STATIC DISCLAIMER: All the stuff in here is purely my opinions, and they tend to change depending on what mood I'm in. If you're going to get bitter if I say something about you that you don't like, then maybe don't read. I avoid using names as much as possible, and would request that people who know me do the same in their comments. Basically, I often vent my frustrations on here, so if you happen to be someone who frustrates me, expect to read a description of someone very much like you in here!

Monday, August 14, 2006

Politics and Religion

Got a religious belief? Want to maintain the right to base your personal beliefs on your religious beliefs and then speak in a political forum? (sounds sensible, right? Saying the stuff you believe?) Go here:

Can I just say "flippn' Democrats" before I say anything else? They seem to be forever causing trouble for people who like to base their personal convictions on something other then popular culture. If you believe that open relationships are tops, and gays and lesibians deserve more rights then the average joe, and that being of Aboriginal descent means that all the European-descent people in Australia have done you some horrible wrong and so should give you land/money, then your choice is clear: join the Democrats! Forget that all those things have 50 bazillion inheirent problems - they're popular! Don't step on me, man! Live for the now! I guess if you're an Aboriginal lesbian in an open relationship, you've got it MADE!

I added this to my survey response:
In question 7, the question's text puts Intelligent Design as an opponent of "scientific process". However, supporters of Intelligent Design propose it as scientific theory and regardless of whether or not you as the surveyer agree with that, the wording of question 7 biases your sample's response to question 8. That is, you've just stated Intelligent Design opposes science - so why would anyone suggest it should be taught in science classes? However, this is incorrect, as the fundamentals of Intelligent Design are based around it being a scientifically valid theory for the creation of the universe and life. This kind of obvious bias has no place in a survey of this nature, as you are attempting to direct your audience to prove your point. Just because someone bases their personal beliefs on their religious beliefs doesn't make them less valid then your personal belief that religious beliefs don't belong in politics. You are trying to direct politics based on YOUR personal beliefs - why are mine any less valid if I follow a religion? I'm rather put-out at the obvious anti-religious leading apparent in what presents itself as a non-biased survey, and unless I hear of a change in your policies, you can be sure I'll be exercising my belief that the democrats don't deserve any political power at the next election.

See, that question 7 really irked me. I'm not a big advocate of Intelligent Design, personally. My personal belief is that public schools shouldn't teach stuff about the origins of the universe or of humanity - including evolution. With so many different people and different beliefs and no sure way of anyone ever proving anything, you're always going to offend someone so why is it necissary? In order to study a pig's eye, you don't need to know anything about evolution. It might be interesting to contemplate from a scientific perspective (ie: natural selection producing particular biological features in different species) but for a high-school level education, it's completely unnecissary.
The survey is trying to lead the public who respond towards answering in the manner that the surveyors, being the Democrats, desire in order to prove their point. The questions are worded to appeal to popular misconceptions - for example, the question about "church and state" is worded to bring to mind people's TV-knowlege of American law (most Australian's would know about the U.S.'s 1st and 3rd ammendment to their constitution: their right to "free speech" and their right to "bear arms", even though it has nothing to do with Australia or Australia's law/constitution). The idea of "church and state" coexisting is always shown to be negative in American media due to a legal sepration under American law, and so by wording the question to include that phrase, people automatically respond negitively. Forget the fact that the phrase "church and state" comes from a time where churches had significant authority amongst the general population, hence the need for the seperation. In Australia, no one cares what the church thinks unless they've made some mistake. Why the need for the seperation? To give those who follow the church of Popular Culture the freedom to rule as they see fit.
It sucks, and I don't like it. I think it's about time I did something about it... to work out what...

No comments: