An Athiests Guide to the Bible: The Story of Creation

In the beginning, when God created the universe ...

Well, that's a interesting way to start. Regardless of which version of the bible you read, they all start with this idea. That God created the universe. But what is God? Not who. What. Is the Christian god a physical being, an incorporeal consciousness or an idea dreamt up by man? Obviously, if it's the third option, then the whole concept of the bible is severely put in doubt. The idea that an idea could create anything is, quite frankly ludicrous.

So if we are to believe that the bible is not simply a book written by man to explain that which they do not understand, then God must be either a physical being or an incorporeal consciousness. If God were a physical being, you would think that someone would have spotted him. We have some very smart scientists, high ranking religious clergy, philosophers, and all manner of extraordinarily intelligent people in the world. None of them have shown any physical evidence for the undoubted existence of God as a corporeal being.

That leaves us with God being an incorporeal consciousness. So how do you prove the existence of something that has no physical presence? Well, the short answer is, you can't. And that's the mistake that so many people make about atheism. Atheism in it's purest form is the rejection of the belief in any god because we see no evidence for it, mainly because much of the argument for any god is exactly the same argument for any other god, and they can't all be correct.

Anyway, for the purposes of this post (and future Guide posts) let's assume that the Christian God of the bible I hold in my hand for the purposes of writing this series is an incorporeal consciousness. Now that we've defined what God is, we must define what the universe is. So let's see what my bible says about that ...

In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulphed in total darkness, and the power of God was moving over the water. Then God commanded, "Let there be light" - and light appeared. God was please with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness, and he named the light "Day and the darkness "Night." Evening passed and the morning came - that was the first day.

As someone who trusts the scientific explanation for the beginning of the known universe, this biblical explanation is troublesome. The first way in which is troubling is that is doesn't say how the universe was created. Of course, the bible was written at a time when physics of any description wasn't a thing. Even science struggles with the creation of the universe, so this isn't a criticism of the writers of the bible so much as a criticism of interpreters of the bible who think that a description of the beginning of the solar system is the equivalent of the a description of the beginning of the unknown universe.

The next troubling aspect is that the earth was created before light. Science tells us that the sun formed before the earth. The Sun has been around for around 5 billion years. The earth, young thing that it is, is only about 4.5 billion years. To give some context to just how young our solour system (and our earth is), the known universe itself is just under 14 billion years old. So it's not a great start for the bible.

The last bit that troubles me is the separation of light and dark to create day and night. We know that the sun provides the light for the earth and that the spin of the earth gives us day and night. We also know that there is not a distinct separation between light and dark because as the sun sets over the horizon the amount of visible light from the sun lessens, the reverse happening at sunrise. At its extremes we see how difference night and day are but it is extraordinarily hard for ordinary human beings to pick the point where day actually turns into night because, despite there being a time for sunset, the minute (or even the second) after that time is not exactly night, there still being light from the sun visible even thought the sun itself is not.

The bible continues ...

Then God commanded, "Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places" - and it was done. So God made a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it. He named the dome "Sky." Evening passed and morning came - that was the end of the second day.

You can, naturally, imagine the writers of the bible looking at the sky and thinking that, because the sky was blue and the water was blue, there must be water above the sky to give it the colour. Today, many Christians will tell you that the dome is actually just the edge of the atmosphere in an effort to marry their faith and science. It fails to answer what the water above actually is and where it is located.

Then God commanded, "Let the water below the sky come together in one place, so that the land will appear" - and it was done. He named the land "Earth," and the water which had come together he named "Sea." And God was pleased with what he saw.

As far as the bible goes, this part I don't really have a problem with. We have earth and water. Ok, the water isn't just called sea, but oceans and lakes and rivers and all manner of different things. This is largely by the by, and if you're picking up on this point as something to argue against the validity of the bible, I think you're probably being a bit picky and a lot petty.

Then he commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit" - and it was done. So the earth produced all kind of plants, and God was pleased with what he saw. Evening passed and morning came - that was the third day.

At this point, I have to leave what the bible actually says for a moment and remark upon the utter lack of creative thought that went into the writing of the bible. It feels like it was written by a small schoolchild who has been tasked with writing a narrative for the first time. It is very dry, almost procedural. The texts that engage people the best are not manuals but those where language engages the reader on a psychological and emotional level. The bible does neither.

