Archive #1, Index
Jonathan Sarfati's magic box 11-Jul-05
A strange abortion tale 3-Jul-05
Origins of the Family First Party: 2. More on Australian Pentecostals 26-Jun-05
Fundamentalism and superstition 21-Jun-05
Origins of the Family First Party: 1. Australian Pentecostals 11-Jun-05
The Religious Right will never support Labor 27-May-05
Roslyn and David Phillips 24-May-05
Do foetuses go to heaven? 18-May-05
The secular trap 13-May-05
Gays in Australia (2) 10-May-05
Danny Nalliah and God 4-May-05
Pastors and porn 30-Apr-05
Why I am happy that Ratzinger was made Pope 21-Apr-05
Christian youth and sex 17-Apr-05
How many gays in Australia? 10-Apr-05
The Pope that I'd like 5-Apr-05
More Schiavo protests 31-Mar-05
Anti-abortionists who have abortions 30-Mar-05
Schiavo protests 28-Mar-05
NCC and abortion 27-Mar-05
Posted 11-Jul-05, 21:25pm
Jonathan Sarfati's magic box
Is the Bible a historically accurate document? Most people would probably give it at least some credence: 'Well, there was Moses and Abraham and so on, and Israel and Babylon, and of course Jesus ...'
Confining ourselves to the Old Testament (OT) for the moment, would you be surprised to learn that many scholars feel that it's almost impossible to derive any firm historical information from this source at all? And that it consists of little more than pious fiction?
Even taking more conservative scholars such as archaeologist William Dever, who argues that some parts of the OT contain factual material, what is he prepared to jettison in his search for a verifiable historical record?
With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch [the first five books of the Bible], specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of 'pre-history' that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors ...
After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures' ... [A]rchaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness ...
So much for the parting of the Red Sea. And on it goes:
Much of what is called in the English Bible 'poetry', 'wisdom' and 'devotional literature' must also be eliminated from historical consideration. That would include books such as Psalms ...; Proverbs and Ecclesiastes ...; Ruth, Esther, Job and Daniel ...; the Song of Songs ...; and a number of the late, 'Minor Prophets' ...
(William G. Dever [2001] What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?, 97-99)
Dever, I should emphasise, is by no means a radical Bible critic, and in fact his entire book critiques the arguments of 'revisionists' who hold that the OT is virtually worthless from an historical point of view. (He is no fundamentalist, however, describing much of their scholarship as a 'farce' [p.107].) Many scholars mount similar arguments for the irrelevance to actual history of the New Testament: authors such as Burton Mack, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells come to mind.
Occasionally, however, someone comes up with an archaeological relic which appears to confirm part of the biblical story. Two such items are the 'Jehoash Inscription', the effect of which was to confirm that Solomon's Temple had once stood on Temple Mount in Jerusalem; and the 'James Ossuary', purporting via an inscription to have once contained the bones of James, the brother of Jesus.
Answers in Genesis (AiG), Australia's leading creationist group, was all over the bone-box like a rash. Amid some cursory nods to the possibility of forgery, the superlatives flowed like water. The James Ossuary could be ' ... a relic of incredible historical significance', ' ... would force scholars to take the New Testament more seriously', ' ... most important discovery in the history of New Testament archaeology' etc. A strange 'Stop Press' item hinted that the ossuary's owner might not be all he seemed, but concluded that his actions 'highlight ... the likelihood of [the item's] authenticity'! (David Down 'The James Claims', Creation magazine, March-May 2003, 16-18)
Both the Jehoash Inscription and the James Ossuary were rapidly exposed as fakes and this was accepted by most fundamentalists, including the normally credulous Australian creationist Clifford Wilson ('Religious forgeries??', New Life, 4 Dec. 2003). However, AiG's Jonathan Sarfati wasn't letting this one go without a fight. The Israeli Antiquities Authority committee which had decided that the ossuary was a forgery was jam-packed with 'overt anti-Christian bias', and some of its members lacked suitable qualifications:
That seemed to be the trouble with the committee - the doubts they raised were from outside their own fields of expertise.This is particularly galling coming from Sarfati, the bulk of whose AiG writings lie well outside his own area of expertise (physical chemistry). This did not stop him from pronouncing authoritatively on the matter:
In conclusion, the evidence points to the genuineness of the inscription [on the ossuary]. Thus, it is strong support for the existence of the historical Jesus, and that He was of such unique importance that He should be mentioned as a brother on an ossuary. ('Bonebox bashers blasted', Creation magazine, March-May 2004, 15)Late in December 2004, Israeli police charged four antiquities collectors and dealers with running a sophisticated forgery ring that produced 'a treasure-trove of fake Bible-era artefacts', including both the Jehoash Inscription and the James Ossuary (Karin Laub 'Prized biblical artefacts shown as fakes after global forgery ring unmasked', Melbourne Age, 31 Dec. 2004).
And as for the AiG: 'Bone-box? What bone-box?'
Posted 3-Jul-05, 17:45pm
A strange abortion tale
I feel the public should be made aware of the female child murderers among us. Information regarding child murders should not be secret.
(Anonymous contributor to Melbourne Age Online Forum, Age, 1 July 2005, regarding abortion.)
This little piece of psychopathia reminded me of a mystery I have yet to solve. Perhaps my perceptive readers could help enlighten me.
On 16 July 2001, Peter James Knight walked into the Fertility Control Clinic in East Melbourne, Vic. and shot dead Steven Rogers, a security guard. Knight was then wrestled to the ground by two men, one of whom was later awarded the Star of Courage, the highest Australian bravery honour for a civilian. It later emerged that Knight, an anti-abortion fanatic, had gone to the clinic equipped to kill everybody inside. After his arrest, Knight refused to identify himself to police and was known for some time as 'Mr X'.
Margaret Tighe, President of the Right to Life Association (RTLA), was reported in that day's Melbourne Herald Sun as saying that she did not know the arrested man:
The person was shown on TV, he is not known to us, we have never seen the man before.
On the next day (17 July), Tighe again told the Herald Sun that she 'did not know' the gunman. According to the Melbourne Age, however, she made what appeared to be a 'softer' statement, namely that 'the man was not attached to her organisation'. By 21 July, Tighe was referring to the shooting as 'the isolated act of a crackpot who is a stranger to [my] organisation' (Weekend Australian, 21 July 2001). This formulation also seems weaker than her original assertion that 'we have never seen the man before'.
Police and media investigations finally identified the offender as Peter James Knight of the Molong area in NSW. The earliest reference I can find to this name was in the Age of 4 August 2001, while the official police identification was not announced until 27 September.
At Knight's trial for murder in April 2002, Margaret Tighe appeared as a prosecution witness. Tighe told the court that early in 2001, about six months before the shooting, she had been working alone at RTLA's Brunswick offices when a man she did not know arrived. He had a beard and was scruffily dressed - this is exactly the way that Knight appeared in the television coverage of his arrest in July - and he told Tighe that her group should organise a boycott of Telstra because it allowed abortion clinics to advertise:
(He was) very, very intense, not aggressive ... He never said anything of a violent nature, he didn't even talk about abortionists using strong language. (Herald Sun, 19 April 2002)Soon afterwards, Knight visited the RTLA offices for a second time, handing over a letter complaining about Telstra and signed 'Peter Sweeney'. A few months later Tighe heard that there had been a shooting incident at an abortion clinic, and a colleague remarked: 'Thank God we don't know the man'. But Tighe 'later realised' from photos of 'Mr X' that he was the same man who had visited the offices six months before.
I wonder how much 'later' this realisation took place.
It was also revealed during the trial that Knight had sent a letter to Tighe a month after his arrest, asking that she reply to 'Fred Unknown, care of the Melbourne Assessment Prison', and seeking advice about anti-abortion lawyers. We can surmise that this letter was read by prison authorities and that this is what led to Tighe being subpoenaed as a prosecution witness. She may, on the other hand, have volunteered her knowledge of Knight to the authorities, but as far as I can see she has never categorically claimed to have done this. The whole affair received scant coverage in RTLA News, but the following, written by Tighe, appeared on the front page of the May-June 2002 issue:
I was required to give evidence as a witness for the prosecution ... This was because Peter Knight had visited our office some six months prior to the shooting, pestering us about a scheme to boycott Telstra because of abortion ads in the Yellow Pages.It seems to me that this explanation has a slightly apologetic air about it. But to whom could Tighe possibly be apologising? Clue: some of Right to Life's supporters are 'passing strange'. If you don't believe this, look at my opening quote again.
