Democracy is a great political innovation. Being able to voice your opinion and having a say in who and how a country is run is powerful and leading to far greater social reform and happiness.
However, a significant number of people freely choose not to vote. Further, many people vote along a party or historical line and attach their vote to a specific issue. In many cases, the reason for supporting (or opposing) an issue is not very clear as the voter has not spent much time understanding their view or the other.
Is it time to change the way we allow people to vote? In Canada, once you reach 18, you are allowed to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen. That's it. You magically become eligible to vote! Why are there no other requirements to be able to vote?
First, I don't like the 'regional representation' model of Canadian politics. Years ago, this made sense because travel and communication were limited. However, nowadays voters can easily vote on specific issues and don't necessarily need to be 'regionally' recognized. In fact, if political parties were assigned seats based on national support, minority parties would actually receive more seats since their support is usually thinly spread out and unable to gain power in any one region. Further, some voters may not vote for their preferred party recognizing that their vote will be useless if they are in a minority. Also, this would prevent 'defensive' voting (ie. voting Liberal just to make sure Conservatives don't get a lot of votes even though you support Green).
Professional Voters I think voting on important issues requires an educated voter. The main problem with Democracy is that anyone can vote, even those who know little about the issue they are voting for! I'd like to see a system where people are required to learn about issues and then earn the right to vote on it. This class of people would become 'qualified' or even 'expert' voters.
The idea is to have a test that neutrally presents the sides of an issue. A potential voter must answer questions that show they understand the arguments being presented and then earn the privilege to vote. This does not mean that uninformed people cannot voice opinions, it simply means they don't vote.
Deciding Issues Take the issue of Evolution in America. Should Americans 'vote' on whether it is taught in public schools? There are arguments for and against teaching evolution. However, due to the low levels of science education in America, does it make sense to have citizens, illiterate in evolution, to decide whether it's taught?
Imagine critics of evolution want to remove it from the curriculum. To gain support for their idea, they would need to educate those who agree with them not just on the anti-evolution arguments, but also the pro-evolution argument because they know the potential voter must pass a questionnaire to see if they really understand the issue. Only those who do will be allowed to vote on it!
My goal with this idea is to get public policy issues passed by those who are most qualified to decide them. This is very similar to the peer review process in science. In fact, it should ensure that future policies are decided by scientific methods and not on rhetorical arguments. Would you vote for that?
Democracy is a great political innovation. Being able to voice your opinion and having a say in who and how a country is run is powerful and leading to far greater social reform and happiness.
However, a significant number of people freely choose not to vote. Further, many people vote along a party or historical line and attach their vote to a specific issue. In many cases, the reason for supporting (or opposing) an issue is not very clear as the voter has not spent much time understanding their view or the other.
Is it time to change the way we allow people to vote? In Canada, once you reach 18, you are allowed to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen. That's it. You magically become eligible to vote! Why are there no other requirements to be able to vote?
First, I don't like the 'regional representation' model of Canadian politics. Years ago, this made sense because travel and communication were limited. However, nowadays voters can easily vote on specific issues and don't necessarily need to be 'regionally' recognized. In fact, if political parties were assigned seats based on national support, minority parties would actually receive more seats since their support is usually thinly spread out and unable to gain power in any one region. Further, some voters may not vote for their preferred party recognizing that their vote will be useless if they are in a minority. Also, this would prevent 'defensive' voting (ie. voting Liberal just to make sure Conservatives don't get a lot of votes even though you support Green).
Professional Voters I think voting on important issues requires an educated voter. The main problem with Democracy is that anyone can vote, even those who know little about the issue they are voting for! I'd like to see a system where people are required to learn about issues and then earn the right to vote on it. This class of people would become 'qualified' or even 'expert' voters.
The idea is to have a test that neutrally presents the sides of an issue. A potential voter must answer questions that show they understand the arguments being presented and then earn the privilege to vote. This does not mean that uninformed people cannot voice opinions, it simply means they don't vote.
Deciding Issues Take the issue of Evolution in America. Should Americans 'vote' on whether it is taught in public schools? There are arguments for and against teaching evolution. However, due to the low levels of science education in America, does it make sense to have citizens, illiterate in evolution, to decide whether it's taught?
Imagine critics of evolution want to remove it from the curriculum. To gain support for their idea, they would need to educate those who agree with them not just on the anti-evolution arguments, but also the pro-evolution argument because they know the potential voter must pass a questionnaire to see if they really understand the issue. Only those who do will be allowed to vote on it!
My goal with this idea is to get public policy issues passed by those who are most qualified to decide them. This is very similar to the peer review process in science. In fact, it should ensure that future policies are decided by scientific methods and not on rhetorical arguments. Would you vote for that?