Then God commanded, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and religious festivals begin; they will shine in the sky to give light to the earth" - and it was done. So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God was pleased with what he saw. Evening passed and morning came - that was the fourth day.

And this is where we go HANG ON A MINUTE! There is so much wrong with this passage. Not just in relation to the actual science of reality but simply as a consistent narrative. Let's start with the science. The moon is not a light in that it doesn't produce it's own light. It reflects the light of the sun, that's why we get eclipses. Also, the sun and moon and stars are not equidistant from Earth.

The moon is 384,400km from Earth.
The sun is 150,440,000km from Earth.
The nearest star is 4.37 light years from Earth.

The idea that all those things are attached to a dome over the earth is, given current scientific knowledge, absurd. Most Christians understand this. Most Christians have given away with a literal interpretation of the bible. They still believe that God created everything but they make the distinction between the difference in the understanding of man at the time of writing the bible and now, so far as to say that the people who wrote the bible didn't understand how God did it, so they made it up. My counterpoint is always that if they made up that bit, could they not just have made up the whole thing?

Apart from the lack of scientific reality, there is a huge disruption to the chronological progression of the narrative. On day one God created light but didn't create the sun until day four? This doesn't make any sense. Also, God separated the light and dark on day one but he's doing it again on day four? Did he forget? If he didn't forget, what was creating the light on day one and how was that different from the light the sun? This is but one of many contradictions or anomalies in the bible and we'll get to many of them in this series but let's move on ...

Then God commanded, "Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds." So God created the great sea monsters , all kinds of creatures that live in the water, and all kinds of birds. And God was pleased with what he saw. He blessed them all and told the creatures that live in the water to reproduce and to fill the sea, and he told the birds to increase in number. Evening passed and morning came - that was the fifth day.

Scientifically speaking, fish and birds were not even close to being the first living creatures. Maybe the writers of the bible just didn't think the previous creatures were important. The first creatures on earth were single celled organisms. OK, we are just repeating the argument that the writers of the bible probably didn't have any idea about science but this leads to a questioning of the concept that the bible is the direct word of God. If it's the direct word of God and the writers are simple transcribing it, then surely God would understand the science and be able to explain it in a way that the writers understood, without the huge gaps and errors, and why did God wait thousands of years between creating humans and starting his book? But I digress. Lets push on, we still have two days to go!

Then God commanded , "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life; domestic and wild, large and small" - and it was done. So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw. Then God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish , the birds and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small." So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female, blessed them, and said, "Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control. I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds and all the wild animals. I have provided all kinds of grain and all kinds of fruit for you to eat; But for all the wild animals and for all the birds I have provided grass and leafy plants for food" - and it was done. God looked at everything he had made, and he was very pleased. Evening passed and morning came - that was the sixth day.

As a writer who got a distinction in grammar, I get very cranky when texts are not consistent in their tense or their pronouns. Here God refers to himself as we/us. There are a few explanations:

(a) There are many gods or God is talking to the angels.
(b) There's only one God but he's referring to the holy trinity
(c) There's only one God but he's using the royal "we"
(d) The writers stuffed up

If we are taking the atheistic position, this is clearly a stuff up by the writers. If we're taking the Christian position, it could be any of the other possibilities. This is not ever really reconciled. What is also not reconciled is that if God makes humans to be as himself, why are we not incorporeal consciousnesses? The fact that we have physical form could mean that this is the image the God has of himself or that God has a physical form. Going back to the opening of this post, if God had a physical form we, as a species, would have discovered a trace of it by now, one would think.

And so the whole universe was completed. By the seventh day God finished what he had been doing and stopped working. He blessed the seventh day and set it apart as a special day, because by that day he had completed his creation and stopped working. And that is how the universe was created.

Well, the solar system is not the universe, so that's a bit of a reach on behalf of the writers to claim that. It's not even all of the solar system, if we're being truthful. And there's not much of an explanation of the how, either. This is a huge problem I have with most religions, not just Christianity. God did it is not an explanation worthy of any enquiring mind, even if it was fundamentally true. If I built an amazing Lego world and someone asked you how it was made, and your answer was, "Nona did it" that would be true but not an explanation of how it was made.

