The 'Good Bloke' only really exists now in commercials because of the beer the rest of us are drinking :-)

http://www.gruitale.com/art_fall_of_gruit.htm

And that's just started my day with a huge chuckle - great idea - great post!

The Honorable Sue Bradford is not an

out-of-touch patronising socialist bully

.

She leaves me as a young father freaked out that if a policeman/doctor/nurse/health professional sees either myself or my wife smack our children - they have to now contact CYF's because that will be their legal requirement - and just like that our family is destroyed.

A family destroyed means there will be no fun camps in the summer by the beach - no relaxing at night with all the kids asleep at home and warm satisfied feeling that all is well with life. It means lawyers, doubt, money and if the police people don't like you - jail time and a criminal record of child abuse.

I ask why? - but the answers they give either bare no relevance (child abuse - its not targeting that issue - I assume we all agree on that now) or when they are honest it's for purely idealogical reasons of having no state sanctioned violence. (Taser's are just for fun and always voluntary).

Now personally I will no longer smack my children but not because it's a criminal act - civil disobedience can be a necessity - just ask all the great freedom fighters who landed themselves in jail. I can no longer smack my children because it risks if even slightly - that they will be taken from me and my family destroyed - all within the polite setting of the family court and to cap it off the general public will just assume I'm the worst type of father that they have always assumed is behind that story in the paper.

Now chances are this won't happen to me because I'm a fairly successful chap with a neat network of friends - but any statistician will tell you that it will happen - for smacking. - Just like the young family on Close Up tonight who not only first lost a child due to sickness - promptly had their next one snatched from them on the "hint" of abuse - not even an attempt to work with the couple, offer help or even a warning.

For me the direct result of this bill is that the state is changing my parenting style by utilizing fear.

What will happen is the destroying of a certain number of normal happy families for purely idealogical reasons - That cost would be too great for me to bear especially just to satisfy a purely idealogical motive and I gasp at how these politicians seem to handle that cost so lightly.

Everyone else will conform out of fear - and when you fear you are no longer free.

How much nicer would it be if this shift in public perception they keep talking about occurred after rational debate and sound reasoning actually won the arguement on whether smacking was a bad or not as this has not happened.

Sue - that was how the other socialist agenda's were generally won - you will feel like you've "won" when the bill is passed but the fear suggests we're all just starting to lose and please do not tell me not to fear - that only makes things freaky.

I ordered the Outfoxed movie a couple of years ago - they are comedy to watch but one heck of a sad indictment on a culture that generally refuses to question what they're hearing.

The mac ad parodies were clever on a few levels - I guess it's nice to hear an alternative expression of someone following Jesus - but carry on like that and the'll end up replicating the dork'ness they are distancing themselves from. Instead of Christians, we'll have Christollers.

I asked you this once before, and you didn't want to answer, but it is a sincere question: why do you believe what you do?

Well I am not Craig but I like the question and wanted to answer.

The problem with being asked to prove what I believe removes the me from the equation instantly because scientific proof is required and I don't make good scientific proof.
Rather you asked "Why?" which is more along the lines of "tell me about yourself". The problem here is talking about one's self in a public forum is a little embarrassing - easier to keep it in the third person. This is obviously more embarrassing when there are a number of healthy, nicely groomed atheists around and you're the one in a hoodie that happens to believe in a god. But greatly magnified when you can't seem to convince this god to show up in person with his driver's license as the needed scientific "proof" which the atheist demands. All your left with is your own very-human experiences, your own thinking and the impending mocking if you were to lay those precious personal experiences out to be dissected.

My answer to the "why?" has to be for all its foolishness this: because of the reality it makes of me, because of the result of all of my life's equation, the miracles, the science, the study, and the holistic mind blowing answer (not so much like 42) that I find in relation to my imaginary friend. To the Mr Dawkin's - it's not so much just enough for me, it's an incredible starting position, and not only that I also get to enjoy all the science.

For the record:
I do not consider myself religious and am certainly not affiliated with any organised religion. I believe all "organised" (is there any other?) religion to be an awful counterfeit of everything I have found to be good.
Not like Elton John who would like to see organised religion banned - I would prefer to see it die a wholesome natural death - for the sake of those still relying on it.
Also not like Mr Dawkins rather than religion, I believe greed, pride and fear to be more the real cause of the worlds woes/wars. Honestly Mr Dawkins your being to generous to religion there :-).

I really love science and follow as closely as I can - especially I love the pursuit of the base unifying theories and have my own theory that that pursuit could last forever. It will of course involve teasingly short periods of time like with Newton's answers where we will keep fooling ourselves that we have it all very nearly sorted.

Hello, my name is Hamish and I have an imaginary friend.