Bill Donohue's behaviour on this programme is typical of the hysterical crap he puts about claiming that his fucking religion is persecuted- his behaviour is so obviously that of a Merkin who is used to this crap being listened to and is used to behaving in such an obnoxious way - I love that he is taken down and given a new one by the guy who was a victim of abuse himself. Go listen and rage. - he calls it a 'moral panic' he says he has 'read about child abuse' and fails to remember that this is a judicial review that was undertaken, not one of his stupid little polls.
Bill Donohue's behaviour on this programme is typical of the hysterical crap he puts about claiming that his fucking religion is persecuted- his behaviour is so obviously that of a Merkin who is used to this crap being listened to and is used to behaving in such an obnoxious way - I love that he is taken down and given a new one by the guy who was a victim of abuse himself. Go listen and rage. - he calls it a 'moral panic' he says he has 'read about child abuse' and fails to remember that this is a judicial review that was undertaken, not one of his stupid little polls.
In an outrageous radio interview the sweaty, bloated face leader of the catholic league, Bill Donohue, denies that child abuse occurred in Ireland, called the victims "gold diggers" and then tried to trivialise the scandal by bitching about how protestants weren't investigated and how we always pick on the poor little catholics.
This man is a seriously nasty piece of work and I'm frankly disgusted that catholics allow this fat shit to speak for them.
Catholics; Grow some balls, develop some integrity and exercise this morality you keep telling us about and publicly oppose everything this man says. Or would you rather, as you normally do, tow the party line and try to cover it up?
Patrician Atheist here with Statements of Fact IV.
According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus, who was supposedly sinless, was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River.
There is no logical fact-based evidence for the existence of God or any other supernatural abstraction.
There is no logical fact-based evidence for the existence of any life or world after death.
There is no logical fact-based evidence for the existence of a human soul.
"The Susie" is the name of the 149th episode of the sitcom Seinfeld.
Providence is the capital of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
Boston is the capital of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Book of Mormon is regarded as a sacred text by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon Church.
The Mormon Church is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Mormonism has a racist past and for well over a century taught that all blacks had been cursed with their color for rebelling against God.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is still alive and in a coma.
Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States and served two terms (1801–1809).
Ulysses S. Grant served two terms as President of the United States (1869–1877), and was our eighteenth chief executive.
William Tecumseh Sherman was a prominent Union general during the American Civil War and is largely credited with coining the phrase “War is Hell.”
Original sin is a Christian doctrine that states everyone is born with inherent sin, which essentially means that babies are born with sin simply because they are born human.
The number 666 is believed to be the sign, number, or mark of the beast by Christianity.
Muslims are required to pray five times a day while facing in the direction of Mecca.
Blue on Black is a song by Kenny Wayne Shepherd and was released in 1997.
Sex and Candy is a song by Marcy Playground and was released in 1997.
In Greek mythology Zeus is king of the gods.
In Greek mythology Poseidon is the god of the sea and earthquakes.
In the Jewish, Christian and Muslim mythologies Gabriel is an angel who functions as a messenger of God.
The capital of the United States is Washington D.C.
The capital of Greece is Athens.
Mormonism strongly condemns homosexuality.
According to a 2008 interview with Katie Couric, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin believes that abortion should not be an option even in the cases of rape and incest.
In February 2000, Senator John McCain referred to leaders of the religious right as “agents of intolerance.”
Antinous was the homosexual teenaged lover of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who had him deified following Antinous’ death.
Emperor Constantine I, the first Christian emperor of Rome, murdered both his son Crispus and his wife Fausta.
New England is a region of the United States that is comprised of the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine.
Ronald Reagan Jr. is, by his own admission, an atheist.
Pope Benedict XVI, or Joseph Alois Ratzinger, is a former member of the Hitler Youth.
The Vatican is rich, but routinely condemns the material world.
Gay civil marriages ruin the sanctity of religious marriage to the same extent that gays eating crackers ruins the sanctity of communion. That is to say, inside the religious congregation it has no effect, and outside the religious congregation it has absolutely no effect.
While California is temporarily shading its eyes from the Enlightenment that has proven no trouble for the likes of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa, I believe it won't be long before the California State constitution gets reamended* and every person previously denied the privilege will be able to wed the person they love.
There is a certain tack I'd like to see the state take in doing this. One of the biggest talking points of the Prop 8 scum** was that their churches would be obligated to recognize and marry gay couples if gay marriage were legalized. Nevermind the fact that this isn't remotely close to the truth, let's make sure that when we finally and permanently legalize gay marriage in California, we explicitly state the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. Let's emphasize that churches will retain the right to refuse service to anyone not wearing a shirt, shoes, or who prefers genitalia that match their own.