On the two occasions I spoke with Knight I thought he was strange and very persistent. We rejected his scheme. He was never invited into the office. I gave a statement to the police to that effect and so I had to appear in court.
And doesn't this all seem a long way from Tighe's bold statement to the press just after the murder:
The person was shown on TV, he is not known to us, we have never seen the man before.Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Posted 26-Jun-05, 11:05am
Origins of the Family First Party:
2. More on Australian Pentecostals
Are Pentecostals theocratic? Do they believe that Australia should be governed by Christian politicians committed to implementing 'the law of God'?
They say no; I say yes. According to Brian Houston, National President of the Assemblies of God (AOG) in Australia:
One thing we are not is a political movement. The Assemblies of God in Australia does not have a political vision and we don't have a political agenda. (Linda Morris 'Church expands horizons', Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May 2005)
The title of the conference at which he made this claim was 'Take the Nation, Shake the World'! Houston pushes the line that, while Pentecostals are being urged by many of their pastors to become deeply involved in politics, it's really all a matter of 'individual Christian decision-making'. It's always funny when highly political animals like Houston, Andrew Evans of Family First, or Cardinal George Pell try to distinguish between the actions of their organisations and those of their individual members. Since most members wouldn't have touched politics with a bargepole unless they thought it was a church instruction - i.e. that their souls might be endangered if they failed to act - Houston's is a distinction without a difference.
Houston adds that although his Hillsong Church hasn't deliberately set out on a partisan political path, his flock is 'naturally interested in the direction the country's taking' (ABC 7.30 Report 14 July 2004). And what direction would that be? Well, Houston 'would like to see creationism taught in schools and abortion banned'. Homosexuals are 'unwelcome'. (Greg Bearup 'Praise the Lord and pass the chequebook', Good Weekend, 25 Jan. 2003, 17) Can you see where we're going here?
Pentecostals of the Houston/Evans variety - and these are the dominant type in Australia today - have strong theocratic and authoritarian tendencies and these appear to be increasing over time.
Are Pentecostal leaders unusually prone to involvement in sex scandals?
They certainly seem to be, but so are leaders in all religious bodies centred on strong, controlling personalities. Just look at the Catholic Church. Priests who represent God on earth, hierarchical structure, obedience seen as the main virtue - throw in compulsory celibacy and you're just asking for trouble.
Pentecostals don't favour lifelong celibacy but there is enough wrong with their church set-ups and highly emotional worship practices to ensure plenty of problems. (Don't let anyone tell you that a Pentecostal church is a democracy.) In the US, televangelists Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, both leading AOG personalities, fell victim to sex scandals, and a full listing of their erring co-religionists would take a long time, going right back to Aimee Semple McPherson and beyond.
In Australia, Humphreys and Ward's Religious Bodies in Australia (3rd ed., 1995) contains a number of discreet references to Pentecostal leaders who were removed from the ministry 'for sexual immorality' etc. (see, e.g., p.199), some of them causes celebres such as evangelist Clark Taylor of Christian Outreach Centres (190). Closer to home, Brian Houston had to sack his own father, Frank, after the latter admitted having sexually abused a boy in New Zealand many years earlier (Stephen Gibbs 'Hillsong farewells a lost sheep pioneer', Sydney Morning Herald, 13 Nov. 2004). And Greg Bearup reports that:
Houston had to sack one of his senior preachers and good friends, Pat Mesiti, after it was revealed he'd been visiting prostitutes.(19)
Finally, some AOG members do not confine themselves to sexual transgressions. Take Gregory Eric White, for example:
... [A] devotion to the Assembly of God Christian Church and an IQ of 127 could not disrupt [White's] dance with the devil. White became a professional armed robber who declared war on society, terrorising mostly bank and TAB staff over 28 months. 'I want the money', White typically screamed at his victims ... 'Just give me the money or I'll blow your f---ing head off.' (Steve Butcher '"Beast" drove man to rob banks, TABs, court told', Melbourne Age, 14 Nov. 2003)How do other denominations view Pentecostalism? And are there any divisions among Pentecostals themselves?
Other Christian denominations know exactly what Pentecostalism is - a mixture of traditional Christian doctrine, highly-charged emotional ritual and plain old belief in magic; the ultimate quick fix, if you like - but for political reasons they generally shy away from direct criticism. They don't wish to appear envious of the growth in Pentecostal numbers and they like the way that AOG and similar churches push conservative social values - pro-censorship, anti-abortion and gay rights etc.
Try reading between the lines here:
The Sydney Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, says the Hillsong style of worship seems to be 'courting excitement', and acknowledges it's attractive to many people, 'at least initially'. The Anglican Bishop of Western Sydney, Bishop Ivan Lee, says the style of worship is 'very positive, very contemporary' ... But he is concerned that the extreme emotion of Hillsong services could be manipulative ... Senior Lecturer in Religion at the University of Sydney Dr Carole Cusack says Hillsong's style of worship is more attuned to secular values in the community ... (Sarah Price and Matthew Benns 'Hillsong's true believers', Sydney Sun-Herald, 7 Nov. 2004)
Get the picture? This is about as close as the major denominations will come to saying, 'This is a fairly strange sort of Christianity'. Here's some more:
Hillsong has been dogged by criticism of its message emphasising wealth and the individual. Cardinal Pell says while it was good people were coming to know Christ ..., there was nothing in the gospel to say that if you followed Christ you would be more prosperous and successful ... (ibid.)
Brian Houston's best-known book is called You Need More Money. Enough said!
As for divisions within Pentecostalism itself, these are legion. In particular, there is a major rift between more traditional Pentecostals, who accept the practice of 'speaking in tongues' but will go no further, and 'new charismatics' who punctuate services with uncontrollable laughter, animal sounds, collapsing etc. and who believe in the utterances of 'modern prophets'. There are several books on this intra-Pentecostal clash, the best of them being Michael G. Moriarty (1992) The New Charismatics. For (partisan) Australian references to the same phenomenon, see Philip L. Powell et al. (2000) Unmasked ... Benny Hinn and related texts, available from Christian Witness Ministries - www.christian-witness.org
Evangelical commentator Don Prout gives us a good idea of the range of Pentecostalist controversies in his reply to a letter published in New Life (18 Mar. 2004):
... I have been suspicious of latter-day prophets for a long time. Having heard and read scores of these so-called prophecies over the years, I have yet to come across one that can unequivocally be proven ... It is all very vague. But if and when the day comes, for example, that I hear a latter-day prophet announce exactly when the next terrorist attack will take place, and where, then I may be able to assess that prophet's claim to speak for God ...
How is it that a prophet from one branch of the Charismatic church will espouse dispensationalism [theory that God has divided history into specific periods] while another is partial to the [opposing] view? ... And why do some proclaim that all the gifts [e.g. prophecy, healing] are available to every Christian while others deny that teaching? How is it that some prophets believe speaking in tongues is 'the initial evidence of the Spirit's baptism' while others say it is not? ... Why did no prophet speak up and expose Jimmy Swaggart's immorality before it brought disgrace to the Pentecostal movement?
And a great big Amen to that, brother.
In Part 3, I will examine the career and views of Andrew Evans, earliest parliamentary representative of the Family First Party.
Posted 21-Jun-05, 11:45am
Fundamentalism and superstition
While Christian fundamentalists and Pentecostals dismiss the beliefs of Muslims and Hindus etc. as 'sheer superstition', they are in fact extremely superstitious themselves. Supporters of the Religious Right, both Protestant and Catholic, love the idea of 'miracles' and are very credulous about supernaturalist stories. This renders many of them easy prey for the cash-extracting stage hypnotists sometimes called 'televangelists'.
Only Christian miracles are any good, however. Clifford Wilson, a veteran evangelical creationist, urges his readers to reject the 'greatly exaggerated false stories about the boyhood of Jesus' recounted in early gospels left out of the Bible:
In one story we read of a child who is supposed to have run against Jesus and fallen down dead. We read of a man who had been changed into a mule being turned back into a man when Jesus was placed on his back. We are told of Jesus making figures of animals and birds of clay and then making them walk, fly, and take food ... ('The Bible comes alive', New Life, 16 June 2005)
These stories seem no more unbelievable than those about Jesus being virgin-born, walking on water or raising Lazarus from the dead, but Wilson will have none of it. 'Fantasy took over from fact' in many non-canonical gospels and all non-biblical accounts of such events as the creation of the world are 'corrupted, grotesque [and] absurd'.