But let's look at the story of Creation as a whole. It took 7 days. According to the bible, they were Earth Days as evening came at the end of each day, so seven lots of  24 and a bit hours going by current time telling techniques. But was it? Scientific studies of the bible have speculated that perhaps each day was an era, not a strict day as we know it. This is marginally closer to reality in that it allows time for evolution to take place but doesn't do anything to explain this process meaning that they thought this was unimportant, it didn't happen or the writers had no concept of it.

If you subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible, you must deny the science that contradicts it and all the evidence which supports the science. I have talked to people both in real life and online who fall into this category. I have no problem with their belief in God but I do take issue with their rejection of evidence-based scepticism.

In the next Guide, in a few days time, we will look at the story of the Garden of Eden: its location and what it looked like. We will deal with the disobedience of man in the subsequent post.

A Month in Isolation

I wasn't going to do a post about the pandemic but, well, here we are. Yes, this is the biggest thing that's happened to the world in the last 100 years. Yes, global economies are stagnating or failing. Yes, thousands of people are dying. How could I not talk about it?

There are, however, a lot of people far smarter than I who can talk about those things. Historians. Economists. Doctors. I am not any of those things. The closest I come is having majored in history at University, but the 1918 pandemic didn't feature highly in my studies.

What this post is going to deal with is the real world impacts on every day people. People like me, and probably you, who have no immediate political, economic or medical influence on the course of events. We will look at the day to day impacts of a global pandemic on predominantly the working and lower classes.

On Monday 23rd March my workplace officially shut down due to the pandemic. We knew it was coming. Personally, I was quite happy for it to happen. Others weren't. There was a mix of feelings due to the fact that no-one quite knew how long it was going to last, what it meant for our wages, and how our Government run welfare system would cope.

I'm not going to lie. I am in the fortunate situation that a shutdown was not going to affect me financially. I would have qualified for government benefits, I had enough leave I could take to carry me for a short period, and my workplace was able to apply for Job Keeper payments set up by the government as a wage reimbursement for permanent staff (yes, I have oversimplified this package but it's long and boring and as long as I'm getting paid, I'm happy) so financial concerns were not an issue for me.

For other people, financial concerns have hit very hard. Renters who were laid off (rather than stood down) can't pay rent. Landlords relying on rent because they have no other income can't pay bills or mortgages. Businesses have closed, at least for the duration of the shutdown, but many for good. Stocks have crashed. Relying on investments for income has always been a bit risky but, right now, it's probably the worst possible income stream, especially if those stocks are in oil.

So, as far as economics are concerned, pandemics are not good. Those who are rich, and by rich I mean really, super rich billionaire types, won't really notice. They are beyond money. Economics really only affects people who, if they lost a years salary, would be significantly worse off than before. That is, the 1% wont notice the stress of an prolonged economic downturn on a personal level but the 99% will.

Moving away from the economic impact, historically, this pandemic is unprecedented. Even though there have been other major pandemics in history, the most recent being a little over a century ago, the movement of people and things has never been more prevalent. The travel industry in the 21st century is massive. Countries import and export goods on a daily basis. This increases the ways in which virus' can be transported from one area to another. The method for disease control hasn't changed however. The best way we have limit the spread of any disease is prevention.

The prevention of disease transmission as a society comes about in several ways. Vaccination is a medical way of preventing transmission, however, it only works on a individual level unless enough of the population is vaccinated and then we develop what's commonly referred to as herd immunity. Vaccination is an imperfect science, though. No vaccine is 100% effective. They also take a long time to develop so, when faced with a novel virus as we are now, we cannot rely on vaccination being the first line of defence. It is going to be a year at the very minimum before we have a working vaccine suitable for humans. While it isn't going to be part of the first wave of stopping the spread of Covid-19, it will become important for subsequent waves of this virus by protecting individuals and providing herd immunity.

