Religious Instruction in Queensland schools is discriminatory

Religious Instruction in Queensland schools is discriminatoryBrisbane Times 14/03/16

When I found out my eight-year-old had been taught at school that there’s no God, I was shocked.

Well, actually, it’s the opposite: I’m an atheist and in Religious Instruction, my son was taught that God exists, and his saviour is Jesus.

Religious Instruction has no place in Queensland schools, argues Hugh Harris.
Religious Instruction has no place in Queensland schools, argues Hugh Harris. (photo: courtesy The Brisbane Times)

This admittedly contrived example illustrates why religious instruction is inherently discriminatory.

Considering we’d previously opted out our son from the program, I was appalled when he still attended the first class of the year. How vigilant must I be?

Read the rest here.

John Howard’s Christian Right Feels Silenced, And They’re Telling Anyone Who’ll Listen

John Howard’s Christian Right Feels Silenced, And They’re Telling Anyone Who’ll Listen – New Matilda 03/01/2016

A screengrab of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, appearing on Channel 9's 60 minutes program in 2012.

“People are too scared to speak”, claims ex-Prime Minister John Howard amidst a mood of growing resentment towards the Coalition’s Christian Right. Howard has called out a “minority fundamentalism” where progressives attempt to silence others. By example, he cites the branding of those who oppose gay marriage as homophobes, and the controversy over the Tasmanian anti-marriage equality booklet.

We see this phenomenon regularly – the pre-emptive branding of an opponent’s view by some type of slur. But this applies to all sides of politics. Cory Bernardi heckled Bill Shorten calling him “a fraud”. Shorten responded in kind, dubbing him a “homophobe”. But then, a doe-eyed Bernardi complained that “it’s disappointing someone seeking to be PM resorts to name calling”.

Tut-tut – glass houses and all that.

Read more…

Slurs Are A Poor Counterfeit For Reason

Slurs Are A Poor Counterfeit For Reason – The Huffington Post 25/02/16

CORY BERNARDI

(image courtesy The Huffington Post Australia)

In the current charged atmosphere fuelled by cultural issues such as same-sex marriage, it’s unsurprising to see some erecting invisible force-fields around their beliefs. Senator Cory Bernardi claimed the Safe Schools anti-bullying campaign attempted “to indoctrinate kids with Marxist cultural relativism”.

Bill Shorten branded Bernardi a homophobe. Slurs are a poor counterfeit for reason, as are conspiracy theories. As we’ll see, relativism is a charge that likes it both ways.

Bernardi described Shortens jibe as “a really sad indictment on the modern character of political debate”. Whilst true, this is not coming from the saviour of reason.“Bestiality” and “Burqas” are words inversely associated with that comparison. When he joined the Coalition front bench as a comparative young man, some feared his star had risen too soon — he’d become an anachronism before his time.

Read more

Can Australian Catholicism Save Itself From Its Ultra-Conservative Forces?

New Matilda 22 February 2016 – Can Australian Catholicism Save Itself From Its Ultra-Conservative Forces? (images courtesy New Matilda)

(IMAGE: paul bica, Flickr).

The leaked allegations of child abuse against Cardinal George Pell aren’t surprising, nor should they particularly diminish anyone’s opinion of him. Simply, there’s no room below rock-bottom. No need then for a new Tim Minchin song, or any reappraisal at all. Whether they have basis in fact remains to be seen.

The only certainty is that, regardless of the conclusion of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse, or the outcome of police investigations, Pell will never face a punishment commensurate with his failures.

This is just the latest in a series of recent public relations disasters for the Catholic Church. The aftershocks will reverberate for some time. But amidst these ructions, Australian Catholicism might find a ray of hope in casting out some of its more vocal and acidulous conservative colleagues. A more progressive and non-partisan church leadership would be a good thing – and dare I say, one more in line with the Christian values espoused by Jesus.

