Posts

Champions Of ‘Religious Freedom’ Should Be Careful What They Pray For

Champions Of ‘Religious Freedom’ Should Be Careful What They Pray For – Published in HuffPost Australia 6 October 2017

Religious liberty should not become a Trojan horse for perpetuating certain views.

 

By invoking a supposed threat to religious freedom, the scare campaign against same-sex marriage illuminates a common misunderstanding of what the term means — highlighting how it has become a proxy for religious privilege, used to shield a particular subset of traditionalist beliefs. The same beliefs held by John Howard, the Australian Christian Lobby, Tony Abbott and conservative pundits such as Paul Kelly.

They should be careful what they wish for, because a wider understanding of religious freedom would threaten the many privileges faith groups continue to enjoy in this country. That’s why Christian groups have opposed all new laws aimed at assuring religious freedom since 1980. By trading on an historical respect for faith, but seeking to protect only their own narrow range of beliefs, they risk eroding that respect even further.

Religious freedom cannot mean that one set of beliefs ought to take precedence over another, or that religious ideas should trump nonreligious ideas.

However, religious freedom is widely understood to be exclusive to faith-based beliefs. And, for the ‘threat’ argument to have any teeth, one must accept that society should actively discriminate in favour of religious convictions.

Cake makers, florists and wedding registrars must be allowed to act in accordance with their faith, notwithstanding the beliefs of those supporting the same-sex union. The ‘threat’ is that the law will force the faithful to act against their conscience.

This is framed as ‘protection’. But, why are only religious beliefs worthy of protection? What this would mean in practice, is the faithful gain a special pass to exempt themselves from the laws of the land. But, paraphrasing George Orwell, why are some beliefs more equal than others?

religious freedom

Sabre-rattlers of religious freedom are running a campaign antithetical to their own agenda.

 

We generally don’t exempt individuals from the law on account of their beliefs. Government employees who disagree with immigration policy cannot refuse to implement policy. Business owners cannot ignore laws which impinge on their conscience. Controversially, only religious organisations get the privilege of exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation.

But here’s the problem — freedom of belief was never intended as a magic wand for the faithful.

Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights vouchsafes “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, and protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, and the right to profess any belief. The progenitor of religious freedom is freedom of thought; which U.S. Supreme Court Judge Benjamin Cardozo described as “the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom”.

undhr freedom of thought

There is no belief hierarchy where certain beliefs carry more weight than others — beliefs are protected until they impinge on others. Religious liberty should not become a Trojan horse for perpetuating certain views.

Nor is religious freedom unlimited. The High Court of Australia has always enforced Section 116 rather narrowly, balancing religious freedom with the public good. In 1912 it upheld compulsory military training for boys in spite of their religious objections, and in the 1943 Jehovah’s Witnesses case, it ruled that the Constitution did not protect the church from engaging in activities prejudicing the war effort. In Kruger v Commonwealth(1997) it was found that Section 116 allowed laws which indirectly prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Thus, according to our own High Court, the right to manifest religious beliefs is not absolute, and must exist in balance with other considerations.

In many countries, religious freedom is protected as part of a Bill of Rights along with other key freedoms. However, the same-sex marriage opponents explicitly reject a Bill of Rights, evidently, preferring religious freedom to remain unfettered by a modern understanding of human rights.

Which raises the question of how marriage equality represents a threat to our freedoms?

In an article for ABC Religion & Ethics, Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher described as follows, the supposedly dystopian future Australia which would result from legalising marriage equality:

  • evangelical business owners are threatened with legal action for discriminating against gay weddings,
  • religious schools would be forced to teach a state-approved tolerant ‘gay friendly’ curriculum,
  • religious instruction in secular state schools has been scrapped,
  • religious organisations have lost their charitable status, and now “pay the same taxes and rates levied on any other business”.

What a prodigious slide down the slippery slope! Just how legalising same-sex marriage would suddenly result in the end of tax free status, is not explained. Even so, these ‘consequences’ are hardly horrifying.

Indeed, they are all issues in which freedom of thought, conscience and religion is balanced with the rights of individuals and the public good.

Religious freedom does not only apply to those who take the Bible literally. Equally, it applies to Christians who support same-sex marriage; to the 40 percent of LGBTQ people who are Christian, to those who hold spiritual beliefs, those of other faiths, and those with no faith.

Capturing the essence of religious liberty, the UK Secretary of Employment said in 2005, that a hallmark of a civilised society is respect for each other’s beliefs. Safeguarding and balancing the rights of individuals in a pluralist society enables multiple belief systems to coexist in harmony.