Not wanting to get inundated by anti-vaccination types: yes, you can get herd immunity through natural immunity. How this works is exactly the same as vaccination induced herd immunity except that it requires the vast majority of the people in a given population to contract a virus, develop antibodies and survive. This is perfectly reasonable for diseases that are fairly mild. It's not such a great thing for diseases with highly unfavourable outcomes. This leads into the discussion of death rates and contagiousness of Covid-19 and as this is getting too far to into the medical side of this pandemic, I will leave that aspect to the virologists and other medical experts.

The other way to halt transmission is through contact denial. Washing your hands and keeping physically distant from people is how this works on an individual level. Shutdowns and quarantines are how this works on a societal level. Where I live, we are in what we are calling Stage 3 restrictions. The basics of this level of societal distancing means that people are not allowed to congregate in groups of more than 2 outdoors unless in a family group. Restaurants and cafes are restricted to take away menus only. Schools are not closed but students are advised to stay home unless their parents are essential workers. No sports are running except horseracing. Beaches and public spaces are either closed or limited in the number of people allowed to be in the area.

What does this mean for me? I'm not working as I work in sport and rec, which came under Stage 1 restrictions. I also live with a person considered to be in the vulnerable category - my mum. She's 82. She's pretty healthy for her age but she is a much greater risk of unfavourable outcomes. This means that my son and I have to be extremely careful with bringing the virus back into our house. I pulled my son out of school as soon as I could. We have been self isolating now for a month. My son has been going out and walking to do exercise, I have been exercising at home. This means that, except to do grocery shopping, I have not left the house in a month.

This extreme physical isolation has profound psychological ramifications. I suffer from anxiety and depression, though I am not currently medicated for either, I am also an introvert. As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I was quite happy for my work to be shut down early. For the first week, I was doing extraordinarily well. My anxiety was low because I wasn't being potentially exposed to the virus. Our family was safe. But here's the thing: as any introvert will tell you, it's not that we only want to be in our own company, it's that we reach our social exhaustion level a lot quicker than other people.

For me, I missed the kids I worked with. They exhaust me completely. I complain about work a lot. But I do miss it when I'm not there, especially for extended periods of time. So while my anxiety was low, my depression was growing. It was not a suicidal depression. It was just an overwhelming emotional fugue. During the next two weeks, I had three migraines, I would cry at the drop of a hat, and I was irrationally irritable. My motivation for anything productive vanished completely. I would think about things to do because I fundamentally knew I had to do something to get me out of this funk but I constantly procrastinated, doing anything to not do something.

I eventually had to do something. I had to go grocery shopping. I had to get dressed and leave the house. And I did it. I like grocery shopping. It's not something I find stressful (except when everyone has been hoarding and I can't actually get half the stuff on my list) because its a very structured experience. That's when I started to realise it wasn't just the kids I was missing from work. It was the structure. It didn't come as an epiphany. It sort of burbled around in my brain for a few days trying to come to some sort of conclusion.

What finally got my brain to click was a post of Facebook by one of my friends of an isolation well-being checklist which contained things like "do one thing to get your heart rate up" and "be mindfully present to something you see." Most of the things on that particular checklist were of no interest to me at all but the concept it represented grabbed hold of me. Here was the structure I needed.

How did I put this into practice? I made myself a schedule. It seems really obvious but this is what happens with depression and anxiety. Your brain just doesn't make connections like it should. My schedule wasn't just a list on a piece of paper, though. It is on my phone, as a list of reminders, with alarms to tell me to do the next thing on the list. I've broken the day between 9am and 9pm into hour long increments. There's meal breaks scheduled. It's full of things I like to do. Obviously, some things can be done at the same time. Some things take longer than others. But that's ok. It's not the actual time it takes that's important, it's the sense of achievement in ticking something off once it's completed.

This blog (as well as my poetry one) are on my schedule. This post has taken me several hours to write, others mostly won't be this long. Probably. It is one of the last things on my schedule precisely for this reason. If it takes longer than its supposed to, it's fine.

So what has this previous 4 weeks in self imposed isolation taught me? I do need social contact and social media just doesn't cut it all the time. I need strict structure. It's why I'm bad at online learning. I don't have the self discipline. I need an external schedule to follow, even if it's one I've created. Anxiety and depression don't go away when your circumstances change, they just change their manifestations.