Pell cited health grounds to avoid appearing in person for the hearings of the Royal Commission. Given the year-long investigation into multiple allegations of abuse against him by the Victoria Police SANO taskforce, many will conclude he had other reasons for refusing to come. Pell cannot be compelled to answer questions whilst he remains in Rome.

It’s not the first time allegations of sexual abuse have been levelled at Pell. In 2002, a church-inquiry found insufficient evidence to uphold the charge Pell molested a boy on a Phillip Island holiday camp in the early 1960’s. In contrast to Pell’s claim that he was “exonerated”, the Southwell inquiry concluded the testimony of both Pell and his accuser were credible, but there was insufficient cause to establish the allegation.

Having affixed his wagon to conservative forces, Pell’s own troubles exacerbate the steady worsening of community sentiment towards conservative Christianity. Read more here.

(IMAGE: Jody Claborn, Flickr)
(IMAGE: Jody Claborn, Flickr)

 

 

Professor who said Christians and Muslims Worship the Same Imaginary Being resigns from Wheaton

Charges of firing politics Professor Dr Larycia Hawkins have been withdrawn. So says Wheaton College provost Stan Jones, although the “place of resolution and reconciliation” they’ve come to, has resulted in Dr Hawkins moving on.

This follows her controversial suspension for her posting on Facebook where, whilst wearing the Hijab, she claimed Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

I stand in solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.

Wheaton College suspended the professor because her comment doesn’t conform to their Statement of Faith. Wheaton’s response was described as “religious bigotry” by the Chicago Tribune, and as “anti-Muslim bigotry” by Theology professor at Yale, Miroslav Volf, whose book Allah: A Christian Response, makes the argument that Jews, Christian and Muslims all worship the same God.

Consider for a moment how facile this debate is. Grown men and women attempting to decipher whether their religion’s unseen thing is actually the same unseen thing worshipped by others.

This provides an interesting parallel to the religious project in general, in which competing sects insist with utter certainty their own version of the unknowable is true and that all others are certainly false. So much certainty aimed at what is always erstwhile admitted as unknowable.

After leaping into the unknowable, theologians return claiming ultimate knowledge, blithely claiming to have achieved the impossible.

As he was about to burned at the stake, Protestant reformer, Jan Hus exclaimed “Sanctus Simplicitus!” referring to an elderly woman who threw a comically small amount of brushwood onto his pyre.

Meaning “Holy simplicity”, this phrase, in this context, reminds us of how disputes over unverifiable dogma have perennially stoked the fires of division and hatred.

We’re reminded of the aftermath of his execution when the Hussite Bohemians began to reject to teachings of the Papacy resulting in Pope Martin V’s Crusade against them. Where there is no answer, or where the answer is unverifiable, certainty somehow becomes absolute and an oppressive force.

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

Let’s consider some equally pointless questions.

Imagine hillbillies arguing about whether the correct name of the mythological hairy monster is Sasquatch or Bigfoot.

They are soon to be joined by a Himalayan who insists what they are really talking about is the Yeti. But his friend violently disagrees. It’s actually the abominable snowman on vacation.

Is the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage the same as Carl Sagan’s one?

Which brand of invisible new clothes does the Emperor wear?

Such questions are plainly absurd as they speak of undiscovered, abstract concepts.

Gods are defined by the various characteristics assigned by the religion and the mythology.

The claim that both Christianity and Islam worship the same God is unverifiable, and arguably, nonsensical. An entity is defined by its nature, and simply cannot be regarded as the same entity as another entity which has different qualities.

Unless one wants to argue that God is protean and relativistic, and can simultaneously exist as whatever everyone wants him to be.

No-one knows if they’re worshiping the same God as another religion because there’s nothing to know. It’s a vapid, meaningless question.

Stan Jones apologized to Dr Hawkins for his “lack of wisdom and collegiality”. But even that’s a bit rich, considering that before wisdom one must first acquire common sense.

Only The Ghosts Of Christmas Past Know Why Advancing Religion Is Still Tax-Free

The Huffington Post Australia has published my article originally published in New Matilda as No More Tax Loopholes: It’s Time for Faith Groups and Religions to Render under Caesar.