Turning over a few pages of this same issue of New Life, Australia's main evangelical Christian weekly, we arrive at the children's page. The items on the kids' page are often very useful in assessing the doctrinal position of religious journals, as the writers focus on the essentials of their message and express ideas in simple terms. Here, then, is 'a true story from Ethiopia':
Ethiopia is a country in Africa. In the late 1900s the government told Christians they had to stop living for Jesus or go to prison. Over 20,000 were arrested. One of them was Tadesse Ayissa ... Tadesse would not give up his faith. He had to stand on his own and six or seven soldiers lined up to shoot him. The officer gave the order and the soldiers fired. Every bullet missed.
The officer was so shocked he didn't tell his soldiers to fire again. In fact he started thinking that Jesus must be alive and powerful to protect Tadesse like that. The officer later became a Christian and so did many others.
If you look at the Web - www.globalgoodnews.org/tadesse_ayissa.htm - you will find another story about Tadesse:
... [T]he Communist authorities finally decided to get rid of [Tadesse] since he didn't comply with their warnings. They decided to execute him by electrocution ... [T]hey told him to step on a table in the middle of the room and climb on a chair that was placed on the table ... After he climbed and stood on the chair they told him to grab the exposed set of electric wires hanging from the ceiling ... [W]hen he grabbed the wires the electric power in the house went down and his [executioners] were baffled ... When they finally checked they found out that power went out all over the city. After he found out that the live electric wires didn't have any effect on him, Evangelist Tadesse said, humorously, that he was full of faith and kept on touching the wires like a piece of cloth ...
It's clear that what we have here is a fairly typical piece of evangelical Christian myth-making. While some conservative Christians strenuously reject this sort of thing - indeed, a small group called Concerned Christians Growth Ministries in WA specialises in carefully debunking such tales - many Pentecostals, in particular, will latch on to it and promote it as (literally) gospel truth. Obviously this is already happening in publications like New Life.
And once generally 'established', perhaps through an approving reference on an American televangelist's show, the story will never entirely disappear. As with the 'proofs of creation' advanced by anti-evolution organisations, Tadesse's adventures will be repeated and embellished indefinitely, regardless of any opposing evidence no matter how authoritative.
This is the nature of modern religious superstition and gives some insight into the way in which the Religious Right thinks. Not too pretty, is it?
Posted 11-Jun-05, 1:24pm
Origins of the Family First Party:
1. Australian Pentecostals
What is Pentecostalism all about?
Can't go past Barney Zwartz's summary, 'The Hallelujah Chorus', Melbourne Age, 24 Dec. 2004:
From their birth in Los Angeles in 1906 they have become about a quarter of the world's Christians. They are very strong in Africa, Asia and Latin America where they are a grassroots movement with a strong emphasis on the supernatural, such as miraculous healing and victory over demons. In the US and Australia they are middle class and more conservative, often with an emphasis on the prosperity gospel (God wants his people wealthy and healthy here and now) ...
Zwartz explains that many Pentecostal-type believers called 'charismatics' attend and often dominate particular mainstream congregations - Anglican, Catholic etc. - adapting Pentecostalism to suit their own traditions.
I would simply add that many Australian Pentecostalists also strongly emphasise supernaturalism - faith healing, 'spiritual warfare' against demonic hordes etc. - and that these particularly superstitious Pentecostals are often closely associated with Religious Right organisations and policies.
So what exactly do they believe?
Just think of them as being a special kind of 'evangelical' Christian. Zwartz again:
Evangelicals believe the Bible is the 'inspired Word of God'. This ranges from fundamentalist literalism [to less extreme interpretations]. They believe in being 'born again', which involves a personal experience of God ... They believe Christ died on the cross to pay the price for humans' sin. Pentecostals share evangelicals' beliefs, but add an emphasis on the Holy Spirit's miraculous activity today in healing, prophecy and 'tongues' (special spiritual languages). As well as water baptism, they believe in a separate baptism in the Holy Spirit ... [often indicated by the practice of 'speaking in tongues'].
How many Pentecostals, including charismatics, are there in Australia?
Writing in 1995, Humphreys and Ward estimated that about 175,000 people were attending about 1,900 Pentecostal churches on a typical Sunday, and that about as many again shared 'somewhat similar views' (i.e. were 'charismatic'), but were attending non-Pentecostal churches (R. Humphreys and R. Ward (1995) Religious Bodies in Australia: A Comprehensive Guide, 174).
We can compare this with the 2001 National Church Life Survey - www.ncls.org.au - which provided the following weekly attendance figures for the main Pentecostal bodies: Assemblies of God (AOG) - 104,600; Christian City Churches - 11,400; Christian Revival Crusade - 11,400; and Apostolic Church - 9,100. Note that Pentecostal churches rarely call themselves by that name. Look for such titles as 'Vineyard', 'Foursquare', 'Full Gospel', 'Bethesda', 'Life' and 'Rhema', or often just 'Christian'. Overall, a current combined estimate for Pentecostals and charismatics is probably not far short of 400,000 people, or about two per cent of the Australian population. Bear in mind, however, that a lot of these people are 'adherents' rather than active members, and that a hefty proportion of recruits to particular Pentecostal churches come from other churches, including other Pentecostal ones.
Who are the most important Australian Pentecostals?
My candidates for the top three would be Brian Houston, Phil Pringle and Andrew Evans. Houston, President of the AOG, runs the 18,000-member Hillsong Church in Baulkham Hills, Sydney, the destination of recent pilgrimages by John Howard and Peter Costello. Note that this single church constitutes about one-sixth of the entire national membership of the AOG. Phil Pringle heads the very successful Sydney Christian City Church and is something of a rival of Houston's within the Australian Pentecostal movement. Andrew Evans was General Superintendent of the AOG from 1977-1997, during which period this body's membership multiplied 13-fold. Evans was instrumental in founding the Family First Party and is now a member of the South Australian Legislative Council. I will look at Evans more closely in a later blog item.
You may know some overseas Pentecostals, particularly if you watch (very) early morning television - heard of Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer? And who can forget Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart?
Where do Pentecostals fit into Australia's Religious Right?
They are one of the three most important sources of support, along with conservative Baptists and Catholics. The Family First Party (FFP) is basically a Pentecostal front. The Australian Christian Lobby and Salt Shakers are both heavily dependent on Pentecostal support. Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party in NSW took a severe hit in last year's Senate election when former Pentecostal campaign workers shifted allegiance to the FFP. Pentecostals in general tend to favour creationism and increased levels of censorship and to oppose abortion, gay rights, school sex education etc.
To be continued in Part 2.
Posted 27-May-05, 3:20pm
The Religious Right will never support Labor
I keep reading that Labor frontbencher Kevin Rudd and some other ALP personalities are trying to draw closer to bodies associated with the Religious Right - for a detailed account of this go to www.abc.net.au/compass/s1362997.htm. Presumably the idea is to wean some conservative Christian voters away from the Peter Costellos and Tony Abbotts of this world and in that way regain some marginal seats lost at the last election.
In my view this policy is both doomed and counterproductive. It reminds me of Latham's Tasmanian forests gambit, but it's far worse.
Despite their protestations to the contrary, Religious Right leaders such as Jim Wallace and Bill Muehlenberg despise Labor. Their standard pre-election line is that 'although we'd never tell you how to vote, when you examine the policies of the major parties, the Coalition is superior to Labor in almost every respect, so ... we'll leave it to your conscience'. Muehlenberg, who has worked for many ultra-conservative Christian groups, writes in one such item:
It may well sound that [sic] I am being quite pro-Coalition and anti-Labor in this article. I do not mean to be so. Indeed, I know it is possible to vote Labor and still go to heaven! (Salt Shakers Newsletter, Apr. 1996, 16)
He follows up this 'humorous' piece of moral blackmail with some outright chicanery:
It seems to me [that there] are areas where Christians can agree to disagree. The Biblical position on enterprise bargaining, for example, is not so cut and dried, whereas the Biblical stand against abortion is much more unambiguous. (ibid.)
Most sensible people would argue that the Bible takes no discernible position on either enterprise bargaining or abortion - indeed, anti-abortion arguments drawn from scripture are conspicuously feeble - but Christian readers are left with the clear impression that they should on no account vote for the pro-choice ALP. This is the typical approach of virtually all Religious Right leaders.
