Last Sunday night, ABC television show “Q and A”, featured a debate between British atheistic author, Richard Dawkins, and Australia’s Cardinal George Pell.

The Cardinal did well.

For example, exposing Dawkins’ ignorance about the beliefs of his own hero, evolution theorist, Charles Darwin.

Dawkins said Darwin was an atheist – but Cardinal Pell was able to quote Darwin’s own autobiography, where he said the opposite.

Darwin wrote:  “. . . I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist . . . .”

* * *

This debate was a welcome change from the media’s usual determination to distract us and shrink our powers of reason.

Good for the public to see how it was the Catholic doing the thinking and the atheist who needed to resort to name-callings, platitudes and regurgitations of prejudice — the reverse of what we often tend to think.

The whole program is worth viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA

Today has been declared “Earth Hour Day”.

You are requested to turn off your lights from 8.30pm to 9.30pm as a symbolic act declaring your support for creating a cleaner, better, more just future.

Based, they say, on combating human-caused climate change.

Nothing wrong with turning off the lights for an hour.

You can say your prayers just as well in the dark.

Better, perhaps, as there will be fewer visible distractions.

For many people it is probably a long time since they last gave an hour to contemplating God.

Or spending an hour in any kind of quiet, reflective frame of mind.

* * *

So the idea of a quiet hour of solitude in the dark is a good one.

But best find a different time to do it. Not tonight.

The 31 March Earth Hour is supported by activists like Julia Gillard, the World Wildlife Fund and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

That is a big worry.

These people don’t just want you to turn off your lights — they have policies in mind that will mean there are no lights to turn on.

They want to phase out coal-burning energy sources.

They make claims about the capabilities of solar energy, wind-energy and so forth which, at this stage of history, are pure imagination.

* * *

To sum up, common sense suggests that we all switch our lights off regularly for the good of our mental and spiritual health.

But make sure they are ON this evening between 8.30 and 9.30.

A Centre for Alcohol Policy Research report released today revealed that most young people don’t know how much alcohol is safe to drink at one session.

On average, young men aged 14-19 years estimated 8.8 drinks

Young females typically estimated 6.5 drinks.

The correct answer is TWO (according to Victoria’s Drug and Alcohol Prevention Council).

Interestingly the Centre itself didn’t know either — telling the media that up to four can be OK.

* * *

Binge-drinking among  16 to 24-year olds doubled over the last ten years

Our governments, terrified of upsetting the alcohol-peddling industry, never pass laws likely to  curb this phenomenon.

Why not slash numbers of liquor outlets and licensed venues?

Or shorten the hours night clubs can operate?

* * *

Young drinkers interviewed yesterday on ABC Radio mocked the idea of drinking less for health reasons.

“I believe in binge-drinking in moderation,” said one.

Laughter from her “friends”.

Not surprising. Why modify your behaviour to prolong your earthly existence? Our youth are mostly unaware of having any reason for existing in the first place.

Most have little or no relationship with God. So why bother looking after yourself properly — or looking after anybody else?

Margaret Court is the women’s tennis equivalent of Don Bradman.

Perhaps the greatest female athlete Australia has produced.

Winner of all four Grand Slam tournament singles titles in the same calendar year (1970).

She won a record 62 Major titles overall.

The International Tennis Hall of Fame states, “For sheer strength of performance and accomplishment there has never been a tennis player to match her”.

* * *

Margaret Court still gets into the news.

Yesterday, for example.

She apparently said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman . . . I believe it’s important for young people to know that . . . .”

And, “I say what God says, and that’s why I’ve spoken out.”

Mrs Court, a lapsed Catholic, is now an office bearer in a Pentecostal group.

She has said that homosexuality is often the result of sexual abuse.

This resulted in a “backlash” with people saying there is no scientific evidence of such a connection.

There is, of course, but that is hardly the point.

The point is that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law and young people should know that and should be protected from entrapment.

Canada’s Liberal Party has voted to legalise marijuana if and when they get into power.

Their policy is that legalisation will “ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, etc.”

An unrealistic policy, rivalling the naivety of Australia’s Greens Party.

* * *

We have had, for years, scientific proof that marijuana has serious mental health risks

Marijuana is known to trigger psychosis in some people and makes any pre-existing mental illness worse.

Marijuana users with a family history of mental illness are the ones most likely to develop schizophrenia.

* * *

Yet there are still paid “experts” in the drugs field who espouse what they call “harm-minimisation”.

Which, in English, means tolerating the use of addictive and dangerous drugs and hoping nothing bad will happen.

Such a slack attitude will seem to future generations to rank alongside those tame “experts” of the past, who used to make statements suggesting that cigarettes were not a health hazard.

Ex-Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, has written a foreword to a book which promises to be political dynamite.

“How to get expelled from school”, by Professor Ian Plimer.

Its message is that “man-made-climate-change”, as taught in our schools, is not based on good science.

* * *

Prof Plimer also promotes conspiracy theories about government backing climate-change views simply to collect more taxes.

He would do better to stick to the point, i.e. to the scientific facts.

If Plimer and co. can demonstrate that the “changes” have been exaggerated — and won’t be reversed by decimating industry . . . .

No need then to resort to attacking personalities and motives.

* * *

Yes, we should care for the environment better.

Australians consume too much – mainly products made by workers (God’s children) who are virtually slaves, e.g. in China.

We say we don’t believe in slavery. We like an affluent lifestyle. We want it both ways. We are hypocrites.

The moral issue is more important than “climate-change”.

Sort that out and the “climate-change” issue — such as it is – may well sort itself out.