Only The Ghosts Of Christmas Past Know Why Advancing Religion Is Still Tax-Free – Huffington Post Australia – 07/01/16

And Jesus Answering Said Unto Them, Render To Caesar The Things That Are Caesar's, And To God The Things That Are God's. And They Marvelled At Him. After A Work By Bartolomeo Manfredi. From Les Artes Au Moyen Age, Published Paris 1873. (Photo by: Universal History Archive/UIG via Getty Images)

And Jesus Answering Said Unto Them, Render To Caesar The Things That Are Caesar’s, And To God The Things That Are God’s. And They Marvelled At Him. After A Work By Bartolomeo Manfredi. From Les Artes Au Moyen Age, Published Paris 1873. (Photo by: Universal History Archive/UIG via Getty Images)

Jesus was quite clear on the question of tax, famously advising the Jews to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Fast forward to contemporary Australia and there’s precious little rendering going on. In fact, successive federal governments have seemed determined to render unto God the things rendered unto them by the voting public.

Nominating the purpose of “advancing religion” is one of the ways not-for-profits can gain tax-exempt status. In doing so, faith groups also avoid many state taxes, stamp duties and local government charges. Tax-free status is granted on the basis that advancing religion is unequivocally beneficial to the public.

We can trace the origins of this presumption to the 400-year-old Statute of Elizabeth. Evidently, the following four centuries of barbecuing heretics and warring over the finer points of doctrine haven’t quite dispelled this shibboleth.

The other charitable purposes covered by the Charities Act are directly beneficial to the public. No ambiguity pertains to purposes such as alleviating poverty, caring for the aged, and providing social welfare. Indeed, many faith-based service providers obtain tax-free status by nominating one of these genuinely charitable purposes. Thus, genuinely charitable faith groups would suffer no disadvantage from scrapping “advancing religion”.

Thousands of Australians are involved in endeavours such as helping children in need, providing food and shelter for the homeless, and Meals on Wheels for the aged. This work is laudable regardless of whether they’re faith-based or secular — even more so since many volunteers are unpaid.

Some would argue that “advancing religion” enables these charitable services. But since they’re already available as charitable purposes, “advancing religion” actually incentivises groups who don’t provide charitable services.

In days of yore, advancing religion was beneficial to the public because the public was universally religious. Everyone participated in it. But these days, despite the attempts of recent governments to reassert Christianity in schools, young people are becoming less and less religious.

Non-religion is the highest category for Australians below the age of 25. The more governments try to promote faith, the more public sentiment moves away from it — as if they are mutually repellent forces. Despite all the incentives, religion isn’t “advancing”, it’s retreating.

We commence 2016 a determinedly profane people. Perhaps it’s due to the perspective from our relatively prosperous and peaceful sandy haven in the south oceans. Even more glaring is the contradistinction between living conditions in our secular country, and those which are fervently religious.

An increasing number of Australians answer the Census as “No religion”. By 2017, non-belief will overtake Catholicism to become the largest demographic. Fewer than 8 percent of Australians attend church regularly. Only 15 percent of men and 22 percent of women observe the doctrines of their faith. 84 percent of Australians think religion should have no role in public affairs.

And yet we all subsidise its promotion. If there’s an exercise in futility, this is it. What’s the point in patronising empty churches? Why must all Australians chip in for activities that so few take part in? And it’s not just that so few Australians benefit from advancing religion, many faith groups act in ways contrary to the public interest and to the ideals of charity.

The prosperity gospel of Hillsong Church features pastors who make “bags of cash”, and demands its flock to give a 10th of their income to the church. Its leader, Brian Houston, even wrote a book called You Need More Money.

The fundamentalist Christian Exclusive Brethren, accused of splitting up families, were described by Kevin Rudd in 2007 as an “extremist cult”.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) now excommunicates same-sex couples and their children.

