My letter to Michael Hodgman about a proposed therapeutic cloning bill which he is opposing because of his religious views. While it's true I voted Liberal in the last state election, I should confess that it was for hopes of a hung parliament (and I voted Greens 1, Liberals 2, Labor 3, Family first 4). I would never vote Liberal federally. Michael doesn't need to know this :P

---

Dear Mr Hodgman,

I am member of your electorate and voted for you in the last state election. I'm unsure if you'll be running again next election, but if so I wanted to know that you've completely lost my vote. I didn't vote for you because of my religious beliefs, indeed I have no religious beliefs.

I read with much horror, your comments about the cloning bill, as if religious views had anything to do with it. I am shocked that you don't care about my religious views at all. I can see many reasons to support or to oppose the cloning bill, but I do not think it is just or fair that my elected representatives make decisions essentially enforcing their religious views on to me. You are not forced to give your eggs or DNA material to the therapeutic cloning process. You are not forced to receive any treatments derived from the process. If your religious views oppose such science, you can choose to have nothing to do with it. Why should I be forced not to be able to take part in the research or reap the benefits of the research because of your religious beliefs? Why can't I make the same choice that you're free to make?

I don't believe being an atheist makes me a bad person; I work for a charity, and give money to it, and many others as well. I'm involved in a number of community activities and volunteer my time to help the community. I pay my taxes, I abide by the law, I'm passionate about this country and this state and I hope one day I can give more back to it. I don't understand how you can you support the suppression of my beliefs solely because of your religious beliefs. What kind of religion do you follow, that not only asks people to behave to a moral code, but also that they enforce that same moral code on everybody, regardless of their culture or religious beliefs?

I've always thought the Liberal party was about liberty and a freedom to choose. A freedom to choose if I belong to a union or not, a freedom to choose if my kids attend a private school or a public school, a freedom to choose where I shop, and who I buy my phones from. It seems that on the question of science, and my freedom to reap the benefits from science if I chose to, or not, if it's against my beliefs, I don't have that choice or that freedom.

I despise the current Labor government. Paul Lennon is the worst Premier of any state that I can ever remember. Next state election I hope that he suffers a defeat, or at least receives a strong indication of the growing opposition to his philosophy on politics. I certainly won't be voting Labor at the top of my vote, but neither will your name be there. I hope your colleagues are less inclined to force their religious views upon me than you are.

Thank you for your time,

Kind Regards,

PZ Myers vs Sam Harris

PZ Myers responds to Sam Harris

Oops

A link that works :P

The Problem With Atheism

Sam Harris; So Good!

Just a quick post to give you this link, and say that Sam Harris is So Good. Like the pie in Spiderman 3 - That good!

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced, I'm going to need to give it more thought and see some other opinions on it, but he puts forward such a good argument (about why we should abandon the term "atheist," I'm even less sure about his spiritualism).

The reason I'm less sure is; how do we know that we'll ever find anything? What if this nirvana or whatever you want to call it doesn't actually exist? How do we know that sitting around doing nothing is the best way to find it? I'm not really prepared to spend 18 years of my life in a cave until I've seen some evidence that it will be worth my while. I'm not saying it's rubbish, just that I'm not convinced.

Religious people are "special"

I’ve been doing a first aid course for work over the last few days. It’s great fun, and pretty cool to feel like I know what to do when somebody has a epileptic fit or whatever. I told the people at work that they should come see me when they have a cardiac arrest and I’ll fix them up.

Anyway one of the things covered was how you need to be sensitive to different religious cultures etc. The presenter gave the example of a couple of guys a few weeks ago who came in for a course, then at a particular time had to go into a little room for an hour to pray. I’m presuming they were Muslims, but who really knows these days; I’m probably just going to make up my own religion to get out of things.

So why is religion accepted as a way of getting out of things? Why should these people get to pass a course when they didn’t attend the whole thing? Shouldn’t they have to do the same thing as everybody else? As an atheist, could I get out of a couple of hours of the course without penalty if I asked to be excused so I could go study evolution?

How far does special treatment for religious people extend? Religious belief means you’re allowed to do drugs that the rest of the country isn’t; if you’re a Rastafarian, apparently weed is legal? Could I tell the court that my branch of atheism was enhanced by smoking weed and get away with it? Of course I couldn’t.

So what is it about religion that means you can get away with shit?

I apologise for my rhetorical questions; of course the answer is obvious. Religion is beyond question. You’re allowed free speech and to question everything, except a person’s religious beliefs; these we must respect no matter what. Of course only beliefs with enough followers are considered religions, so I can’t just make up some religion that means I get paid for an hour at work that I spend masturbating in some room by myself praising Jeebus. However people aren’t asked to prove their religious beliefs, so the option seems to be that atheists should start lying about their religion.

Next time a police woman tells me not to ride my bike on the grass, instead of making her clothes fall off, I’ll just tell her I’m a Buddhist and she’ll have to apologise for disrespecting my religious beliefs.

How about, instead of that, we stop giving special dispensation to religious beliefs and treat everybody the same? If you enrol in a course, and you have something important during the time that course is on, choose which is more important to you; the course or whatever your personal thing is. When a friend wants me to go out and have a few drinks, but I’m working, I don’t take a few hours off to drink beer; I make a sacrifice.

Is it asking too much to expect religious people to either sacrifice their superstitious rituals or to not commit to things that they can’t actually commit to? When I tell people my opinions on religion, they tell me I should be more tolerant and accepting. If that’s the case, why can’t I get away with the same things religion gets away with? If religious people want me to respect their religion or them, they’ll accept the same standards and rules that I have to accept. So long as people are treated in their own special way because of their ludicrous beliefs, I will oppose religion.

Religion and religious apologist are far less tolerant than I am. They readily support particular people getting special treatment that nobody else gets. All I support is equality for everybody and everything.