Here is my central point. Unless the ALP makes a very large number of social policy changes, it can never expect to receive Religious Right endorsement. Among other things, the party would have to start opposing abortion, increasing censorship, rolling back the rights of women and minorities and encouraging the teaching of creationism in schools. Any minor electoral gains from these policy reversals would be swamped by substantial voter and membership defections, not just to the Greens but also to the more progressive wing of the Liberal Party. And even if Labor made these changes, groups like the Australian Christian Lobby would simply paint the party as opportunistic and untrustworthy. As it stands, the ALP at both state and federal levels is essentially disqualified from receiving political support from this source.
I can see where people like Kevin Rudd are coming from. Drawing on their Catholic, Anglican or Uniting Church backgrounds they are trying to convince Christian voters that Labor shares their social justice aspirations and deserves support on that basis. But Rudd and Co. are simply not talking to the right kinds of Christians. They don't appreciate the enormous gulf which has recently developed within Australian Christianity between the vaguely 'liberal' majority and the fanatical ultra-conservative minority.
Far from cosying up to these people, Labor should be relentlessly exposing the outrageous nature of many of their beliefs and policies. They have the 'whiff of extremism' about them, generally associated in Australia with political disaster. Fortunately they lack the electoral base here that they enjoy in the United States, but I hope never to see something like this written about an Australian election:
Bizarrely, the 2004 US presidential election was decided by voters who oppose the theory of evolution or await the Rapture or speak in the 'unknown tongue' or seek faith-healing or send money to television preachers or think Satan is a real spirit stalking America. (James A. Haught 'Fundamentalist Political Power in America', Free Inquiry, Feb.-Mar. 2005, 12)
Posted 24-May-05, 3:00pm
Roslyn and David Phillips
Ros and David Phillips of SA run what's left of the old Festival of Light, now re-titled Festival of Light Australia (FOLA). (Organisations like this seem to have several chiefs to every Indian: David Phillips claims to be FOLA's National President, while Fred Nile in NSW says he's the Director of the 'Festival of Light - Community Standards Organisation', but he doesn't pay much attention to this body any more.)
I always knew that the Phillips were arch-patronisers. They seem to inhabit some far superior planet located about two kilometers from God, but they occasionally deign to favour us with their ineffable wisdom. They produce a publication called Light and in the May 2005 issue, they actually succeed in patronising Tony Abbott, something I thought impossible.
In their editorial, the Phillips' tell the story of Abbott's reunion with his supposed natural son, Daniel O'Connor. At the time he allegedly fathered Daniel, Abbott was 'an immature teenage university student'; 'Kathy [Donnelly, Abbott's girlfriend] realised that Tony was too immature to be a support for her and the baby' and had Daniel adopted out. 27 years later, the three were reunited, only to be split asunder again when another former lover of Kathy's, Bill Kensell, was shown by DNA tests to be Daniel's actual father. Everyone was 'emotionally devastated', but the Phillips' then point out several lessons that can be learnt from this sorry tale.
Firstly,
Kathy and Tony made the best possible choice for Daniel, enabling him to grow up happy and well-adjusted in the secure environment of marriage ... Adoption is often maligned these days, but studies show it can be a very positive option for mothers with crisis pregnancies.
Don't bother explaining that many marriages provide anything but a secure environment, nor that there are huge question marks over the whole adoption issue. You'll simply be referred to 'studies', often emanating from American Religious Right think-tanks such as the Family Research Council.
Secondly,
Shared male and female accommodation can lead to sexual temptation.
So can passing an attractive person on the street, but what's that got to do with anything? Oh, I see, Bill Kensell was Kathy's former flatmate at the time of Daniel's conception. Yes, maybe we should bring back those curtains they used to run down the centre of classrooms to keep the boys and girls apart. Didn't I tell you the Phillips' lived on a different planet?
Thirdly,
When condoms are used by immature teens after a party [apparently the circumstances under which Daniel was conceived], they are a less reliable form of contraception than the denigrated rhythm method [employed by that naughty, immature 'Tony'] which requires abstinence around the time a woman is ovulating ...
Whether you call it the rhythm method or the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM), don't try it, kids - at least, not without a condom as back-up. You'll probably finish up both pregnant and struck down with a Sexually Transmitted Infection.
Fourthly,
The best method of contraception is the little word 'No'. Saying no to sex outside faithful marriage means never having to say 'sorry', never having to face the heartache of abortion or relinquishing a child, never contracting a possibly fatal or fertility-destroying sexually transmitted disease, never having to face the shock of unexpected DNA test results.
This is nice and glib, but quite wrong in every single respect. Many married women have abortions, and the rest of it depends on the sexual practices of your partner, something that you can never be entirely sure about. Ask all the people with 'inexplicable' STIs, and all the children now discovering that the man they call 'Dad' is no such thing.
The Phillips' whole weird ideology depends on a series of highly vulnerable 'ifs', and these are no basis on which to make a life in the very real world out there. If I never cross the road, I'll almost certainly never be hit by a bus, but if I'm reasonably careful I can cross the road, not be hit by the bus and I'll have a lot more fun.
Same goes for sex.
Posted 18-May-05, 5:28pm
Do foetuses go to heaven?
While some untutored Christian friends have denounced my suggestion that fundamentalists consign unbaptised foetuses to hell (13 May 2005), others have confirmed the accuracy of this position. In discussing the related question of whether those who die as babies go to heaven or hell, Rev. D. R. Niven of St George, Qld. makes the following unassailable point (New Life, 19 Apr. 1990):
We tend to think that babies will go to heaven by a different route than that of adults, when Jesus Himself [has] made it perfectly clear how anyone is to go to heaven. Jesus said: 'Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' (John 3:3).
Now, if the foetus has not even been born once, how can it possibly be 'born again' and thus qualify for heaven? This lends strong support to the argument that, from a conservative Christian point of view, the foetus has a more urgent claim to birth (and rapid baptism) than its mother has to life, and that Andrew Lansdown's position (13 May 2005) is a purely utilitarian one.
Other points made by Niven may seem a trifle cold to the average onlooker, but they are perfectly consonant with a literal reading of the Bible:
Babies and adults must be born again of God's Spirit to enter heaven ... God may save some babies, God may save all babies, God may save no babies. However, every single baby that He desires to save will be saved, and every one who is saved will not deserve to be saved, having been born a sinner (Psalm 51:5) ...
This verse reads: 'Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' This further confirms that God sees the foetus as a sinful being, and that it has no hope of salvation (i.e. heaven) unless it is both born and baptised. Yet another strike against Lansdown's unbiblical position!
Back to Niven:
...[I]f anyone thinks that a baby is incapable of believing, then they need to be aware of Psalm 22:9, 10 which reads: 'But you are He who took me out of the womb; You made me trust when I was on my mother's breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. From my mother's womb You have been my God.'
From these verses it can be seen how important it is for parents, especially mothers, to read the Scriptures to their babies; even to the extent of reading aloud whilst they are still in the womb. Medical science has long proven that a developing baby in the womb recognises its mother's voice - why not also the Word of its heavenly Father?
And with that virtuoso display of unblemished logic, I rest my case.
Posted 13-May-05, 4:27pm
The secular trap
Andrew Lansdown of Life Ministries WA is a prolific writer on topics of interest to the Religious Right. He has some strange ideas (for example, he believes that animals are morally responsible for their actions - Salt Shakers Journal, Feb. 2001, 13), but he is generally orthodox in his interpretations of the scriptures. I was surprised, therefore, when I came across this paragraph in a recent article he wrote called 'Arguments against abortion' (New Life, 28 Apr. 2005, 5):
Every human being has a right to life. This includes, of course, pregnant women. Consequently, on the exceptionally rare occasion when a woman is in mortal danger from the continuation of a pregnancy, her life cannot be forfeited against her will for the sake of the baby's. Where there is a genuine conflict between the right to life of the child and the right to life of the mother it is legitimate to choose in favour of the mother.
Many readers will realise that Lansdown has fallen into the 'secular trap' which lies in wait for all modern Religious Right authors. Briefly, there is no scriptural mandate for his stance and a very strong moral argument against it, namely that the foetus is unbaptised and, according to Christian literalists, on an express train to hell unless this sacrament can be administered. The mother, on the other hand, is either baptised or presumably had the chance to avail herself of the sacrament. It follows that the presiding doctor must try to save the foetus, even at the cost of the mother's life. Lansdown has made his judgment on the same basis as I would make mine i.e. an essentially utilitarian one, and come down firmly on the side of the mother. A humanitarian decision, yes, but a scriptural one, no. Don't believe me? Have a look at Mark 16:16, which traditionalists still accept as a legitimate part of the Bible.
