It's all very well to say that you love someone, but what happens when that love does not fit in with a particular belief system? Well - it's messy.
I believe that the bible is the inerrant word God. I believe that the covenant of marriage is and should be between a man and a woman exclusively. Historically, traditionally and biblically this has been the accepted norm. This is a fundamental part of my belief system and my faith. It is my opinion and I am just as entitled to have one as everyone else in the world.
I also believe that God gave us the ability to love whomever we choose, live wherever we choose, work wherever we choose, worship whatever deity we believe in and express whatever opinions we wish to express - whether He agrees with it or not. In Australia these rights are protected by law - and so they should be.
Can I as a white Australian build a house on sacred Aboriginal land? It's possible - but I would not want to. It would be incredibly offensive. Can I walk into a Mosque and enter the men's area? Yes - but that would be totally disrespectful and I would never do that. Can the government change a law that is fundamental to my religious beliefs? Yes they can. The question is should they?
I express an opinion that is offensive to some - but without malice of any kind, without inciting hatred or discrimination. This idea of offence without malice is actually central to my religion. I am called to demonstrate love to others regardless of whether I agree with their life choices or not. Christianity is founded on relationship with a God whose principles can be seen as repugnant to some and liberating to others. Jesus consistently showed love to people whose lifestyles he didn't agree with. I aim to emulate this.
I am proud to be part of a group of people who have lovingly given their lives to his cause - to serving and helping others regardless of their religion, sexuality, political beliefs, gender, employment, health status, income level, age, intellect or race. I do these things because I love Jesus. I believe in Jesus. I love people. And I believe in people. I believe that everyone's basic right to religious and personal freedom should be protected - and that includes me. Marriage is not simply a state institution. It is an intrinsic part of my religion's belief system - something at its very core.
I understand the desire for public declarations of love and commitment by all members of our community. I understand the need couples feel for the recognition of those commitments and their associated rights and responsibilities. Not agreeing is not the same as not understanding or worse, not caring.
I respect freedom. I respect other people. I expect those things to be reciprocated.
Monday 18 June 2012
Monday 2 April 2012
What is killing and criminalising our children???
As many people would be aware from the media coverage The Australia 21 Roundtable released its report today on the prohibition of illicit drugs. And what a frightening conclusion it draws.
Top of the page in its "IN A NUTSHELL" section is the statement "Prohibition puts the production, distribution, and control of illicit drugs into the hands of criminals and exposes young people, police and politicians to their corruptive influence." While this is true, legalising or decriminalising illicit drugs will not change the behaviour or attitudes of those who supply them. These are people who clearly don't care about the damage they are doing while the substance is illegal, so why would their attitude change if we soften the law? Criminality is not merely a label. It is an attitude expressed in action.
One of the factors I find most concerning about this report is that it fails to list any health care professionals in its Roundtable membership. I'm certain that if they were present, they would have had much to say about the social and health implications of loosening our laws in this way.
In the executive summary of the report attention is drawn to the "great progress" Australia has made in recent decades "reducing the harm from tobacco - a drug which kills half the people who use it." This is wrong. We haven't reduced the harm from tobacco. It still kills half the people who use it. What we have done is educated people, supported recovery from nicotine addiction and made it less accessible, thereby reducing the number of people who use it. Is this really a good argument for legalising or decriminilising illicit drugs? Surely we are already educating people, supporting recovery and minimilising access to them.
"Fear of illicit drugs, their culture and consequences is widespread amongst parents" (pg 5) and rightly so. Apparently alleviating these fears will be helpful. That works so well with alcohol! Please read my sarcasm. Alcohol is a legal substance, theoretically unavailable legally to children under 18 years. And yet 13% of deaths relating to young people between 14 and 17 are directly related to alcohol. This is in marked contrast to only 6% whose death can be attributed to illicit drug use. Why would we want to make this more accessible?
The report is right in stating that "prohibition places the emphasis on law enforcement and criminilisation". This sends a powerful message. Alcohol is legal and therefore seen as safe. We have spent decades and millions of dollars undoing the same message about cigarettes. Nicotine is legal and therefore seen as safe. Our young people and others get enough mixed messages from the scientific sphere without legislation muddying the waters as well.
The paper also seems to be pro-methadone and white market heroin, stating that "treatment does work at a population level." (pg10) Anyone who has worked with people who are participants in the methadone program knows that this masks the addiction, keeps people in a constant state of need and traps them in a lifestyle that is unsustainable long-term. This, coupled with the horrific health issues that accompany its use leave people vulnerable and still in need of rehabilitation.
