Marriage-- it brings out the fanaticism in us

Same sex marriage - like all marriage --- brings out the worst in us.
In marriage we all have the POWER to choose HOW it works and WHOM rules apply too . For many of us,  Marriage defines the boundaries of our freedom and power ,
How is it possible that many would so calmly change the definition of something that would normally make us potentially very emotional


Perhaps States should stay well away? .  It's the politicians  idea after all  that CHANGE is necessary ( or more accurately some minority they have to listen to stay in power ) Resisting change driven by minorities welding their power makes great sense to  me. 

• We are overwhelmed by wannabes ( many of whom now DO NOT represent us ) who want legislation make US perform better - so why wouldn't more coercion be a consequence of more law in this area ? 
• Law is  not about love,  but protection in truly libertarian countries ( cf tyranical ) Law is not about giving in to noisemakers,  but objective risk and reaction assessment  .  
• this equality talk has hidden tyranny before ------Orwell Huxley Marx.      
  

I don't believe for a moment that the push for same ceremony, same status is genuine --. The people who want to fix themselves to ancient ceremony is decreasing by the hour .

There is more to what we are being asked to consider than has been simply put so far ,

So what is this push to change the language and include SSM really all about ? 

Let me state some guidelines
1. Reason often provides no answers to these emotional matters  We are not able to see peoples motivations and even if we were we would have to admit that they are complex and probably even contradictory. Wretched  man that I am . self justifying excuse making stuff .
One thing is certain then - we are all at risk of getting losts in some logic train if we as lost greeks want to play that game before we decide anything
Lets face facts --we are only pretend Greeks - we decide things on prejudice ; our faith our world view . maybe evidence comes in somewhere and for those who aren't still members of the Children's party ( ABC Qand A  Aug 21st 2017) there is the valid weight of experience,

2. Evidence and experience must be weighed up --- called sustainability    the way we are going ( yes advocates wanna keep it simple) this will not happen,

Marriage, as we have known it,  has the weight of centuries of support . Not even the might of Marx and Shaw is enough to stop Trad marriage (TM)  resurfacing as a ship once sunk  The simple logic that the Russions used was common even here at the turn of last century" its only a piece of paper , ceremony and doesn't work ( the clincher for many who worship new technique)

--A list of all states in the world who have adopted SSM into actual legislation must be published ASAP  dates  
3. We rely on objective assessment of real risks and real damage from peoples sexual choices -not feelings.   probabilities of real damage must be weighed up , not ignored in the change of focus that occurs when changing the focus of civil marriage ( protection of women and children ) It is not sufficient to say that gays can look after children-  they clearly can .
4, We must should reject the simple and the sentimental - note this is saying we respect reason but may not rely on it .
Most of us get very emotional about Marriage so we will defend it a little too simply We are all likely to get fanatical in our opinion about how it works  or should work . In marriage we all have the POWER to choose HOW it works and WHOM rules apply too . For many of us,  Marriage defines the boundaries of our freedom and power ,
- the way we are going ( yes advocates wanna keep it simple) complex discussions will not happen before the due date   This is plain wrong 

-the evidence is that many are never satisfied sexually , whatever status they are given Gen 19:5
- -the evidence is that we ALL  have bigots and bigotry in our camps , The more certain you are about what life makes work the more " bigoted " you can seem to the uncertain.

5  We should stick to the subject ( civil marriage and not be distracted by all the religious variations)
6  We should stick to advocating Law changes ONLY when its really necessary . This talk of legislating about love leaves everyone's mind at home   . Child protection for civil union couples and adoptive parents and surrogacy should be a separate matter,particularly as the children s identity is more predictable outside TM .  https://docs.google.com/document/d/19eqr4CYCMNJUpVPYgpsqyuV-zL99NiqUZnW4HgFPXm0/edit?usp=sharing




Reason provides no answers ( If Nonchristian C -see Susan Neiman )If C -The idea of marriage is God's and he knows more than us ( Genesis 2:18) Its such a great idea even Non believers get to benefit from it    ----either way .... limit the talk 

TRUMP is deep trouble

America is in a fanatical mood , Things aren't working.  The system is failing, Trump talk is the outward expression  of desperation and confusion over what works
The people are afraid .
They are deeply afraid of another religion taking over the country .