Scientology demands larger and larger payments from its disciples as they climb the rungs of its audit hierarchy. By the time they get to the upper levels, a substantial, life-altering investment has been made. Only then do they hear the science fiction-esque foundational story of galactic commander Xenu, alien spirits called Thetans, and the hydrogen bombs which were dropped into Earth’s volcanoes.

In opposing Scientology, Independent senator Nick Xenophon has proposed a public benefit test to assess the aims and activities of proposed charitable groups. Though similar to a scheme used in the UK, the Federal parliament voted this down in 2010.

The Catholic Church’s moral authority has been crippled by the child sexual abuse scandal. Despite the payouts to victims of sex abuse, the Catholic Church is still likely the wealthiest private institution in the world. Its treasure appears to be on earth rather than in heaven, but if it followed Jesus and sold all it has and gave it to the poor, we’d have an immediate end to extreme world poverty.

Faith groups avoid billions of dollars in tax. The Australian charity sector recorded a 2014 income of $104 billion, with 37.5 percent of groups nominating the purpose of advancing religion. Basic religious charities aren’t even required to submit financial reports. No exact figures exist, but according to the Secular Party of Australia, tax exemptions could cost taxpayers up to $31 billion per annum.

We should cease sponsoring the dogmas of faith, and use the billions of dollars saved on evidence-based policies. Reinvest the money in infrastructure, education, science, technology and healthcare. Consider easing the debt burden on University graduates or use the savings to fund tax cuts for ordinary Australians. Or give tax credits to charity’s unpaid volunteers.

It’s not as if we couldn’t use the money. Our country has a revenue problem, an ageing population and an economy requiring renewal through investment in innovation. Australia is face to face with the challenge of a tech-led global economy. No longer can we rely on simply gouging our wealth from the soil. Never before has the way we spend our tax dollars been more crucial.

Tax dollars must be allocated to programmes providing real and measurable benefits to all. We cannot afford the luxury of subsidising arcane and increasingly irrelevant belief systems which provide little tangible benefit.

The ghosts of Christmas past still haunt our tax policies, recalling a time when religiosity was universal, churches were unblemished by scandal and were still considered the exemplars of moral goodness. Not anymore. Not one of our set of competing religious ideologies has proven itself universally good. If any ideology could substantiate such a grand claim we would have all subscribed to it by now. As Jesus instructed, faith groups must now properly render unto Caesar.

Did Jesus provide atonement for the sins of mankind? Did he pay for our sins? If so, it’s doubtful that he wanted tax credits in return. As we move into a new year, we should consider removing the anachronism of tax-free status for advancing religion, reserving it for activities providing direct and unambiguous benefits to society.

It’s Time For Faith Groups And Religions To Render Unto Caesar

 

No More Tax Loopholes: It’s Time For Faith Groups And Religions To Render Unto Caesar

Jesus was quite clear on the question of tax. Noting the Roman coin bearing the emperor’s graven image, he advised the Jews to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Fast forward to contemporary Australia and there’s precious little rendering going on.

Nominating the purpose of “advancing religion” is one of the ways not-for-profits can gain tax-exempt status. In doing so, faith groups also avoid many state taxes, stamp duties and local government charges.

Tax-free status is granted on the basis that advancing religion is unequivocally beneficial to the public.

Continued

The loveless marriage: ‘religious’ and ‘freedom’

The loveless marriage: ‘religious’ and ‘freedom’ – ON LINE opinion 23/12/15

The unhappy marriage of the words “Religious” and “Freedom” is one of convenience.

And there’s no doubt who wears the pants in this relationship. “Freedom” is a grand and illustrious word, the torchbearer of human rights, and the aspiration upon which nations have been built.

Cont..