We need to encourage them to disallow same-sex relationships within their congregations, and this is why:
Make them wear their bigotry on their sleeves. The more publicly their distasteful behaviors are presented, the sooner society will choke them off.
Let's hope that brave gay couples who want a religious wedding can stand up for themselves and leave congregations that won't support them, and move to more progressive and forward-thinking churches, or better yet, away from churches in general. Politically active religious groups feed on people, and need to be starved into submission and out of relevance.
Gay civil marriages ruin the sanctity of religious marriage to the same extent that gays eating crackers ruins the sanctity of communion. That is to say, inside the religious congregation it has no effect, and outside the religious congregation it has absolutely no effect.
While California is temporarily shading its eyes from the Enlightenment that has proven no trouble for the likes of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa, I believe it won't be long before the California State constitution gets reamended* and every person previously denied the privilege will be able to wed the person they love.
There is a certain tack I'd like to see the state take in doing this. One of the biggest talking points of the Prop 8 scum** was that their churches would be obligated to recognize and marry gay couples if gay marriage were legalized. Nevermind the fact that this isn't remotely close to the truth, let's make sure that when we finally and permanently legalize gay marriage in California, we explicitly state the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. Let's emphasize that churches will retain the right to refuse service to anyone not wearing a shirt, shoes, or who prefers genitalia that match their own.
We need to encourage them to disallow same-sex relationships within their congregations, and this is why:
Make them wear their bigotry on their sleeves. The more publicly their distasteful behaviors are presented, the sooner society will choke them off.
Let's hope that brave gay couples who want a religious wedding can stand up for themselves and leave congregations that won't support them, and move to more progressive and forward-thinking churches, or better yet, away from churches in general. Politically active religious groups feed on people, and need to be starved into submission and out of relevance.
I'm not often lost for words- ask anybody that knows me- give me the box to stand on about certain subjects and I will yell- but this time? this time I'm just speechless- the Catholic Church- that 'holder of the wisdom of ages', that institution that is purported to guide people through the world towards a heaven of their imagining- well, I always knew it- I had read previous reports to which I had access due to my work - but this one? I am incoherent with rage. I will not quote from it- quotes can be found all over the web, accounts of torture and abuse that we have come to expect in Rwanda, Darfur, and other places - but Ireland- well again - a country that is so in the grip of an insitution such as the catholic church should have expected this to happen - anyone who has ever, like me, treated or assessed sex offenders would know this was going to happen - Ireland needs to kick this 'church' out once and for all.
It sounds like a cliche but reading it brings tears to my eyes- I also don't cry often - what I do do however, is therapy for kids and adolescents who have been abused- I hear stories of abuse every day and want to run and punch the dad or mum or other carer that has perpetrated this abuse on these vulnerable and scared kids that sit in front of me begging me- in actions but never words - to help them, so incoeherent with rage against the world that allowed this to happen to them that they can only communicate it through anger and destruction.
These Christians have carried out sustained and systematic torture of children over decades and they are going to get away with it- why? because they are part of that 'grand' institution the 'catholic church'. No other institution would get away with it- if a bunch of social workers under the guise of caring for kids in group homes were to do this they would not be able to hide, to keep their names out of the report - they would be named, they would be prosecuted, they would never again be permitted to work with children- what do these fucking priests get? Anonymity - well lets give it back--
Anonymous- I challenge you to turn away from the useless hounding of scientology and actually do something useful - start doing to the catholic church what you have done to scientology.
Protest outside the abbeys, the churches, the cathedrals, the seminaries where these people indoctrinate the massess - hand out the leaflets warning people against what the catholic church can do to a family- they have after all been doing it far longer and with far more success than the scientologists will ever do.
Please set up protests- I will join- i know members of my family will join. I believe the only way justice is going to be won against this monstrous institution is for the world to protest and to let the catholics know that it will no longer be tolerated.
So come on Anonymous- get off the wagon of scientology and make some real change in the world- you are a group that is already geared up for protests of this sort - you are perfect for the job- accept the challenge!!
I'm not often lost for words- ask anybody that knows me- give me the box to stand on about certain subjects and I will yell- but this time? this time I'm just speechless- the Catholic Church- that 'holder of the wisdom of ages', that institution that is purported to guide people through the world towards a heaven of their imagining- well, I always knew it- I had read previous reports to which I had access due to my work - but this one? I am incoherent with rage. I will not quote from it- quotes can be found all over the web, accounts of torture and abuse that we have come to expect in Rwanda, Darfur, and other places - but Ireland- well again - a country that is so in the grip of an insitution such as the catholic church should have expected this to happen - anyone who has ever, like me, treated or assessed sex offenders would know this was going to happen - Ireland needs to kick this 'church' out once and for all.