Thus, sabre-rattlers of religious freedom are running a campaign antithetical to their own agenda. They should exercise caution with their blades, lest their wishes are granted.

Australia’s Census Result Heralds a Religion-neutral Secular Shift

As published in Areo Magazine Australia’s Census Result Heralds a Secular Shift – 29 June 2017

The surge in “No religion” in the 2016 Census heralds a more secular Australia. With a rise from 22.3% in 2011 to 30.1% in 2016, “No Religion” has overtaken Catholicism to become the most popular belief category.

Mirroring the trend in similar western countries, Australia has been losing its religion over a long period — Christianity has fallen from 88% in 1966 to 52.1% in 2016. Given one third of Australians are now nonbelievers, and Christianity has fallen to below 50% in six out of eight states, we are now without a dominant belief system.

But “secular” is not synonymous with non-belief. The impetus for a more secular society results from acknowledging the end of Christian hegemony, and in recognizing our increased cultural diversity and religious pluralism. “Secular” means the separation of church and state. Specifically, our Constitution’s Section 116 precludes the Federal government from making “any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion…”

The religious neutral approach of our founding fathers was influenced by the “establishment” clause in the US Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But while the establishment clause has been applied strictly by the US courts, the similar words contained in Section 116 only apply to the Federal government, and have been interpreted so narrowly that no court has ever found any law to be in contravention of Section 116.

establishment clause

And so, our increasing pluralism, as evidenced by the Census result, provide a strong impetus to embrace a more robust understanding of secularism. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t emulate the United States in disallowing school prayers and prohibiting teachers from preaching religion. Similarly, Christian prayers have no place in opening Parliament.

Similarly, those in receipt of taxpayer funds, should not have the power to discriminate on the basis of faith. Thus, the blanket exemptions from anti-discrimination law which exist for tax payer funded religious institutions, including private schools, must be reconsidered.

But it’s more than this. Realizing a truly secular state requires a belief-neutral and evidence-based approach to policymaking. Specifically, policy must not become beholden to the religious views of individuals or religious lobby groups. Again and again we see the same old stalemate; as issues such as same sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia, are stymied by the “religious convictions” of a few: as if religiosity grants them a sacred power of veto.

But an equitable and fair minded approach should not extend to banishing faith from the public square. Crucially, the distinction is between state-sponsored religious favoritism, and the secular freedom to discuss the tenets and values embedded in religious or nonreligious beliefs.

Indeed, a secular approach embraces the understanding of religious freedom outlined by Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which protects the freedom to express any thought or belief, religious or otherwise.

Thus, religious beliefs continue to form a key part of our political discourse. Policies can be justified based on the tenets of religion, as long as they do not compel religious belief or worship. For example, the opponents of same sex marriage would continue to enjoy complete freedom to express their views in terms of a biblical view of marriage. Equally, the champions of policy change in abortion could express their views in whatever religious or nonreligious context they see fit.    

A neutral approach does not equate to saying that belief is only a personal matter, and that religion has no place in politics. Secularism is, after all, a tool for liberty, not a restriction on our freedoms. Free expression of all beliefs is the defining element of the secular state, and must be vouchsafed.

In that respect, a secular country is distinguished from an irreligious one. The “wall of separation” provided by the US establishment clause was built and fortified by Protestant versus Catholic enmities. Thus, the oft-repeated pejorative terms of “aggressive” or “radical” secularism, misunderstands the concept. Secularism is about fairness, not unbelief. A more robust form of secularism is evinced in the level playing field — maximizing freedom, and minimizing privilege.

JFK secularism

Thus, secularism cannot be weaponized by the nonbeliever: those who want to wield the “secular” hammer misunderstands it’s meaning. Secularism is not, as is often erroneously asserted, a separate set of irreligious values competing with Christianity in a zero sum game. We do not lose the values which underpin our society, and which are an amalgam of all of our various traditions and evolutionary history, stretching back and beyond the Athenian democracy of the 5th century B.C. We do not discard the values of Christianity; just as, we do not junk our democratic values, including the principle of government by the people and for the people.  Secularism simply means that the state cannot promote or dictate particular beliefs systems in preference to others. 

The 2016 Census result shows a significant shift away from Christianity as our dominant belief system, suggesting a shift toward a more secular society. In the long term, a religion-neutral approach would have the dual benefit of levelling the playing field, as well as protecting the rights of individuals and groups to hold and practice an increasingly diverse set of belief systems.