Thinking in basically secular ways is an unavoidable aspect of modern life in Western society, even for most fundamentalists. Bill Muehlenberg of the Australian Family Association also falls into this trap, but much more often and rather more voluntarily than Andrew Lansdown. Doubtless inspired by Matt 10:16 ('... Be wise as serpents' - Bill doesn't seem to worry so much about the 'and innocent as doves' part), Muehlenberg directly advises his supporters to disguise themselves in secular raiment, the better to promote their theocratic message.
In his article 'Learning the Language of Babylon: Lessons on How Not To Lobby' (accessed at the Australian Christian Lobby website - www.acl.org.au - 12 Feb. 2004), Muehlenberg insists that lobbying 'is an important part of being salt and light in an increasingly secular and immoral society'. However, 'there are good ways to lobby, and there are not so good ways to lobby'.
He then quotes at length from an anti-prostitution diatribe sent to MPs in New Zealand by a Catholic morals group:
Any endorsement or recognition of 'rights' for prostitutes is contrary to reason; contrary to the law of nature; and especially contrary to the Law of God which is promulgated by the Catholic Church ... Prostitution is an evil that always involves at least one mortal sin. Fornication is a mortal sin. Adultery is a mortal sin. Contraception is a mortal sin ... Abortion is a mortal sin. Homosexual acts are a mortal sin. Any person who dies in the state of mortal sin is cast into Hell to suffer punishment for all eternity. Any MP who votes for the 'Prostitution Reform Bill' is on the road to Hell for all eternity.
Pretty hot stuff, eh? - but Bill doesn't like it. The Eleventh Commandment for modern Christians is, 'Thou shalt not let it all hang out':
... [I]n a pluralistic and secular society, we need to learn to communicate more smartly and target our audience better ... [T]his group has not only wasted an opportunity to really make an impact on the debate over the legislation, but it has simply further caricatured Christians as buffoons and far-out fringe groups, to be ignored and/or dismissed.
Here is the core of Muehlenberg's message:
'Turn or burn' preaching may have its place [i.e. it's basically OK to threaten people with hell if they don't convert to Christianity], but not in public submissions to Parliamentary inquiries [i.e. we must keep our ultimate beliefs and objectives hidden when we're talking to politicians]. What religious folk need to do is learn to 'speak the language of Babylon'. That is, just as Daniel learned the language, culture and politics of Babylon, where he was captive, ... so too we modern believers, in our own cultural captivity, need to learn to address our concerns in an appropriate manner to our secular audiences.
That is, we need to take our biblical worldview [i.e. theocratic ideology] and concerns, and express them in non-biblical and non-theological language, so that our non-Christian friends can understand.
This is a very 'modern', utilitarian approach, having little in common with biblical strictures about honesty: the ends are regarded as justifying highly questionable means. Muehlenberg has fallen so far into the secular trap that the line between (a) transparent and (b) misleading presentation of conservative Christian views has become dangerously blurred. Even the titles of many Religious Right groups (Australian Family Association, Australian Federation for the Family etc.) fail to communicate a clear idea of these organisations' true goals.
So the next time you read a 'letter to the editor' which is expressed in broadly secular terms but which argues a Religious Right position, think about how well the writer has learned to 'speak the language of Babylon'.
Posted 10-May-05, 11:35am
Gays in Australia 2
On 10 April ('How many gays in Australia?') I criticised Bill Muehlenberg, National Vice-President of the Australian Family Association, for his rough handling of statistical material on this question. Having carefully read Juliet Richters' and Chris Rissel's Doing it Down Under (Allen and Unwin, 2005), a source of his stats, I would now like to criticise him for blatant misquoting as well.
Muehlenberg concludes the relevant section of his article as follows:
Incredibly, however, in the face of all this hard evidence to demonstrate the very low percentage of homosexuals in society, the two authors put this rather unscientific spin on things: 'It is too simple to say "10 per cent of the population is gay", but it is true that at least 10 per cent of the population is a little bit gay-ish'! ('Separating Myth From Science', The Australian Family, Mar. 2005, 43)In fact, what Richters and Rissel wrote was:
It is too simple to say '10 per cent of the population is gay', but it is true that at least 10 per cent of the population is a little bit gay-ish, either in experience or attraction or both (my emphasis). (55)This conclusion is entirely borne out by their statistics (see their Chapter 8) and is not 'unscientific' in any way.
Why did Muehlenberg omit these final words? I think it was because Religious Right authors simply cannot cope with the idea that straight and gay behaviours lie on a spectrum. In discussing the problems of interviewing, Richters and Rissel accept that:
A married man who occasionally meets other men for sex in the park but never talks about this and has no gay friends may 'forget' this when reporting his sexual partners in an interview. (145)Is it really so 'unscientific' to call people with these sorts of sexual lives 'a little bit gay-ish'? Only if you can't countenance ideas and behaviours which are not absolutely black and white.
More generally, Muehlenberg's article is a good example of the 'hunt and peck' approach to research employed by the Religious Right. Because the Bible has supposedly determined your conclusions in advance, you're looking for arguments which seem to justify those conclusions. Any information which contradicts the 'settled idea' that, say, only one per cent of the population is homosexual, can simply be ignored. Even if it means chopping your source off in mid-sentence.
And, as a matter of interest, the very best examples of this are to be found in the voluminous literature of creationism.
Posted 4-May-05, 1:45pm
Danny Nalliah and God
You may have heard of Pastor Danny Nalliah from Catch the Fire (CTF) Ministries in Melbourne. He and his mate Pastor Daniel Scot recently ran afoul of Victoria's controversial anti-vilification laws, but this didn't stop Nalliah from contesting the Senate for the Family First Party. He was unsuccessful, but his running-mate Steve Fielding made the grade.
Danny Nalliah is a truly remarkable character and I thought you might like to know some more about him. For example, did you know he can heal the blind? - well, when he's visiting Sri Lanka, anyway. Here's the story, straight from the horse's mouth:
At our first meeting in Colombo, a man totally blind for 17 years was brought up for prayer. Well, Glory to God, I placed my thumbs on his eyes and rebuked the blind spirit and claimed healing in the Name of Jesus. I finished praying and took my hands off. Instantly the man's eyes opened up and he started shouting, 'I can see, I can see!' He then grabbed my tie and started telling me all the different colours on my tie. This really sent waves of rejoicing throughout the meeting. (CTF Ministries Inc., Newsletter, Sept. 2002, 2)
As you'd expect, God often speaks directly to Danny, giving him the good oil on all sorts of things:
The Lord very clearly spoke to me about [the anti-vilification law] on 9th April 2000 at 5.00 am in a dream in Ethiopia. He said, 'Evangelism would be banned if the church does not rise up and be pro-active.' (Newsletter, Apr. 2005, 1)
Seems a pretty clear link, doesn't it, and I must say that it's encouraging to see the Almighty keeping right up with the times and using words like 'pro-active'.
But sometimes God favours Danny with personal appearances, as he did in May 2002, somewhere between Naracoorte, SA and Horsham, Vic.:
... I happened to look to the left up in the sky. I just could not believe what I saw. At once I shouted, 'Chris, stop the car, stop the car!' ... He pulled over and we all jumped out and saw the Face of Jesus appear in the sky through the clouds ... The face remained for about a minute and then disappeared ... As we continued [to drive], the Lord spoke to each one of us and said, 'I am watching over you, I am well pleased with you, my face is shining upon you' ... (Newsletter, Sept. 2002, 8)Now Family First Party, aren't you ashamed? Here's a man with whom God is well pleased - said so Himself when He was floating about in the sky near Horsham one day! - and you couldn't even give him the No. 1 spot on your Victorian Senate ticket. Just think, if you'd been a little more enterprising, God may have rewarded you with Senator Danny Nalliah and the balance of power.
Posted 30-Apr-05, 5:40pm
Pastors and porn
Don't think for a second that evangelical pastors and their flocks are immune from the temptations of internet pornography. Items about such 'sexual addiction' regularly appear in conservative Christian publications, so that I genuinely wonder whether evangelical porn fans are over-represented in the general population. The Australian Christian weekly New Life (20 Jan. 2005) reports that:
A 'Christianity Today' survey said 37% of pastors say cyberporn is a current struggle for them and 63% of men at a [presumably Christian] marriage seminar admitted to struggling with porn in the past year.