It sounds like a cliche but reading it brings tears to my eyes- I also don't cry often - what I do do however, is therapy for kids and adolescents who have been abused- I hear stories of abuse every day and want to run and punch the dad or mum or other carer that has perpetrated this abuse on these vulnerable and scared kids that sit in front of me begging me- in actions but never words - to help them, so incoeherent with rage against the world that allowed this to happen to them that they can only communicate it through anger and destruction.
These Christians have carried out sustained and systematic torture of children over decades and they are going to get away with it- why? because they are part of that 'grand' institution the 'catholic church'. No other institution would get away with it- if a bunch of social workers under the guise of caring for kids in group homes were to do this they would not be able to hide, to keep their names out of the report - they would be named, they would be prosecuted, they would never again be permitted to work with children- what do these fucking priests get? Anonymity - well lets give it back--
Anonymous- I challenge you to turn away from the useless hounding of scientology and actually do something useful - start doing to the catholic church what you have done to scientology.
Protest outside the abbeys, the churches, the cathedrals, the seminaries where these people indoctrinate the massess - hand out the leaflets warning people against what the catholic church can do to a family- they have after all been doing it far longer and with far more success than the scientologists will ever do.
Please set up protests- I will join- i know members of my family will join. I believe the only way justice is going to be won against this monstrous institution is for the world to protest and to let the catholics know that it will no longer be tolerated.
So come on Anonymous- get off the wagon of scientology and make some real change in the world- you are a group that is already geared up for protests of this sort - you are perfect for the job- accept the challenge!!
I have a question I would value my reader’s well-informed opinions on:
…if science develops the technology to clone a human from a single donor cell, would every cell in our body, now having the potential for a fulfilling life as a human, be sacred?
It occurs to me, as it may well have occurred to you at some point, that the very idea of anything “supernatural” existing is self-defeating because anything that blatantly defies our methods of analysis and understanding would totally undermine the entire show. Thus our system of understanding which is so incredibly consistent that it’s able to convince electrons to run such complex mazes that the whole internet results, would be fatally flawed if even the smallest miracle were possible.
The application of logic has yet to be shown to fail. The world has never thrown up any scientifically verifiable evidence of anything outside of our model. Thus there has never been any evidence for any god, any miracle, any ghost, any anything supernatural.
Yet its not as if God (as rep for all things supernatural) is deliberately covering his tracks. If He was, no one would know about Him. Clearly his followers have detected some “evidence” – but amazingly no science or logical analysis has ever trapped any of it.
So if you believe in God, how can you have any faith in such a poor system, that can’t detect this God you see so evidently? The system so good it cures diseases, determines the compositions of distant stars and genetically engineers mice so they glow in the dark can’t see something so big and important three quarters of the planet believe in it.
I inhabit a post-theistic world. God or the idea of God has long-since lost its influence on my thinking – my morals, my emotions or my research. I am thus not so much an atheist as a “post-theist”. To me the debate is over, so the categorisation into the do’s and do-nots is now only an interesting study of human gullibility rather than a deep & heart-rending dilemma.
Anyway, I thought it would be good to put into words my position on the whole God-vs-Science debate, which is really rather important and most certainly cannot be ignored.
I have frequently been tempted to write about this topic, but have opted to keep my powder dry, because I was not sure which approach would actually increase the net happiness in the world (groan away, but what other approach is better?). Options included:
Explaining how I came to be an atheist: my idiot christian school taught me about other religions, and I quickly added two-and-two and realised if they were mutually incompatible they were probably all false
I could go on about the scientific implausibility of the whole show. The total lack of evidence, not to mention the blatant disregard for logic.
I could explain how there is evidence human brains are designed, by evolution, to believe in concepts like God.
I could go into the details of infectious memes, and how religion is a darn good example of a viral idea that has all the properties you would try to put into a computer virus if you made one (which I did once, for a HP48s, a once popular calculator).
Lastly, I could come out like a raging fundamentalist pointing out how religion is the ‘root of all evil’ (to borrow a phrase) – how religion justified the great wars and the subsequent suppression of nations /women / freethinkers / witches / etc.
However, I realise that Hecht, Dawkins, Harris and several others have walked this path (rather well) for me. Perhaps I should focus my efforts on subjects not yet so well covered? Some would argue that atheists need to rally together and ride the current wave of interest and publicity – we need to gain the critical mass.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