We are wise to be fearful of the power of religion.

In the comfort zone lulls that characterize most of time in history, we seem to ignore this ; we are prone to pretend that one's faith its " irrelevant". World view is a given but its never irrelevant as it drives our passions - or lack of them .Ask any psychologist.

Lets be thoroughly realistic - people from an Islamic background see the modern secularist state as weak and IMO so should we .

The modern secularist leadership is increasingly fanatical about its hold on minds, hearts and power becauses "its simply not working "; As Donald Trumps empty headed rhetoric now so well symbolises,
If you want a deeper debate about what works in the West , follow Shylock and Portia --having been played every year for the past 500, the debate over law and grace in that play has sustainability . Law and grace the Christian way.
It is my view then that it is not the power of Islam that is the problem for the West, but the deep weakness and the shallow watered down determinism of the Post Christian world views of the West.
If we keep telling ourselves we are just products of our genes, we will stop using our minds. Our legs will turn to jelly.Our political legs have already turned to jelly.
If we keep blaming the other person or sex for our problems eventually the unsustainability of our false targeting will become evident to outsiders .
.
If you think something long enough, you will start to believe it . If you confuse correlation with causation you will  eventually find yourself alone in num brain land  The modern secular leadership preach this simple single problem /solution as gospel because its in the DNA determinism of their faith ;  that only genotype expressed as phenotype ( what your feel) is what matters .Matter over mind ; "our minds are just propaganda machines ". ,

" Do what you feel like " doesn't work and we all know it deep down

As Dalrymple says , all we have left, after centuries of tough minded law and grace is" the toxic cult of sentimentality" - a sort of grace that doesn't work because the basic tension in law and grace is lost - half the solution is no solution.
Half baked PC theology just pays people to "do what they feel like" -killing off all the hard fought toughness and tough thinking resisting of the past -
Modern secular determinism, as practiced in the west, is a soft centered mind numbing addition to ambulance and helicopter based care by governments - not families and "courts" where a sense of responsibility can be taught. Reactive not preventative. Its costs the earth and its killing the earth http://cuttingedgecare.blogspot.com

Shylock types make the historic mistake ( as early Rome did ) of seeing Christianity as weak. Its only weak if its watered down . It's certainly looks weak, but that's not our problem- most media talk and politics is superficial .
The best part of this play is that it reminds us of how to return to a powerful of way of making our society work and be truly great again .

If you don't do anything else this week , go see the wonderful Warren and wonder at the sheer power of principle in the hands of a mere woman! !

Feminism is failing as its fanaticism shows

Young women are questioning the wisdom of their mothers - a reasonable and realistic process for any parent and child .It helps weed out the crap of the previous generation even if it creates more of its own


What the Western children see (esp as daughters who become Muslims or something else) is that the movement is mistaken - both in target and purpose .
"It doesn't work mum - you just  come across as men haters. We want strong men, not the wimps you whip them into"

Now that so many more people celebrate their own  victimhood , its becomes obvious that the perception is as big a handicap as any reality -a negative impression ; one that eats away at the proponent as well as any victims of real abuse. A projection that helps divert a woman's perception of herself  and her limits onto undeserving others.

Feminism is failing for any number of reasons. Even that most famous of Fabians ( GB shaw ) admitted . just quietly,   that he had to duck and weave to avoid all the sycophantic women in his movement who , in his own time , took their own plight too seriously  and projected it onto others ( turning it into just another form of the disease of "poor me victimhood " of the 20th century )
The fanaticism of the femmes for more forcefulness is more and more evident as the Emily's list types lose their power over the argument and their daughters.
"It doesn't work mum - you just  come across as men haters. We want strong men , not the wimps you want to whip them into". Go girls .
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/how-i-became-a-feminist-victim/18018#.VsFNE7R94QX