And what does the future look like? Immediately, much the same as it does right now. For the next 10 to 12 weeks, I probably won't be working. My son won't go back to school until we are out of restrictions and will continue to do home schooling. I'm hoping that the grocery shopping will return to some sort of normal soon because this hoarding is completely ridiculous. I'm also hoping that people manage to stick with the social distancing guidelines and the government don't rush the reopen purely for the sake of the economy.

Lastly, maybe we can carry some of the lessons we've learned into the future. The ability to work and school from home more easily, especially for those with disabilities, is hugely important. The respect and love for our emergency services personnel needs to move into our future interactions as well. And we need to look out for each other. In the last 4 weeks, I've seen more people ask their fellow humans how they are, and actually mean it. Let's not stop doing that when this pandemic ends.

An Atheists guide to the Bible: Prologue

As most of you will know, I don’t believe in a higher power such as any of the gods currently purported to exist. I don’t know if one exists but, given the evidence currently available, I come down firmly on the “does not exist” side of the fence.

This makes me both agnostic (I don’t know) and atheist (I don’t believe).

Some of you will think this makes me destined for hell, and I don’t really care because I don’t believe in hell. I figure that I’ve been a fairly good person (everyone has their moments) and that any supposedly loving god would take that into account over unquestioning devotion. And, if hell exists and I’m going there, I’ll be in pretty good company, with all the other atheists and non-believers anyway.

Why don’t I believe in a higher power? For the same reason I don’t believe in leprechauns, unicorns and mermaids: there’s no reliable, scientific evidence.

Some of you, if you are religious, probably know atheists but (like many of the religious people I encounter online) haven’t really discussed what it is to be atheist, or your knowledge of what an atheist is comes from what other religious people tell you it is. In many cases, this brings with it a ton of misconceptions and mistruths.

So here is the one (and only) defining characteristic of an atheist that we all share:

We don’t believe in any higher power.

That’s it. Every atheist you meet is different. There’s no “atheist charter” that we follow. It’s not a religion, with prescribed rituals. Atheists are as diverse a group as you’re ever likely to find. Some atheists are downright arseholes. Some atheists are the loveliest people you’re going to meet. Some atheists are intelligent. Some atheists aren’t. Some atheists are scientists. Some are teachers. Some are receptionists. Some are CEOs. Some are homeless and unemployed. Some struggle with mental illness. Some do not. Some are vocal about their atheism. Some, you would never know.

And most atheists would change their stance in the face of compelling evidence. What do I mean by compelling evidence? Something that cannot be explained by any other means and stands up to scientific scrutiny. It’s the same criteria that we use for gravity. If you don’t believe in gravity, I invite you to explain why you can’t fly and why objects fall when dropped through a medium less dense than they are.

If, after reading this, your reaction is to say, “yeah, well, you can’t explain where the universe came from and everything needs a creator, so therefore god did it” my response is as follows:

No, I don’t know how the universe came to exist and it doesn’t bother me at all. If everything needs a creator then who or what created your god? If your god can hypothetically exist outside of the realm of known science and not have a creator then so can any potential scientific reason for the beginning of the universe. You can’t have it both ways.

And, even if a higher power does exist, who’s to say you picked the right one? There are thousands of gods. Which one is the right one? You don’t believe it’s possible for any of the others to be the right god, so what’s the difference between me and you? I believe in one less god that you? Ok. So what? Maybe we’re both wrong.

Over the next 12 months, I will be studying the bible as if it is a literal and historic document. I will be looking at some of the major events of the bible which literalists claim to be true and seeing if they are possible given the scientific knowledge we have now.

There are many versions of the bible so I will be using The Good News Bible, printed by The Bible Society in Australia in 1986 which takes its translation from The American Bible Society 1976, as my main point of reference.

I will also be looking online for any major discrepancies between the versions, including The New King James Bible (1982) and The New International Standard Bible (2005).

But why the Bible? Because it’s what I am most familiar with. The bible I’m predominantly using is the one I was given in Sunday School as a child. It’s the very text I read when I began to question the existence of the Christian God, at 7 years old. You could say it’s one of the books that made me an atheist.

A Christmas Reminder

This holiday season, don’t forget that people often put on a happy face to save from bringing everyone else down. They don’t want to be the reason you’re Christmas isn’t the most magical it can be, and they don’t want to take you away from the joyousness of ringing in a new year.