Religious Freedom Protects Same-Sex Couples Too

New Matilda December 22, 2015

Religious Freedom Protects Same-Sex Couples Too

Marriage-Equality-740x457@2x

The sleight of hand placing religious freedom at the centre of the same-sex marriage debate disguises its real purpose. A wave of the wand, a puff of smoke, and the rights of some have disappeared. So goes the illusionist’s trick that freedom of belief applies only to the faithful.

cont…

A Letter to Gun Obsessed America From a Concerned Australian

A Letter to Gun Obsessed America From a Concerned Australian – The Daily Banter 18/12/15

 

Dear Uncle Sam,

Hello from your less evolved, backward relatives in Australia. We’re not Ozzies you know, it’s Aussies. Not with the “S” sound but a “Z” sound and a softer “O” sound: Not the halting “O” sound you guys make. (And we have nothing to do with Austria).

Please excuse the whinging. It’s been quite boring down here. With no automatic weapons there’s jack to do.

I saw the comments of your National Rifle Association Chief, Wayne La Pierre, about our previous Howard government’s draconian seizure of our personal weapons stores as “Australia’s theft of freedom from its law-abiding citizens”.

Well that’s news to us down under. No-one cares. If anyone’s liberty has been threatened it’s the criminals who find it harder to get semi-automatic weapons.

We haven’t had a serious shooting spree since the Port Arthur massacre of 1996.

Here’s a graph of our massacres in the last year:

 

massacreslastyear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And despite what LaPierre said, we haven’t had many gun toting criminal gangs protesting about their loss of freedom.

That’s why we need the Royal Family. Without them there would be no news at all. Did you hear that our ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott awarded Prince Philip with a knighthood? Yes: apparently he was aware that he was already a Prince.

This is clearly a symptom of boredom. Too few problems. It’s an interesting comparison that our Prime Minister can do something almost completely insane without even telling his governmental colleagues, whilst your President can’t even implement sensible policies.

You have to understand that we’re long way away from anywhere down here. That’s why another previous Prime Minister John Howard was so obsequious to George Bush. He would’ve followed George W over the edge of the world and been thankful.

Over here, Kim Kardashian’s arse (ass) is a celebrity in its own right.

We’re grateful for any news we can get.
But to be honest I don’t even understand why regular people want to have automatic weapons. Do they really want them?
Do they anticipate break and enters conducted by hordes of people – armed militias perhaps? Do your homes have prison style watch houses with guards armed with submachine guns?

If so, I’m sure it’s a trend which will reach our fatal shores eventually.

But it could be a problem. Just imagine if Australian tennis stars got automatic weapons. Hot headed jerks with a good aim. Thousands would die.

And imagine the majors Greg Norman could’ve won. Take that Larry Mize! Not feeling so lucky now, are you punk?

But for now we’ll just have to make do with hoping something bad happens to Angelina Jolie. We never did get over Brad leaving Jennifer.

I think it’s crucial that your Constitution protects the right to purchase an arsenal of military style weapons in order to wreak havoc on an Elementary School. And freely gun down first graders such as happened at Sandy Hook.

Who knows when the urge to commit such a crime may occur?

This I suppose is why you are the home of the free. And the land of the brave. One necessitates the other. But I guess that’s your song the Blood-Speckled Banner or whatever it’s called.

As one of its lesser known verses says:

“No refuge could save the hireling and slave,

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.”

And who knows when you might feel like enjoying your Constitutional freedoms by spraying bullets throughout a crowded cinema.

And of course, this means you have to bring your own weapons just in case a freeman gets the urge. Popcorn, soda and an Uzi.

We’ve got it backwards here in Australia. We wouldn’t bring guns to the cinema because there’s not many gun owning maniacs likely to shoot up the place.

Besides, we want to see the movie.

There’s enough wanton murder in these movies – usually hundreds of deaths, most of them senseless. But sadly, we don’t get to live out the fantasy of blowing away our enemies whilst delivering a glib one-liner.

How is my cousin Tony by the way? Say hello to my little friend.

Not much else to report, I’m afraid. I’m going to the beach for a surf. Imagine all the sharks I could shoot if I had an AK-47!

Yours insincerely,

Aussie