Wednesday, October 15, 2008


I just write this quickly.

I have always been a supporter of proportional representation (I think that's what's called in English. I'm writing this quickly so I'm not verifying it because I'm extremely busy these days.).

By that way, the seats for the legislative (such as parliament) are allocated based on the percentage of the votes each party gets.

First of all, every vote counts.

Second, these days in much modern society, geographic location doesn't say much. People living in geographically distant places share the same opinion and concerns. People living in the same location don't share anything in common. That's common. Majority of the people live where they live because they found an apartment or a house there. Could have been just any other place. In a few kilometers apart, in one electoral district, the party you voted for wins and in another district, another party wins. Is there anything different between two districts? Not really.

If keeping representative from each district is important, at least have two houses in the parliament. One consists of the members of parliament elected from electoral districts and the other consists of the members of parliament elected by proportional representation.

I know many countries have been using proportional representation for a long time. So writing this blog entry doesn't mean to criticize anything anywhere. I'm just writing this to say that I'm supporting proportional representation. Also specifying any country doesn't go well with my blog's underlying philosophy of keeping it geographically neutral. (My blog is only for expressing my opinions or informing what I found.)

I will try to find a time in the future to elaborate this more, using more correct words. But I think the readers can get an idea by replacing words appropriately such as "member of parliament" to "senator", etc. Right now, I just wrote it very quickly because I don't have a time.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Basics of fundamentals

It is pathetic that I have to even write this in my blog.
And I have been certainly assuming that any reader of this blog understands this.
What I wrote in the past reflects it.

Here, I write it using simplest possible words.

--- Explanation that explains most what is observed is what is accepted.

-> There is an observed behaviour or phenomenon or artifact that exists. In order to explain it - why it happens or why it exists -, there is a theory. The theory that explains the behaviour or the phenomenon or the artifact best is what is widely accepted to be true. There is a verification process to back it up, often using statistics.

-> The main reason why there are many people who don't believe in religion is that what religion says conflict with what is observed. Simply being ignorant with what is observed or the facts doesn't justify that what a religion says is correct.

--- Separation of public affairs and religion.

-> It is essential and fundamental that politics and education are separate from religion. Any one religion shouldn't control or influence politics and education. It is essential in order to keep the civilization functional for all the human beings.

-> By knowing why and how a certain religion spread in a certain part of the world in the course of human history, we know that there is no reason why one religion should be allowed to control other people.

--- Basic human rights.

-> Nobody has a right to be over anybody else based on his/her belief. Every human being is equal and believing a certain religion doesn't give a person to be superior to other people.

-> Nobody should be discriminated based on his/her belief.

In addition to the above, I write some more regarding what I observed today at a public language school today.

--- Religion is created by human being as a part of its history.

-> Over the course of human activities in different regions of the world, a certain beliefs emerged with an influence from the environment where the people in the region were surrounded.

--- Religion was often spread for political reasons and what it says was often created because of the political reason as a part of human history.

--- It is not true that all the religions have a god.

--- It is not true that all the religions believe in the same god.

-> Many religions have multiple gods and the idea of the unique god is actually a minority. The reason why that idea is so well-known is that the group of people who believed in it conquered other parts of the world with force, military power, discrimination, and manipulations. For example, The majority of North and South America were conquered by military power and it was injustice. And early 20th century, the majority of the world was colonies of European countries. Simply conquering other countries doesn't justify that the god of conqueror's religion is same as the ones of other religions.

-> Many religions don't accept a notion that all the religions believe in the same god. It's simply a cultural insult. The culture is influenced by the environment where the people live in and there is no justification that a person in one culture says that his/her culture is better than the other.

At the end, I just write some of my opinions.

--- Believing in a religion doesn't make a person morally better.

-> It only gives an illusion to the person that he/she is superior.

After writing this, I still think that it's pathetic and sad that I have to even write this. I thought that these days, everybody understood human rights and democracy and that everybody understood basic human history.