But don’t forget that doing this is exhausting and impossible to keep up 24/7. Sometimes the chunks in the armour will show. Sometimes a greeting will be a little rusty. Sometimes the spark just can’t be generated.

So don’t forget: don’t make people feel bad for leaving the party early, or being a bit quiet at work, or just needing some alone time.

Don’t forget that the holiday season can be hard for a lot of people, even if they don’t have anxiety or depression. They may be remembering a loved one who’s no longer around. They may be struggling to make ends meet. They may be missing something they’ve never had.

Don’t forget that we all have our moments when life is just too much. We are overwhelmed by a thought, a situation, a feeling. We can’t always be strong and hopeful and optimistic.

But also don’t forget that they do need you, and it’s not the grand gestures that people need. They do appreciate that you picked up the kids so they could have a shower. They do appreciate that you fielded that call when there’s mountains of paperwork to do. They do appreciate that you thought to invite them, even if they can’t make it. And they appreciate you listening to the story you’ve heard a hundred times before.

So don’t forget, in what can be a very commercialised time of year, that some of the best gifts can’t be bought at the shops. They’re found at the bottom of your heart, wrapped in love and tied with the strings that bind us together.

And, lastly, don’t forget to spread your gifts throughout the year because while this time of year is special in so many ways, it doesn’t mean you aren’t special every single day and you have the power to spread that gift whenever and wherever you so choose.

To take or not to take: the Australian refugee crisis

Recent events have once again brought to light the racism, bigotry and prejudice that pervades our society. It isn't a nice topic to talk about. Often people are confronted by their own shortcomings and react defensively instead of proactively. What do I mean by that? Well, instead of looking at themselves and wondering how they can improve their situation or their outlook, they become hostile to that which is other. We've all heard the adage that the best form of defence is attack. That's what happens. We see it over and over again, in the media and in social media.

In Australia, the recent attacks have been against Muslims, and the Islamic community generally, as they are seen as an easy scapegoat for the anger and fear people feel in reaction to the various worldwide incidents. Since 9/11 there has been an undercurrent of anti-Islamic posturing by a small minority of the population. This has grown and grown. In fact, it has grown to such an outrageous level that people aren't even ashamed of their discrimatory language. Posts, such as the one below, have become more commonplace. Some are so offensive, I could not bring myself to use them in this piece.

The problem with images such as this is that they allow people to justify their intolerance. If we look into what this image tells us, it is quite disturbing.

Firstly, "not taking in Syrian refugees and closing our borders is not being mean or heartless." Yes, it is. You are admitting that they are refugees, fleeing from their homeland with barely a possession amongst them, in need of assistance from foreign lands because they are in fear of rape, torture and even death if they stay in their country. Turning away people such as this is incredibly mean and heartless.

Secondly, "I lock my doors every night, not because I hate the people outside, but because I love the people inside." No, you lock your doors to keep robbers and murderers out. You lock your doors because you fear what would happen if you left them unlocked. Yes, you do that because you love your family but don't pretend that fear isn't a predominant factor.

This whole argument falls down when we look at a simple comparison: the child in danger on your doorstep. If a broken and bloody child arrived on your doorstep asking for help, what would you do? If we go by the logic of the above image, you should not unlock your door. They are not your family. They do no "belong" in your home. You have no responsibility towards the child. How many of you would actually say no to that child? So why do you feel that as a country it's ok for us to say no to the refugees when they are no different to that child on your doorstep?

People like guarantees. It's like when you buy a product from a shop, you want to know that it works, and if it doesn't you want to know that you can exchange it for a similar product or get your money back. Unfortunately, people don't come with guarantees. That frightens people. This is part of the reason why we have locks on our doors. Common sense tells us that 99% of the people outside our door aren't after our valuables or out to murder us as we sleep. We have locks to protect us from the 1%.

Given this, you might think that image we discussed was pretty accurate. Well, let's back it up. A lock can be unlocked to let some people in. We've already established that we'd probably let in the bleeding and bloody child. There's no guarantee that the child won't steal your wallet while they're in your house. You let them in because it's the right thing to do.