The Census surge in non-belief heralds a new secularism

 
Census surge heralds a secular state – The Courier Mail 28 June 2017

MORE Australians ticked “No religion” in the 2016 Census than any other belief category. The results, released yesterday, show non-belief surging from 22.3 per cent in 2011 to 30.1, overtaking Catholicism which fell from 25.3 per cent to 22.6.

The change represents a watershed. The number of Christians has fallen from 88 per cent in 1966 to 52.1 per cent in 2016; a free fall which looks set to continue given 39 per cent of adults aged 18-34 now report no religion.

nation of nonbelievers

Christian dominance is ending and, marking a seismic shift in our belief landscape, nearly one third of Australians are now nonbelievers.

The effect should be wide ranging: a new voting block of nonbelievers surely forces us to consider bolstering our rather weak version of secularism.

Providing further impetus to consider this change is the fact that a fading religious belief runs deeper than just the rise in nonbelievers. Many of those marking “Christian” on the Census are expressing a “cultural” preference rather than genuine religious belief.

A 2012 McCrindle survey reported one third of Christians were more spiritual than religious.

In that respect, Australian data on Christian religious observance mirrors that of other western countries such as the UK, Ireland and the Scandinavian countries. Less than 10% of us attend church regularly, and the majority of weddings and funerals are now secular events. Caring more about everyday matters, mainstream Christians are mostly nominal, and unobservant.

Driven by our sharp decline in religiosity, we can expect to see our type of secularism become more robust, and more determinedly belief-neutral. In contrast to the US, which has enforced the Establishment Clause strictly, our Constitution’s Section 116 has always been interpreted narrowly (it doesn’t even apply to the states!), allowing a blurry and uneasy relationship between religion and governance.

Which explains how we allow prayers in parliament, along with Christian chaplains and faith-based religious instruction in secular state schools. Bizarrely, blasphemy is still a crime in most states of Australia. The lip service paid to secularism stands, sits uncomfortably with our decreasing piety.

Symptomatic of this decline, parents are increasingly opting their children out of faith-taught religious classes in NSW and QLD state schools. And in Victoria, religious classes were scrapped from curriculum time, in 2015, to allow more focus on core learning.

A new understanding of secularism resists the privileging of specific belief systems in the public domain. As the handmaiden of democracy, secularism insists that Abraham Lincoln’s democratic principle of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, remains pure and undiluted by prioritising the beliefs of one group over another.

A notable disparity exists when taxpayer-funded and tax-free faith groups enjoy blanket exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. So, the taxes of some nonbelievers subsidise groups who actively and legally discriminate against them.

Rising non-belief shines a light on certain areas of public policy where the lobbying of Archbishops and religious groups continue to stonewall progress. Why, for instance, is same sex marriage still not legal? Why is there such a deference to minority views, favouring religious convictions over nonreligious convictions, that the parliament fails to enact popular opinion?

Similarly, consider euthanasia: 75% of Australians support assisted dying and of those who object, 92% have religious connections.

Why does abortion remain technically illegal in NSW and QLD? Providing a safe and legal option for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies is supported by 80% of our populace.

Advancing religion remains a tax free charitable purpose, under laws dating back to the 1600’s, despite a 2016 IPSOS poll showing less than 20% of Australians support the measure. In the same poll, 55% of respondents answered that religion had no public benefit.

2016 census

Necessarily, the freefall in Christianity increases Australia’s diversity of beliefs, emphasizing our pluralism. Each year there are fewer of our fellow citizens who think religious freedom means the right to impose their beliefs on others. Most Australians would agree with the version of religious freedom expressed by article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which protects theistic, nontheistic, and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right to profess any religion or belief.

From this zeitgeist emerges a New Secularism. Underpinned by overwhelming popular support – 75% of Australians support the separation of church and state – the move towards secularism becomes inexorable now that non-belief joins the mainstream. Non-belief is the new normal. The bright light of secularism will guide us away from Christian hegemony, and towards a fairer, more inclusive, state-neutral approach to matters of belief.

religious chart info

Warning Scripture replaced by new type of Theism

Published on The AIM Network – Warning Scripture replaced by new type of Theism – 20 April 2017

————————————–

peopledontwanttohear the truth

Placating the Reverend Fred Nile and the various religious lobbies is no easy task, but the NSW Government has taken to it with Yes Minister style obtuseness and Baldrick-like cunning. Maintaining its cuddly relationship with Scripture enthusiasts, the government has spent $300k on a comprehensive report, waited 18 months to release it (just before Easter), and then refused to accept most of the recommendations.