Interestingly, nowhere in the report is there mention of the millions of dollars the government and other non-government agencies spend on recovery and rehabilitation services for those suffering from addiction.
One of the key challenges identified in the report is that "Large numbers of Australians - many of them young people - are receiving criminal convictions for minor drug offences, behaviour such as occasionally smoking cannabis that creates very little harm to themselves or other people." (pg 14) This is dangerously misleading. There is widely documented evidence that even occasional use of illicit drugs of all descriptions, including cannabis, lead to increased rates of psychotic behaviour, decreased motivation, depression and addiction (if not physical, then psychosomatic) as well as increasing the likelyhood of mental illness in those who are genetically predisposed to it. As far as harming others is concerned, it would be interesting to hear from the children of drug users, their partners, their families, their friends and their employers - I am certain their experiences would tell a very different story.
Obviously, I don't have all the answers to the questions the use of illicit drugs raises. But I do know this: We should be promoting the best for people, challenging them, encouraging them, equipping them and nurturing them to reach their full potiential. Lowering the bar has never helped anyone achieve a greater height. I can't see how altering our existing legislation in this way can either.
Top of the page in its "IN A NUTSHELL" section is the statement "Prohibition puts the production, distribution, and control of illicit drugs into the hands of criminals and exposes young people, police and politicians to their corruptive influence." While this is true, legalising or decriminalising illicit drugs will not change the behaviour or attitudes of those who supply them. These are people who clearly don't care about the damage they are doing while the substance is illegal, so why would their attitude change if we soften the law? Criminality is not merely a label. It is an attitude expressed in action.
One of the factors I find most concerning about this report is that it fails to list any health care professionals in its Roundtable membership. I'm certain that if they were present, they would have had much to say about the social and health implications of loosening our laws in this way.
In the executive summary of the report attention is drawn to the "great progress" Australia has made in recent decades "reducing the harm from tobacco - a drug which kills half the people who use it." This is wrong. We haven't reduced the harm from tobacco. It still kills half the people who use it. What we have done is educated people, supported recovery from nicotine addiction and made it less accessible, thereby reducing the number of people who use it. Is this really a good argument for legalising or decriminilising illicit drugs? Surely we are already educating people, supporting recovery and minimilising access to them.
"Fear of illicit drugs, their culture and consequences is widespread amongst parents" (pg 5) and rightly so. Apparently alleviating these fears will be helpful. That works so well with alcohol! Please read my sarcasm. Alcohol is a legal substance, theoretically unavailable legally to children under 18 years. And yet 13% of deaths relating to young people between 14 and 17 are directly related to alcohol. This is in marked contrast to only 6% whose death can be attributed to illicit drug use. Why would we want to make this more accessible?
The report is right in stating that "prohibition places the emphasis on law enforcement and criminilisation". This sends a powerful message. Alcohol is legal and therefore seen as safe. We have spent decades and millions of dollars undoing the same message about cigarettes. Nicotine is legal and therefore seen as safe. Our young people and others get enough mixed messages from the scientific sphere without legislation muddying the waters as well.
The paper also seems to be pro-methadone and white market heroin, stating that "treatment does work at a population level." (pg10) Anyone who has worked with people who are participants in the methadone program knows that this masks the addiction, keeps people in a constant state of need and traps them in a lifestyle that is unsustainable long-term. This, coupled with the horrific health issues that accompany its use leave people vulnerable and still in need of rehabilitation.
Interestingly, nowhere in the report is there mention of the millions of dollars the government and other non-government agencies spend on recovery and rehabilitation services for those suffering from addiction.
One of the key challenges identified in the report is that "Large numbers of Australians - many of them young people - are receiving criminal convictions for minor drug offences, behaviour such as occasionally smoking cannabis that creates very little harm to themselves or other people." (pg 14) This is dangerously misleading. There is widely documented evidence that even occasional use of illicit drugs of all descriptions, including cannabis, lead to increased rates of psychotic behaviour, decreased motivation, depression and addiction (if not physical, then psychosomatic) as well as increasing the likelyhood of mental illness in those who are genetically predisposed to it. As far as harming others is concerned, it would be interesting to hear from the children of drug users, their partners, their families, their friends and their employers - I am certain their experiences would tell a very different story.
Obviously, I don't have all the answers to the questions the use of illicit drugs raises. But I do know this: We should be promoting the best for people, challenging them, encouraging them, equipping them and nurturing them to reach their full potiential. Lowering the bar has never helped anyone achieve a greater height. I can't see how altering our existing legislation in this way can either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)