So now we are faced with potentially 12,000 Syrian refugees. Border control is the holder of the key to lock on our national door. They can let in those they deem to be an acceptable risk, just as we do with the child on our doorstep. They also keep out those they deem an unacceptable risk but here's the thing: there's no guarantee.

I wrote the above passage on my personal Facebook page. The people on my friends list who are very against taking refugees did not comment. I don't blame them. It can be hard to reevaluate your position. It can be confronting. It can be embarrassing. I don't think any of my Facebook friends are bad people. I don't think they are particularly racist or intolerant. I simply think they have been sucked in by the fearmongering done by the media and government.

The cynical side of me thinks the government has played this very well. They have been seen to be doing the right thing by saying they will take the refugees. They have also done little to quell the growing hysteria around the potential danger of the Islamic religion. This gives them an automatic out. Taking in refugees requires a lot of money from the government - from processing them to the benefits they receive until they are self sufficient - which could, in theory, be spent on other (much neglected) areas that would garner more support from the general public. Of course, governments being what they are, the spend would be nowhere near what the public think it should be and only a fraction of what they would have spent on bringing in refugees.

The media are in it for the story, not the truth. The story is what sells, whether it is based on fact or not. They will play one side of against the other and both sides off against the middle, all in the name of raising their own revenue. What sells the most copy? What will headline TV news? What will get shared on social media? Fear! Lots and lots of fear! The occasional good news story about a Muslim can't counter the vast reams of stories about terrorism at the hands of hard-line extremists who use religion to excuse their own bigotry.

 

The article on the left illustrates perfectly the habit the general population have of tarring all with the same brush. It's common throughout history. Different groups, different eras. Same result. Apparently the message of "not all Muslims are terrorists" just isn't getting through. There are millions of Muslims around the world who absolutely detest what is happening in the name of their religion. Blaming every Muslim for ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is just like blaming every Christian for Westboro Baptist Church or the Crusades. It just doesn't make sense.

The article on the right illustrates that it is not just the Western Countries who come under attack from extremists. The Western-centric media was full of the awful attacks on Paris, as you would expect. Hardly a whisper was heard about the attacks in Beirut. An Islamic area being attacked by Islamic extremists doesn't rate in Western countries. Even though the attacks were carried out, or attributed to, the same base organisation, the attacks in Beirut were deemed, media-wise, as less relevant.

People need to see that the extremists are not the same as the moderates, just as they are in every other religion or ideology. By saturating the airwaves and newspapers with one event and not the other, we allow the misconception that this is a Christian versus Islamic battle when it is, in reality, an extremist versus the rest of the world battle.

In the end, we all must stand as one. Regardless of religion. Regardless of colour. Regardless of creed. We must put aside our reservations and unlock the door. We must trust our Border Control to weed out as many of the extremists hiding amongst the refugees as they can. We must trust our fellow citizens to not stand by and allow our children to be radicalised. We must trust our police and our justice system to deal with those who break our laws in an appropriate manner. But most of all, we must trust the refugees who do make it to our shores because, after all they have been through, don't they deserve that which we have enjoyed our entire lives?

From Goodes to Great

There are great players in very team. There are great leaders at every club. There are great supporters and great journalists and great triumphs of spirit. Sport, in and of itself, can be the greatest thing in the world - both to play and to watch. Regardless of your level, there is greatness to be found.

Sometimes the greatest players find themselves facing a barrage of unwarranted abuse. This year saw the culmination of an ongoing torrent of abuse levelled at one of the greatest AFL players of all time. People often think that bullying only happens in the school yard, or in corporate settings. This simply isn't true, and it affects people in very different ways.

This campaign of abuse began in 2013 with prominent Sydney Swans player, Adam Goodes, being abused by an opposition supporter. Many believed that his reaction was an overreaction. I do not. Many said that because she was 13, the opposition supporter didn't understand that it was racism to call an aboriginal an ape. Many said that he should not have pointed her out as he did. Many said he was arrogant, attention seeking and racist himself.

From this point on, Goodes was boo'd. At first, it was a minority of the opposition. By mid-season 2015, it was every team, every game, every time he touched the ball. While every excuse under the sun was raised as to why it was ok to boo a star of the game, the simple fact remained that at its root was racism, and that by continuing to boo for whatever other reason they were giving the racist somewhere to hide.

