE it! he is all set to arrest the pope! it amazes me that this could actually happen. he has got some pretty smartie pants lawyers onside. this times article caught my eye. there is precedence, you atheists/agnostics hold onto that!

can't wait to see the prada pope in unflatering vertical stripes. bah ha ha ha! oh how the immoral elite have fallen. or will fall, hopefully. oh gosh, i'm so going to hell.

always look on the bright logical side of life

i thought i might tackle religion today cause iv'e not much on my hands and figured me blog needed some substance. but where to start? i probably should preface what i'm going to say with, if you get offended please feel free to slam me, tell me what you really think, insult, berate and/or simply yell. all are for some reasons reactions to my own brand of spirituality.

now i don't pretend to know the answers to any of the 'big questions'. life/the universe/everything etc. but what i will say is this: in the great debate between science and god is doesn't really seem much of a competition. on one hand we have very smart people with bunsin burners, atoms, petrie dishes, nobel prizes, microscopes and answers. and on the other side we have some people with a book.... hmmm yes.

to add to this, the big question of god creating the universe in 6 days did seem a little silly to me, even as a child. i mean the guy is 'god', the big kahoona, surely if he wanted to he could have created the universe in 1 day and spent the other 5 doing something else. maybe creating aliens or something. OR if we were to assume, as the world is full of logical rational human beings, that man was not a result of divine hand but rather a process of slow evolution. charles darwin did write a book about it, you may have heard this, it is i believe called, 'monkey monkey monkey monkey YOU'.

and my last gripe of many (i have not included all, i mean the prada wearing pope is another wingepost methinks) comes direct from the genius that is eddie izzard, "so i've learnt that the world is 4500 million years old. if you're religious, then it's not 4500 million years, its 6000 years old. one of these is not correct.". this is why we need comedians and not pope ben.

cue applause!