Well the next time God has a bad hair day, he can always go and flop on the couch in Dr Deveny’s (The Age, 2/9) consulting suite. And Galileo might well join him, so the good doctor can inform him that the God who granted him his intellect doesn’t exist anyway.
Peter Costello is right (Opinion, 29/7) – not a statement I’ve commonly made. “According to these (state government) lawyers, a religious conscience leads to prejudice.” This surely is the fundamental absurdity of the entire so-called “anti-discrimination” proposition currently levelled at the religious school sector. When in the history of this nation have Christian schools proven to be training grounds for young sociopaths? Where is the practical evidence that children educated at such schools turn into intolerant adults? With no evidence on offer, we face the real possibility of legislated social change on the basis of unsubstantiated theory. Did someone mention blind ideological prejudice?
More might be said. For instance, there’s the crafted use of charged language. What was once freedom of choice – a pillar of liberal democracy – is now cast as “discrimination” if exercised by the wrong crowd. If applicants for a position are screened according to their commitment to a company’s culture and values, that’s good management. If a religious body does the same, that’s prejudice.
The inanity might be highlighted by some parallel propositions:
None so intolerant as tolerance crusaders.
Given the currency in the Australian media of phrases like “the religious right” with reference to any public expressions of orthodox Christian morality, it’s little surprise that both the ABC and The Age (26/5) would list “religious groups” generally and the Australian Christian Lobby in particular, as natural sources of right-wing audience fodder for Q & A.
However the assumption is simplistic to say the least. No doubt the ranks of the ACL (formal members and the much wider support base) do comprise quite a few people with conservative political leanings. But the association is far from universal. Not least, our current (Labor) Prime Minister is clearly on the public record not only as a thinking, praying and practising Christian, but also as an admirer of self-professed “Christian socialist” and labour leader, Keir Hardie and of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor and participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism. The ACL’s own webpage records a recent interview with Mr Rudd, highlighting his faith journey and spiritual practice.
Q & A’s audience may be less “balanced” than intended.
The current rather sensationalist charges through the Age (and other
outlets) of fundamentalist Christian political influence, are
disappointing and certainly unhelpful to social harmony. It’s also
ironic that references to alleged villification of Muslims by Ps
Danny Nalliah and Catch the Fire Ministries, are themselves
misleading or innacurate at best, or defammatory at worst. Readers of
the Age should note the following:
* Misha Schubert (19/1) reports that “Catch the Fire Ministries
advocates the destruction of mosques, casinos and bottle shops.” I
can only guess that this extraordinary charge is based on a quote
from Ps Nalliah later in the same article, urging Christians to
identify such venues and pray “to pull these strongholds down”. The
latter is a metaphor, typically used by some Christians to refer to
one form of prayer; it is about spiritual activity, not physical. Ps
Nalliah owns a Bible, not a bulldozer. With respect, this is very
sloppy journalism with potentially explosive consequences. A
prominent apology might be in order.
* Schubert also baldly reports that Nalliah “faces a fresh legal
hearing on a charges of racial vilification against Muslims.” Some
clarification, please. The hearing does not refer to a fresh set of
charges or a new controversy. It is a re-hearing of the same charges
by a different judge without further evidence, after a recent
unanimous Court of Appeal finding that Judge Higgins substantially
erred in the original VCAT judgement.
I’m no lawyer, but I would have thought that this again entitles
Pastors Nalliah and Scott to the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty. The original finding made every headline. It’s a pity
the appeal finding did not.
* It is widely reported that the Prime Minister has issued a DVD
partisanly endorsing a Catch the Fire gathering. References to the
DVD are accompanied by reminders that the Federal Treasurer addressed
such a gathering in 2004. It is true that Ps Nalliah is the chief
initiator of the approaching Australia Day prayer gathering, as he
has been of the National Day of Thanksgiving at which Mr Costello and
others have spoken. However these events are consistently attended,
co-led and endorsed by leaders and people of all mainstream Christian
churches, representing a wide range of views on Catch the Fire
itself. The events focus on Christian unity and national well-being,
not on interfaith controversy.
More generally, in the interests of good sense and harmony, we could
all do without phrases like “the Christian Right” applied to modern
Australia, as if this were America. A handful of Liberal and
National frontbenchers professing Christian faith, while in most
cases leaving it at home, is a very far cry from the power and
influence of conservative Christianity on US public life from its
earliest foundations. Australia has never known such a phenomenon,
and will surely remain a long way from it.
Enough of the straw man of feral Christian fundamentalism.
Eva Cox of the Womens Electoral Lobby bemoans that “(Tony Abbott) has
difficulty separating his personal beliefs with his role as Minister
for Health.” (The Age, 3/1). The double-standard is extraordinary.
Imagine the reaction if it were suggested that a health minister with
pro-abortion convictions was thus disqualified from office, or that
an avowed feminist could not drive Womens Affairs.
What seems to escape Cox (along with Natasha Stott-Despoja, and
others) is that Western democracies are “pro-choice”, fundamentally.
Every Australian is free to believe, speak and act on whatever
philosophical, social, spiritual, or other belief system they choose.
This climate entitles any Australian to bring their personal
convictions to bear on public life and debate at any level, whether
around the cabinet table or the suburban barbie. “Pro-Choice”
enthusiasts believe that the validation and availability of abortion
serves the good of women and of society at large. Fair enough. But
unfortunately for them, “Pro-Lifers” (Abbott and myself among them) -
based on a variety of faith convictions or none – believe precisely
the opposite with equal conviction. Either may question the soundness
of the other’s position; but our society validates both. That’s
democracy, Ms Cox. You have to live with it, and so do I.