You can pick fanatics by the way they repeat themselves

Barrie Cassidy was on the hunt for confirmation that He as a statistician  had a point to make ;  Not one worth making mate; it was embarrassing to watch  . Similarly the man who is always repeating himself  David Maher wastes public time trying to make yet another point in defence of everything he's against . One week after half the world saw "Insiders" turn into outsiders ABCTV heads could do without this tiresome and predictable defensive talk from their insiders .
Barry Cassidy should know too that his bright shirts are a giveaway.  Just as he should know that a real economist should talk stats and real scientists should talk science . (When  will the ABC get properly scientific and let a practical scientist run their science agendas ) .
Barrie , by letting himself and David Maher wax lyrical and long ( what a pain !- last Sunday ) on subjects they clearly know little about , these wannabes demonstrate that Insiders is really outside of some of the more critical debates going on around them ( they wouldn't even touch marriage --as  techno phobes- they only believe only in new clothes? which kind of leaves them well out front with little to go on with---- at times ) . 

Brumby 's legacy may well be to turn our legal system into a nightmare

Hull's ham fisted attempt to deal with things he doesn't like about religious schools doesn't gel with the liberties he offers most other organisations.
Why Brumby would allow Hulls the liberty of forcing schools to defend their employment policy is a mystery. Isn't the whole theme of the new exemptions a recognition that legitimate organisations/ employers have the right to choose their own staff .Schools must be the same!

Non fanatics would find another way, but the ham fisted Hulls blasts away . why? Hulls has had to be reigned in before .Why not again:?  after all , by trying to overturn the burden of proof he needs to be told he's completely ignoring our legal heritage- he's mad !
Hulls  has a few friends though that think " To be a good scientist you have to be a complete materialist ".
But the evidence on thats score is against him ( "Bios, Logos Theos" for eg) .
These monists think subject categories should be checked and double checked for absolute truth , heresy and doctrinal purity  when no complete categorization is acceptable to any reasonable scientist .
For example , As I have said elsewhere I think kids at secondary school are smart. ,They need exposure to all sorts of ideas and subject declassification and good schools ( a more acceptable focus?) accept that .  I don't like the noise and confusion and deafness created by dull witted censorship and fixed subject classifications .  I don't want my daughter's biology teacher ( at any school) or even expect her to constantly go  beyond the subject of DNA and  adaption by natural selection,  to saying its the theory of everything - but it may happen .What polys can do to stop abuse I don't know . Its not there job anyway - its the schools job .  I don't want my daughter  (IDWMD) to fail to make the distinction between science and the philosophy of science. IDWMD to only hear that meterology is the only way we learn about climate, history, cosmological history , physics  and predictive earth science . IDWMD to constantly hear from her english teacher that "Lady's Chatterley's Lover is the best guide to sexual relationships ever .Dicsuss it yes- thats the point Choice . Deal with the wolf   Maybe my daughter  can cope with knowing thats what he really thinks anyway?  Its the noise and deafness controls that need some attention  --not the subjects ( Its not what goes into a man that ruins him mate - the prophet said)
The very love of categorization,  as AN Whitehead pointed out in the 1920's is a disease .

Must be something really serious that worries them both ?

Maybe they worry too much.
Neither Brumby nor Hulls seems to realise that the popular teaching of the philosophy of evolutionary determinism (ED)in the media is rightly the subject of a controversy (a category error ) in the public mind and in religious schools in particular . In a free country a category error ( inherently relevant or not relevant) is not a crime, but a point from which to openly and rationally centre debate . Hulls clearly wants to close the debate down .What a dummy .
THE SOLUTION :
Teach ED in a philosophy class , and adaption by natural selection in biology class, at both secular and religious schools ......and BOTH will be happy - no need to panic; no need to get fanatical and spend weeks in court playing letigious logomachy. Not that hard to be reasonable and respectful with what parents (rather than what polys want)............. is it.
Is Brumby up to saying no to the reactionaries in his midst?
ACT
Pull off the inherent requirements tests and burden of proof rubbish ( as if a job is the mere sum of the words ) ! Do polys really know what goes wrong where ? Does Labor not realize more Christians (and agnostics too) will leave the State system if the secularists insist in monoculture doctrine review  in schools\? The secular/ religious divide in Vic schools is a asset and under good (by teachers and parents)review already ( not polys and legal boffins ---heaven forbid ) ? Sets the scene for category error discussions in a place where  it can rightly be discussed ( in front of both parents and teachers)

Getting fanatical is an admission you have lost sight of the problem.
Better not to vote at all  than act when you are such a mood !
What do polys know about what works- they maybe  out rubbing sticks together next year?
The dumbness of it is obvious to those outside the cage - lets hope not all Laborites are in their together responding in kneejerk fashion to what is not their choice , but a parents choice .