If we look at Goodes' achievements, they tell of a player who is not only good at what he does but greatly admired as well:

2003 and 2006 Brownlow Medalist (AFLs Best and Fairest), has also polled well in 5 other years, and polled votes every year bar one from 2001 through to 2015. This statistic seems to fly in the face of him being a dirty player who staged for free kicks, as many of us detractors would have you believe.

2005 and 2012 Premiership Player, as well as playing in every finals campaign with his team. This contradicts those people who claim he was having difficulty finding form.

2014 Australian of the Year. This award, one of the highest in the country, was awarded to him for his work in fighting racism and for the work he had done within the indigenous community to promote health and education for those in remote areas, or at a socio-economic disadvantage.

During Goodes' time as Australian of the Year he came under fire from the racist quarter who were confronted by their own intolerance. He called them out over the atrocious behaviour suffered by the indigenous population since the white settlement. He called them out over the ongoing abuse and discrimination faced by modern aboriginal people. He called them out over their bigotry. And so did the fans, especially after he chose to perform a dance he had been taught during the round specifically to celebrate indigenous culture.

It is this sort of misplaced vitriol that so many indigenous people must put up with. The "I'm not racist but ..." crowd all get their nickers in a twist because someone is proud AND outspoken about their heritage. It is the "uppity black man" who should pipe down and let the people who know nothing about aboriginal culture sort out the problems. It is the "loud and proud" indigenous people who should stop making such a fuss because white people don't carry on when they are called names. It is these same people who say, "Well, I don't boo Lewis Jetta so how can it be racist?"

Well, let me lay it out for you, very clearly:

- if you boo an black player for staging, but not any other player, it's probably racist.

- if you use the colour of someone's skin as an insult, it's definitely racist.

- if you object to black players bring proud of their heritage, it sounds like you're racist.

- if you continue to boo a player despite being told it's racist, my guess is you're racist.

This whole series of incidents surrounding Adam Goodes has shown just how far we, as a nation, have yet to go when it comes to indigenous affairs and racism generally. What it has also shown is that Adam is not just a great player, but a man of great integrity, great courage, great character and great humility.

Can we afford to be so ignorant that we would allow the racist minority to hold the cards? Can we not make out country as great as this one man, who has consistently shown a wisdom beyond his years and a maturity some never achieve? Can we instead teach our children, like the ones who were part of the wonderful painting below, that race is irrelevant in determining the worth of a person? Can we be proud Australians all together, regardless of colour or creed?

White Ribbon Day: When does it end?

White Ribbon Day is about raising awareness and combatting violence against women. The work that White Ribbon does, however, is year round. Day after day, month after month, year after year. Given human nature, it's a job that will probably never end.

This is my son. He is 10 years old. He gets it. Hopefully, White Ribbon is an organisation he will never have to call on in his lifetime. At 10 years old, he understands that no-one deserves to be abused, no-one is a possession and no-one has more rights than anyone else.

In the lead up to the 2015 White Ribbon Day, I took the picture above to use in my fundraising drive for White Ribbon. My son agreed, without hesitation. It's not the first time he's had his photo taken showing his support for White Ribbon. The picture below was taken at the beginning of the year.

He wore that ribbon proudly all season. He was excited for people to see that and know he supported not only the cause but the message behind the cause. Next season, no doubt, he will see the White Ribbon sellers and ask to get another, not because it's cool, not because it's the latest fashion, because it's part of who he is - the most gentle, caring, nurturing child you could ever hope to meet.

So, when does it end? I said at the top of this piece that, given human nature, this job of raising awareness of and trying to put a stop to violence against women will never end. There will always be a small minority who think the world owes them everything. As a society, we can never cease in our efforts to protect our citizens from those people.

As individuals we can reduce the need for such organisations. As individuals we can declare that we do not support violence against anyone. As individuals we can be vigilant in making sure we are part of the solution and not part of the problem.

As a society, we can never let this campaign end. So will you be man enough to stand with my 10 year old? Will you take the oath? Will you be part of the solution so that one day, maybe, we can say that this does end.