These sorts of figures are backed up by leading American evangelist Charles Swindoll who writes of:
... a severe disease that is eating away at our congregations ... Men and women, from adolescents to senior citizens, from all walks of life, have succumbed or are at risk, and more are becoming infected every single day.
Nineteenth-century moral panic merchants used to introduce denunciations of masturbation in just this way but Swindoll has a different target in mind:
The problem is pornography, especially internet pornography. Without your knowing, it could be eating your church alive.
And just how serious is this threat?
The most recent studies available suggest that one out of every two people, that's 50% of the people sitting in our pews, are looking at and/or could be addicted to internet pornography ... Chances are good that some of our full-time staff members, even some who faithfully serve on our boards, may be losing this secret battle.
Naturally, Christian children are in terrible danger:
...[W]hile I'm listing these possibilities, let's not overlook our young adults, married and single, who provide instruction among our junior and senior high [school] youth ... Stop and imagine the ugly but very real possibility of some of your own elders and deacons leaving your meetings and going home to surf porn. Think about youth leaders viewing it one minute, and leading a small group with your kids 30 minutes later.
The parallels with earlier masturbation panics are now overwhelming, and at this point Swindoll loses it entirely:
It's ruining marriages, destroying relationships, harming youth and hurting the body of Christ. You hardly need to be reminded that fallen pastors and priests did not 'suddenly' fall. More often than not, pornography played a role in their downward spiral. (New Life, 14 Aug. 2003)
Despite Swindoll's hyperbole, there probably is some fire here to go with the smoke. Frank York and Jan LaRue have written a book for Focus on the Family (FOF) (Protecting Your Child in an X-Rated World, 2002) which contains some comparable statistics:
... [T]he reality is that there may be as many as 10 to 20 per cent of your church membership who wrestle with a pornography addiction. This includes pastors ... At one [hyper-Christian] Promise Keepers men's event, 50 per cent of the attendees admitted to dabbling in porn during the previous week ...[A]bout 20 per cent of the calls on [FOF's] pastoral care line are for help with issues such as pornography and compulsive behaviour ...
York and LaRue offer an estimate of around 25 per cent 'sexually addicted' Christian pastors, and conclude as follows:
One researcher estimates that 60 million Americans have visited sexually explicit websites. Tragically, the percentage of Christian men involved is not much different from that of the unsaved. [Evangelical commentators often make similar observations about divorce and abortion rates but aren't quick to draw certain unpalatable conclusions e.g. that prayer doesn't work!] According to another survey of pastors and lay leaders conducted by 'Leadership' magazine, 62 per cent have regularly viewed pornography. (179-80)
Elsewhere in this book we read of 'perfect Christian girls' who become ensnared by 'pornography' (in one case it was actually romance novels, given to a girl by her grandmother) and suddenly find themselves 'obsessively engaged in oral sex and other sexual activities with boys'. (217-8)
The more you study evangelical Christians, the less special and more 'normal' they appear. By their own accounts, their religion seems quite unable to protect them from day-to-day temptations, and you begin to wonder how some of them develop the nerve to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
Posted 21-Apr-05, 3:30pm
Why I am happy that Ratzinger was made Pope
Although the new Pope Benedict XVI will undoubtedly cause many good people much pain, his papacy should advance the cause of secularism in the longer term.
As I suggested in an earlier blog (5 April), another authoritarian pope is required to advance the process of ecclesiastical division set in train by Paul VI and accelerated by John Paul II. It seems unlikely that Benedict will revise his negative positions on contraception, women's ordination, gay rights etc. Dissent from his various stances will not culminate in a formal schism, but rather bring about a continual erosion in Catholic numbers, first in Europe, North America and Australasia and later throughout the rest of the world.
If this outcome does not seem apparent to you, ask yourself what Benedict can possibly do to prevent it. Should he become even more authoritarian than previously? But that approach, among other things, is surely an essential part of the Catholic Church's problem.
This papal appointment should also increase stresses in many Protestant communions. Focusing on official Catholic policies regarding abortion, homosexuality, divorce etc., many ultra-conservative Protestants are now showing signs of actual Pope-olatry. Mournful letters along the following lines are now beginning to appear in the pages of evangelical newspapers:
Why, after reading the endless eulogies from Christian leaders for the Pope, do I get that sinking feeling that they have betrayed the Christian Reformation led by Martin Luther? ... [John Paul II] led [his] church further into apostasy on at least one key point. Namely, the promoting of the worship of Mary to only a step short of making her co-redemptrix with Christ. His promotion of so-called interfaith dialogue has also demonstrated a low view of the Scriptures that Bible-believing Christians hold so dear. (David Stevens, New Life, 21 Apr. 2005)
Many conservative American Protestants already regard Catholics and theological liberals with an equal degree of contempt, and a 'Catholic First' pope like Benedict should give this viewpoint a hearty boost in Australia.
The incalculable harm wrought by the Christian church over two millennia is a matter of historical record. We need Pope Benedict to push the process of disintegration along - and then another six more like him.
Posted 17-Apr-05, 10:00pm
Christian youth and sex
Reading through all the Pope stuff last week I came across this slightly jarring observation:
Leading Italian sociologist Professor Franco Ferrarotti doesn't think the Pope's influence on the young is deep or will last. 'My field workers tell me young people don't really follow his advice,' he says. 'They use contraceptives. They cheer him, they love it when he talks to them about chastity, then the next thing they go to bed together. It's a kind of schizophrenia.' (James Button 'How a childless man was Papa to millions', Melbourne Age, 9 Apr. 2005)
Large numbers of conservative religious youth throughout the world seem to hold similar attitudes. They feel some sort of intellectual loyalty to the teachings of their religion, but many of them don't let this get in the way of an active pre-marital sex life.
Several books about Christian fundamentalist environments discuss this phenomenon, often at some length. Alan Peshkin (1986) in God's Choice: The Total World of a Fundamentalist Christian School (University of Chicago Press) quotes this school's headmaster as telling his staff that 'God has allowed us the privilege of snatching precious young people from Satan's clutches' (97). Girls wear dresses, boys have short hair. The students are inundated with fundamentalist rhetoric, Bible study, creation science - you name it. The school has a discipline policy that would send most Australian students and their parents running for the door.
Some kids swallow the fundamentalist ideas whole, but just as many others seem to ignore most of them. They watch risque TV shows, they joke about dope, they are avid rock music fans, they show each other sexy magazines. There's graffiti in the toilets. There are some pregnancies. Students know a lot of their peers are smoking, drinking and petting. A Year 11 tells her class that she's been kissed and 'likes frenching', much to her teacher's amusement (207). A senior girl, strongly evangelical, bewails the tendency of other girls to unbutton their shirts 'way down', although some do ask her to pray for them so as 'to keep the lust out of [their] minds' (198). Most intriguing of all, many of this girl's friends pray that Jesus will delay his return (i.e. delay the introduction of God's kingdom on earth!) until after they have married, had children and generally enjoyed what this life has to offer.
In interviews Peshkin conducted with teachers and students, he found that 62% of the staff sometimes watched 'non-encouraged' movies and that 'no teacher or administrator [was] uniformly, consistently orthodox in behaviour' (171-2). As for the students, although they had 'largely internalised' the norms of their institution, a mere 29 per cent of them followed school-expected behaviour when it came to dating (183).
Christian friends have remarked to me that these sorts of observations also hold true for Australia. One man, who was very devout when younger, told me he could never understand why the majority of his youth group seemed to live classic 'Sunday Christian' existences: 'They were as holy as you like right through the Sabbath, but the rest of the week they were just like ordinary teenagers. On Friday and Saturday especially, you saw them drinking, smoking, going to rock dances. They swore, they told dirty jokes, they slept with their girlfriends and boyfriends. There were several pregnancies and about an equal number of quiet abortions.'
Are the corrosive processes of Western secularisation responsible for this apparent schizophrenia, or have things always been like this? You tell me.
Posted 10-Apr-05, 10:50pm
How many gays in Australia?
Rev. Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic Party recently told us why there are now 'so many homosexual TV shows':
The powerful homosexual lobby has demanded one in ten characters must be a homosexual ... [But] homosexuals are only 1-2% of the population so it should only be one homosexual in 100 characters, NOT one in 10! (Family World News, Apr. 2005, 2)
Australian Religious Right groups generally push the idea that only about one per cent of our population is gay, and argue on this basis that such a small minority is unworthy of civil rights such as the right to marry, adopt children etc. The argument makes no sense and clearly involves discrimination against one particular minority on religious grounds; for example, you will not find Fred Nile calling for tiny Christian sects to be stripped of the right to run their own schools on the basis of their size.