As if Brumby's lot haven't got enough big issues without trying to turn our legal system upside down  - a bit of freedom would go down well in the nanny state.
To risk the ruin of the great jewel in Victorias crown of the appeals system as well . The chairman of VCAT has stated the problem - but B government is still creating it. How about a job test for them? !
Who do they think they are anyway ?

Evidence of Atheists" having lost sight of their aim"

Richard Dawkins and his mates in the AFA need to ask the question whether they are shooting straight.It's all very well being against something - but what are you fighting for. And where indeed is this enemy ?Amongst the rebels or amongst the moderates ?
In shooting directly at religious people the old greeks are ignoring the psychological reality that they are shooting at themselves. Shooting yourselves in the foot? Takes one to know one ?Maybe there are people in the religious congregations who might agree with them on "the dangers of religion" - and don't appreciate being blasted on mass.

Even if you have a good aim and you HIT the temple directly all you get is SPLINTERS.
To be effective in dealing with the enormous power of religious paradigms, you have to recognise that the rebels and the moderates share the same temple .
Blowing up the temple achieves nothing . The devil is in the detail- and if you want to get the devil , you have deal with him in the detail.
Followers of Christ in particular know all about the dangers of organised religion ( going back into prehistory even ) . They are rebels by nature . Rebellion and isolation is at the heart of the growth of the Christian faith - not the external stuff ; the reactionary stuff.
Maybe spying is a better way to move forward in their ancient battle to rid the world of symbols .Reading Jeremiah might also give them some clues as to who is on what side, when - a key issue in an effecetive strategy and making your arrows work. Better and deeper than that superficial old macheavelli .

Cummon Richard - Stop shooting yourself in the foot

Richard Dawkins is less convincing than he thinks because he's not aware of what he's doing . Sure you can make money like Dan Brown questioning everything and "having a go" . We rebels ALL agree that words are powerful , but never let us stop using them, carefully .
Most of us observing rebels to the dangers of instutional religion are asking " are you in denial about being religious yourself" .( science of the mind rather suggests we all are" religous") ABCnews of the grand conference of Atheists in Melbourne this week focused on what looked like denial ( I'm not vehement am i?" )
Sound sustainability scientists accept the role of aggression, and are not in denial about it .
And what seems worse on the convincing stakes is having Peter Singer as second fiddle .; Surely the man has spent more time chasing reactionary trams than any old greeks we know .
Finally they talk a lot of hot air about evidence.
- few scientists amongst them . They say 'what scientist say" which could mean they just say what they wanna say . They use the word evolution to preach the doctrine of evolutionary and secular determinism . ( a fine but important distinction )
- Celebrating the rise ? All growth is not good. Especially if it arises out of redoubling of effort and there is plenty of evidence for fanaticism and denial amongst them .
-Evidence from History ; need to be more careful who sits in the back row of congregations of people who think they should be allowed to do their own thing . The history of such conferences is that they achieve little ( Ask Emperor Julian - he had lots of money to throw at the problem ) and harbour more tyrants than our own traditions of faith .
- The evidence is that some of these 2nd century Greeks ( via Plato's cave )would have gone further with identifying the merry go round of mere rhetoric than the 21st century ones have in the 2000 years of wild largely unproductive reactionary rhetoric since.

Make sure noone with a passion is on board

Couldn't help thinking our favoured rebel greer protesteth too much and too wildly on QUANDA on 14th august 2008. If I was greer, I would be wondering who was climbing aboard the train with me. Maybe i too 'like those who hunt fanatics and fundamantalistists, am a fanatic and a fundamantalist - and maybe its Ok ?

In lumping 68 books together as crap she rather demeans all books and blunders her way past the wonder paradox of the evening - that narrative. rather than the dumb pedantry of the ever greek greer is what helps people make sense of the stuff beyond the stats, the speculation and the science . Ask a scientist---- ask me !