Note to reader: This is no snarky post on politics or religion. This is pure, unadulterated raging on the events of this day, the 24th of June 2010.

My friends know I'm a centrist, leaning towards the left. But a few of them consider me to be a conservative too, because they think I hate change. And it's true. I hate change but only if it's unnecessary. For example, the idiotic P&C at Hurlstone Agricultural High School (that's right, I'm OUTING you bastards) has removed the rule which stated that seniors could wear whatever type of uniform they wanted, regardless of which term we were in. It has always been this way. No one complained. No one is being helped by changing it to winter ONLY in Terms 2 and 3. I personally do not plan to follow this rule, or any other stupid rule the P&C comes up with next. They've already taken our jersey days, what more can they do to us now?!

Another unnecessary move? Kicking out Kevin Rudd for Julia Gillard. It has barely been one term and he has dropped from 70% popularity to 40%. Rudd didn't listen to his party and he was seen as arrogant but that is no reason to kick anyone out. How fucking childish. People seem to have forgotten all the good things he has done for this country. And those who do remember hate him for it.

As an example, I will talk about a certain idiotic classmate of mine. He was complaining about the fact that Kevin Rudd was an idiot for:

1. Giving away $900 to all eligible people to save us from recession
2. Taxing ciggies
3. Taxing miners

As he was a boarder, fair point about the miners thing, although I personally do not agree. However, he complained about the $900 because he didn't understand why Rudd would waste his money doing such a thing. Uh, hello?! He fucking saved us from a bloody recession. A lot of poor people, including my family, needed that money, you fucking half-wit! So next time you hate a politician's decision, ask yourself why they made it in the first place! Fuck you, you bloody rich, spoilt brat. Don't make political statements when you know nothing about politics. Foolish idiot.

So the half-wit goes on to say, "And [Rudd] says, 'You know what we haven't taxed? Mining and smoking! Let's do that too!'" Hmm, taxing smokers. I wonder why that's getting up his jacksie so much. As for mining, same thing. If you aren't smart enough to make a statement on that, shut yer trap. Even some of my friends whom I respect for their political positions are like that. I can understand if someone votes Liberal, but bring up why they'd vote Tony Abbott and they just go quiet.

C'mon, people! Stop voting for a fucking party if you know the leader's shit. Don't say it's the party you traditionally vote for either. Get out there and research! Then see which party and policies you like. Don't fucking tell me, "But I always vote for them!" 'cause that's my respect for you going down the drain there.

Like I've been telling people. If Tony Abbott gets his arse into the position of Prime Minister, I'm outta here. And I ain't coming back. Australian politics is dirty and I'm having none of it until we sort ourselves out and stop going down the American path.

EDIT: Just read an article detailing Rudd's declining popularity and I guess I forgot to mention the reasons why he lost, in my post. I knew he was losing ground after backflipping left, right and centre (esp. the emissions trading scheme) but wow, never knew it would get this bad.

Since I post so many political and religion-based articles over at my LJ, which is meant for fandom and RL posts, I've decided to get a new platform where I won't be boring or offending my friends. Instead, I shall bore and offend you, my dear non-existent audience.

My first post is about the proposal to stop the trial ethics classes in NSW, and the Easter attacks on atheism. I swear it must be in vogue now for Christian leaders to be attacking atheists. We all saw how it was during Easter in Australia - church leaders attacking atheists left, right and centre. Is it to draw attention away from the child abuse scandal that is currently plaguing the Church? Who knows. The point is that their arguments are flawed in every single way possible. I guess it's not the question of religion that is bothering me, more the fact that they think they can make those kind of arguments and get away with it. God The Devil Truth is in the details. I despise anyone who makes wrongful or misinformed arguments and thinks that they're right. Let's get down to the sporking, shall we?

Dr Jensen told the congregation that atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity.
Eh! Wrong! What makes religion a religion? You can't really answer that question but to paraphrase: It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. Heh, atheism is none of those things. It is just a lack of belief in a god. Sure you could argue that all atheists believe in the same thing, that is, there is no God, but why don't we make belief in Santa into a religion? What about all the anti-vaccers? Since they all believe that vaccination doesn't do jack, should that be a religion? Simply because you believe in something doesn't mean it's a religion.

"What we're really seeing, once more [is] an example of the contest between human beings and God over who rules the world."
Eh! Wrong again! Atheists don't want to rule the world. I don't know about anyone else, but there is no way I want to get close to ruling the world. I just want people to leave me alone. And I'd like to think no one is lording it over me either. Certainly not someone like God.

"Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating: Nazism, Stalinism, Pol Pot-ery, mass murder, abortion and broken relationships - all promoted by state-imposed atheism," [Catholic Bishop of Parramatta, Anthony Fisher] said.
Oh boy, the grandaddy of all stupid arguments. This makes me want to simultaneously laugh my arse off while banging my head against a wall. This is a rebuttal against the argument that a lot of wars have been fought in the name of religion, specifically Christianity in this case. Mr Fisher, that argument is wrong. Plain wrong. You know why? The point of wars like the Crusades was to fight in the name of Christianity. Nazism was not fought in the name of atheism, it was fought for Nazi Germany and the Aryans. In fact, Hitler was a Catholic. Just on a side note, Pol Pot-ery? When was this new type of pottery discovered? Anyway, the Khmer Rouge did not wipe out millions of people in the name of atheism. Sure, they had commie ideals and they wanted to quash religious expression, but at the same time, they wanted to quash intellectuals, people with nice hands, people who wore glasses etc. Do you want to tell me how many atheists were killed in the process? Also, abortion as a devastating effect? Get over yourself.

I am an atheist and proud of it. To be accused of being a communist in the same breath as calling me an atheist makes me want to hit something. Being called a commie is the most insulting thing someone can do to me, and it insults not only me but my family and heritage. I cannot stand people like that.

It's not mentioned in that article, but there are those who are criticising atheists for not doing charity work. Those people can go DIAF. OK, maybe not, but I hope they can take their heads out of their arses and actually, you know, verify that? Plenty of atheists I've met do plenty of charity work - they just don't go trumpeting on the streets that they do it in the name of anything except helping those in need. Hell, there are plenty of atheists who help religious charities. Just remember that next time you go using that argument, mmk?

Now onto the ethics trials! I'm quoting out of an article that I read in the SMH Weekend edition here.

Historically, government policy had prevented students who opted out of religious education from having any instruction...
That doesn't seem very fair, does it? Now let us move on to the wonderful Archbishop Peter Jensen, who had...

privately lobbied the Premier, Kristina Keneally, against the permanent introduction of secular ethics classes in public schools, saying they would jeopardise the future of religious education.
OMFG! OMFG! Someone wants an alternative to religious education! That's going to jeopardise religion in public schools! ONE, notice the words "public schools"? I'm pretty sure that means it's not a religious school i.e. there should be a choice for the non-religious students to study stuff that's actually not religion-based. TWO, studies of religion is the 5th most popular subject in the state. Furthermore, religion has survived for thousands of years. Surely one tiny ethics subject is not going to derail all religious education FOREVER. I believe they can coexist. Hell, I'm taking studies of religion now and if they'd had an ethics class when I was younger, I would've taken that too. There is nothing wrong with studying religion purely from an academic point of view, or even from personal interest. Point I'm trying to make is that this is blown out of proportion. Take it from me, religious studies will not just drop off the face of the NSW education system. You just have to look at this calmly and logically. Oh crud, I'm starting to sound like Miles Edgeworth.