But let's examine this 'one per cent' claim. To begin with, one per cent of the Australian population is a lot of people, over 200,000 of them. By way of comparison, the entire national membership of the (Pentecostal) Assemblies of God denomination - which provides most of the support for a number of groups like the Australian Christian Lobby and the Family First Party - totals only 160,000. (Muriel Porter 'Moderates drowned out by religious right shrill', Melbourne Age, 30 Mar. 2005)
More to the point, Religious Right personalities themselves clearly accept that the 'one per cent' figure is bogus, while continuing to throw it around as if it was gospel truth.
Have a careful look at Fred Nile's statement above: '[H]omosexuals are only one to two per cent of the population ...' He goes on to develop a faulty conclusion, namely that this means that 'it should only be one homosexual in 100 characters', but even on his own 'reasoning' it could be two rather than one. What does this extra one per cent mean in terms of overall numbers? Suddenly we have up to 400,000 Australian gays, many more people than attend, say, Anglican church services every week (Porter, ibid.) And remember, this is Fred Nile's figure, a crowd of people that would fill about five MCGs!
But let's not stop there. In the current issue of the Australian Family Association's journal ('Separating Myth From Science', The Australian Family, Mar. 2005, 40-48), National Vice-President Bill Muehlenberg examines this very question. He begins by castigating an Australian reporter for writing in 1994 that there were '1 million' Australian gays at that time. Muehlenberg then becomes characteristically vague but seems to work on the assumption that this figure equates to ten per cent of the Australian population, whereas it would not have been much over five per cent. He then says:
What is the evidence? The ten per cent figure is actually about eight to ten times too high. (41)
Thus, according to Muehlenberg, the true figure should be about 1-1.25 per cent. He then proceeds to list a number of 'supportive' Australian and international statistics, but fails to point out the extreme narrowness of their definitions. To count as 'homosexual', one had to 'report homosexual activity', 'claim to be exclusively homosexual', 'have homosexual intercourse' etc. Muehlenberg seems oblivious to the fact that, through justified fear of religious and other persecution, many gays would never declare the true nature of their sexuality. Statisticians themselves commonly acknowledge this; for example:
... [T]he Australian Bureau of Statistics recognises the limitations of its own information. In its study into same-sex couple families for the '2005 Year Book Australia', statisticians acknowledged people's 'reluctance to identify as being in a same-sex de facto marriage and lack of knowledge that same-sex relationships could be counted as such in the census'. (Annette Binger 'Happy Families', Sunday Life, 27 Mar. 2005, 22)
Note too that the Religious Right has great difficulty in coping with the idea of bisexuals, often tending to ignore them rather than face the fact that many apparent heterosexuals are not exactly what they seem. Muehlenberg himself notes an Australian study in which 'a paltry 0.9 per cent said [they] were bisexual' (42). This 'paltry' percentage actually translates to about 180,000 people - and these were just the ones prepared to acknowledge it!
In any case, the most 'scientific' statistics quoted by Muehlenberg give his 'one per cent' estimate no support. According to him, the Sex in America survey gave a figure of 2.8 per cent for 'nationwide incidence of male homosexuality' (1.4 per cent lesbians - overall average in excess of 2 per cent); while the 2000 Demography study put the 'exclusive male homosexual' population at 2.5 per cent.
Juliet Richters and Chris Rissel recently published a sex-research book based on extensive interviews with almost 20,000 Australians (Doing It Down Under, 2005). Muehlenberg selectively quotes some of their figures on the incidence of homosexuality, but cannot accept their conclusion that:
It is too simple to say that '10 per cent of the population is gay', but it is true that at least 10 per cent of the population is a little bit gay-ish, either in experience or attraction or both. (55)Muehlenberg fails to relate the background to this conclusion, which is based on the authors' observation that there are at least three different ways to think about homosexuality: in terms of identity - how people define themselves; in terms of attraction - whether someone experiences same-sex attraction, whether or not they act upon this feeling; and finally in terms of sexual experience. The figures for 'same-sex sexual attraction', for example, are several times as high as those for 'homosexual experience'. (50-51)
Religious Right claims that only one per cent of Australians are homosexual are absurdly tendentious, are not borne out by the statistics they quote, and should be dismissed as propaganda.
Posted 05-Apr-05, 8:20pm
The Pope that I'd like
Working on the principle that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the worst ideas that humanity ever had, what sort of Pope would most rapidly advance the progress of secularisation?
What we are looking for here is a splitter, someone who is going to drive half of the church crazy in the shortest possible space of time.
Our own George Pell certainly looks the goods here, with a marvellous track record over many years. Church attendances plummeting, half the clergy doing the bolt and sundry others sewing mailbags in prisons across the nation - wonderful stuff. Unfortunately George looks a bit dicey at 40/1 so let's cast an eye over the competition.
I'd love a John Paul II clone to get up. More of the same for another 25 years should just about finish the business in Europe and North America as well as Australia. Cardinal Tettamanzi, currently one of the favourites, is said to be close to Opus Dei and this is the kind of form we like to see. Ratzinger would do the job provided he can hang around for a while. Actually, any authoritarian European cardinal is eminently acceptable (forgive pun), but the more Wojtyla-like they are the better.
Arinze of Nigeria, deeply conservative on social issues, could precipitate all sorts of divisions - looks great! 'Lefties' like Hummes of Brazil would cause no end of damaging quarrels, but I feel that ultra-conservatives are far more likely to crack the church wide open over a relatively short period.
I emphatically do not want a healer! Please, no-one moderate, intelligent, rational, popular, no John XXIII ciphers: in other words, no-one that I would personally like. And no-one that Roman Catholics would overwhelmingly regard as 'Christ-like'.
The last thing the world needs is a Christ-like Pope.
Posted 31-Mar-05, 8:10pm
More Schiavo protests
Sincerity is one thing; stupidity is another.
Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and now spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents: 'What in the name of God is going on when the entire US government prostrates itself at the feet of a tinpot judge?' (Guardian, 29 Mar. 2005)
Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition: 'Mahoney said that the fact that Schiavo has survived nearly 10 days since the removal of the tube that has supplied her with nutrition and water indicates that she wants to appear before the House Government Reform Committee.' (CNN.com, 28 Mar. 2005) On the next day, Mahoney again cited Schiavo's 'endurance through 11 days without food or water as evidence that she wants to live ... Mahoney shouted, "She is speaking from her hospice bed, saying, 'I want to live. Will you help me?"' (Washington Post, 29 Mar. 2005)
Michael McMonagle, another protester, 'proposed that ... husband Michael Schiavo be arrested.' [Presumably for taking his case to court!] (ibid.)
Bob Hunt, also a demonstrator, went one better: 'The government should declare martial law for the whole county, arrest the judge, arrest the sheriff.' (ibid.)
'[P]hotographers and reporters outnumbered the demonstrators by about two to one. But the small and soggy group of protesters lacked nothing in enthusiasm, standing in the mud ... and waving signs saying "The fruit of abortion is nuclear war" ...' (ibid.)
'Joan Schiavo, who has testified over the years that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive in her condition, reported [on] Monday evening that a white car drove by her Philadelphia-area home [several times] when she was leaving to go to work ... During the last pass, Schiavo told police, the car stopped and the man inside yelled "murderer", then added, "If Terri dies, I'm coming back to shoot you and your family." Joan Schiavo is married to William Schiavo, one of Michael's brothers ... Last week, police arrested an Illinois man they said robbed a gun store in Seminole, Florida, as part of an attempt to "rescue Terri Schiavo". Michael W. Mitchell, 20, faces charges of attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault and criminal mischief ...' (CNN.com, 29 Mar. 2005)
Paul Copeland, Australian anti-euthanasia activist: 'In China, God is raising the dead. These are miracles. God can heal Terri in the blink of an eye.' (SaveTerri.com, 29 Mar. 2005)
'Early [on] Wednesday, a man was arrested when he tried to take a plastic cup of water into the hospice. Officers stopped him at the gate as he shouted: "You don't know God from Godzilla!" (Guardian, 30 Mar. 2005)
And Terri Schiavo wanted to die with dignity!
Posted 30-Mar-05, 2.20pm
Anti-abortionists who have abortions
In a recent article about Tony Abbott's adventures ('After the DNA, will Abbott get a reality check?', Melbourne Age, 24 Mar. 2005) Leslie Cannold asked whether 'Abbott's complex personal situation will lead him to question his rigid and long-held views of female sexuality and reproductive obligation':
According to psychologist Dr Susie Allanson, a counsellor of 15 years at the East Melbourne Fertility Control Clinic, the odds are regrettably slim. Over the years Allanson has counselled a number of women who are not just morally opposed to abortion but have actively campaigned against it being safe and legal. Yet, when they have found themselves unhappily pregnant, they decide on abortion.Essentially, such women convince themselves that they are special cases - to the point of being actually unique - and that their situations are thus quite irrelevant to the cases of all those female 'murderers' who have abortions.
This reminded me of similar reports I had seen in the past, most notably in Cynthia Gorney's Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars (Simon and Schuster 2000), 275-6:
Sometimes [abortion clinic] counsellors would sink into conference-room chairs at the end of the day and trade war stories about patients who had proceeded through the entire abortion process while insisting from start to finish that they were pro-life ...[T]hese particular women frustrated [the counsellors] intensely, the protesters who had come in from the anti-abortion ranks long enough to take care of their urgent little personal problem and then go right back out to the picket lines ...[I]t was awfully hard to sound compassionate when your patient was sitting there explaining that her situation was so very grave and special that she had to have an abortion, even though she didn't believe abortion should be legal in the first place.A senior counsellor recalled one such patient in the following terms:
...I cannot tell you the disdain she had for everybody who was in the waiting room. But it was okay for her to be there ... She had protested, and gone to meetings, and I think she signed something in church. But it would kill her parents if she were pregnant, and her relationship with the boy was over, and so forth and so on ...Of course, not all anti-choice activists are so glaringly hypocritical. Several years ago, one of Australia's most voluble anti-feminists was told by a trembling daughter that she had fallen pregnant to her boyfriend. After throwing a ten-minute tantrum that would have done justice to a two year-old, the matriarch delivered herself of this gem:
The only good thing to come out of this disaster is that at least you had the decency not to use contraception!
Posted 28-Mar-05, 1.35pm
Schiavo protests
Christianity is supposed to preach love, compassion and forgiveness, but have a look at the words and actions employed by some of the self-proclaimed 'supporters' of brain-damage victim Terri Schiavo.
Randall Terry of the extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue says that if Schiavo dies 'there will be hell to pay'. Terry charges that Governor Jeb Bush, a former hero of the Religious Right, has now 'caved in to a runaway judiciary'. (LA Times, 25 Mar. 2005)
Rev. Jerry Falwell, former head of the failed Moral Majority: 'Just because there is a judge somewhere in the world who would give an estranged husband like [Terri Schiavo's] the time of day, tells you how bad the court system is.' (Detroit Free Press, 25 Mar. 2005)
Mathew Gear, a Kansas theology student: 'They [the politicians and lawyers] want to establish a culture of death and not life in all areas.' (News.telegraph, UK, 26 Mar. 2005)
Schiavo's husband Michael is 'considered by the [protesters] to be nothing less than the Devil. He is accused in the most vitriolic fashion of being interested only in obtaining his wife's life insurance money, of mistreating her over the years and of "having something to hide".' (Andrew Buncombe, Independent, 26 Mar. 2005)
'The FBI arrested a North Carolina man for sending an email offering a bounty of US$250,000 ... to anyone who would kill Michael Schiavo and US$50,000 for killing a judge who has ruled in favour of the husband in the case. The man, Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, was charged with solicitation of murder and sending threatening communications and could face up to 15 years in prison ...' (New Zealand Herald, 26 Mar. 2005)
'Amid the pitched legal battle over Terri Schiavo that has been fought through his court, Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer has been under the protection of armed guards, and friends say his family also is protected. Death threats have been made against him ... and the Southern Baptist church that Greer belonged to for years has asked him to leave the congregation ... [H]is pastor suggested it would be better if he left. "You must know that in all likelihood it is this case which will define your career and this case that you will remember in the waning days of life", Calvary Baptist Pastor William Rice wrote to Greer ... "I hope you can find a way to side with the angels and become an answer to the prayers of thousands." (Vickie Chachere, Wired News, 26 Mar. 2005)
'The protesters [outside Schiavo's hospice] are comparing Michael Schiavo to Judas ... "Betrayed by a kiss: Jesus, Terri", read one handmade poster, apparently alluding to the fact that her husband was the first man Terri Schiavo had ever kissed. "Judas = husband", read another. Two other posters ... likened both President Bush and his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, to Pontius Pilate ...' (San Francisco Gate, 27 Mar. 2005)
'Some [protesters] hold aloft distinctly un-Christian banners for the benefit of the media. "Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer; You are going to Hell, murderers', one said.' (Times Online, 28 Mar. 2005)
Slander, abuse, persecution, death threats and hellfire! Yes, the Schiavo case has certainly been a shining advertisement for the Christian religion.
Posted 27-Mar-05, 10.49am
NCC and abortion
There have been various proposals put forward for suggested government action such as not funding late term abortions or only funding those that have occurred following the informed consent of the mother through viewing foetal images.
Frankly - that is not good enough. Right to Life Australia wants abortion defunded - as simple as that! Those who think we'll win some concessions by making timid suggestions will find that they could end up with nothing.
Margaret Tighe, President RTLA, RTLA News, Jan.-Feb. 2005, 1
Anti-abortion advocates are a motley crew, ranging from Margaret Tighe types, who believe that all abortions should be outlawed regardless of the circumstances, to people like David van Gend who would apparently permit abortion 'in cases of rape, incest, pregnancy in minors(!) or where it is necessary to save a mother's life' - www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/a1/0c0291a1.asp
The National Civic Council is a far more pragmatic body than Tighe's group, perhaps just a little too pragmatic. Paul Russell, the NCC's South Australian state president, has a very intriguing article entitled 'Cutting the abortion rate - the political options' in the current issue of News Weekly (26 Mar. 2005).
Russell begins by noting the 'wide variety of thought amongst pro-life groups' about the best way to tackle the abortion issue. Many people think that the Religious Right is some sort of monolithic entity but this is quite untrue. Some of these groups and personalities bitterly disagree with each other over a wide variety of issues and tactics.
Unlike Margaret Tighe, Paul Russell explicitly recognizes that 'politics is the art of the possible' and that anti-choice campaigners should acknowledge that 'practical limitations do exist'. He makes the unwarranted assertion that there is 'an identifiable mood for change in our society' but immediately warns anti-choice politicians that 'if they push for too much, the risk of failure increases':
... It is better to have a win that reduces the incidence of abortion by some degree than it is to fight valiantly for the whole, and gain nothing.
This is exactly the opposite of Margaret Tighe's approach.
Russell proceeds to discuss four serious options for the anti-choice campaign:
(1) informed consent provisions; (2) partial-birth abortion bans; (3) parental involvement laws (in the case of minors); and (4) Medicare funding restrictions.
Russell's basic aim is to establish which option would be 'the most effective in reducing the incidence of abortion'. He doesn't spend much time on either (2) or (3) above, recognising that they comprise only a small proportion of total abortions. This is another difference between Russell and many anti-abortion organisations which seem convinced that eight-month pregnant women are being aborted in large numbers all over Australia. Russell also has serious doubts about option (1):
... If pro-life [i.e. anti-choice] agencies were to provide mandated [pre-abortion] counselling, [an] ethical dilemma comes into play. As evidence that the informed consent regulations had been fulfilled, the counselling agencies would probably need to provide written proof that a pregnant woman had met the requirements.Russell thus finds himself forced back to option (4), government funding restrictions. While this is not surprising, I was quite astonished by the generally cold, calculating and unemotional tone of the article. It seemed to me devoid of all reference to reality and even to the existence of a truly moral order. Women, perhaps young and poverty-stricken, perhaps older and with established families, find themselves with unwanted pregnancies. These girls and women are real people with a wealth of emotions and experiences, probably with strong family ties and responsibilities, qualitatively different beings from the foetuses growing inside them.
This would effectively be a licence to abort. Catholic counselling services in Germany only a few years ago were directed to cease their services by the Holy See for this very reason.
Russell's solution: make it as hard as possible for these distressed women, and particularly the poorer ones, to obtain safe and legal relief! What sort of moral response is that?