Particularly brazen, was both the refusal to include Ethics on the enrolment form, and continuing to prevent non-participating students from proceeding with curriculum learning while Scripture was conducted. Both, the NSW Secondary Principals’ Council, and the NSW P & C Federation expressed disappointment and mystification at this outcome.

So, in the wake of this ongoing debacle – and like the phantom from Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol – I’d like to offer the advocates of Scripture a disturbing glimpse into Australia’s atheistic yet-to-come. Christianity is in freefall in Australia: the 2016 Census result will show non-belief overtaking Catholicism as the most popular category. Soon, classes in Secular Humanism and Rationalism will appear in Victorian schools as part of “Learning about world views and religions”. Although these classes will be educational rather than evangelical, it’s not hard to imagine an increasingly irreligious society acquiescing to a more muscular approach to teaching nonreligious worldviews.

Imagine the following inverse scenario: State governments have become beholden to irreligious lobby groups, demanding to protect their freedom to promote their naturalistic belief systems. Perhaps we even have an antitheist holding the balance of power.

And now that the metaphysical wheel has come full circle, we atheists will band together, gather up our copies of “God is not Great – Religion Poisons Everything” by Christopher Hitchens, and begin offering evangelical classes in a new type of Theism. Yes – Antitheism! Just like Scripture, classes will be deceptively marketed as “educational”, and a benign “introduction”, but in practice they will be all-out, Hitchens-like assaults on religion, aimed at ridding children, once and for all, of the human susceptibility and credulity towards the supernatural.

After enduring a century or so of state school Bible-bashing, it’s about time. We have developed a non-believer’s version of the Lausanne movement – the Christian group committed to entreating children into fellowship with Jesus, based on research showing that if they don’t embrace the Lord before the age of 13 they likely never will. Our secular version will scare the bejesus and Jesus out of young children, warning them off celestial tyrants for life.

You’re not a teacher? Don’t worry, we’ll give you the Antitheism crash course, some angry YouTube videos, and a sober pep talk on the importance of brainwashing other people’s children.

We’ve had plenty of time to plan the rise of evangelical antitheism. While Scripture classes segregated us from our friends and frittered away hours of our childhood, we were in the other room, brooding quietly– imagine Damien from Damien the Omen – and secretly plotting revenge.

We envisaged the sort of spine-tingling, dystopian future that would chill the blood of any good Scripture teacher. Same-sex marriage is law. Evidence-based laws and regulations with appropriate limitations allow abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. And with religious exemptions removed from anti-discrimination law, no-one has to lie about their sexuality or pretend to believe in ancient myths to secure employment.

Finally, in state schools, Bible classes have made way for supercharged Antitheism, administered with the same deceptive policies which currently fail to regulate Scripture. Who approves and vets lesson content? No-one.

Parents who fail to be vigilant enough to opt their children out, will find them automatically enrolled into Antitheism. And – accidents will happen – even devout children will suddenly find themselves being told matter-of-factly that there is no God. There’s no heaven or hell either, kids. And by the way, we disapprove of your superstitious parents.

Kids will be Hitch-slapped with the absurdity of the Christian idea that our lives are governed by a God so powerful, he created an unfathomably vast universe with trillions of planets; and yet, is such an inveterate gossip and all-knowing busybody, that he insists on listening to the prayers of every single person on the planet.

Supplanting current day Scripture classes presenting the Bible as “factual” and “historical”, our classes will pillory the “good” book as a litany of fables and comical morality tales. No kids, people did not reside inside of whales, joyride upon Dinosaurs, nor live for 600 years before deciding to have children. Koala’s did not wave goodbye to Noah and leap from tree to tree all the way to Australia without leaving any trace anywhere else.

Morality cannot be derived from myths. Anthropology has shown that Adam and Eve did not exist, thus original sin is bunk. Prohibitions against murder appeared in civilisations predating Christianity and Judaism, well before the supposed Mt. Sinai summit of Moses and God.

That will bring us to the end of term, and our “God is dead” Sombrero party, climaxing spectacularly with the smashing of a lolly-filled Pinyata of Christ the Redeemer.

But we won’t repeat some of the more desperate Christian SRE classes, such as those encouraging instructors to bring in dead animals to dissect, simulating beheadings, age-inappropriate vampire lessons, comparing kids to dirty towels in need of cleansing, and threatening young children or their parents with death.

Nonetheless, Scripture advocates might justifiably recoil from this dread atheistic future. But this future is not inevitable. Take it as a warning of what’s in store unless we change our ways. Perhaps, after all, there is something to be said for a non-discriminatory and comparative approach to teaching religion in state schools. And perhaps, hopefully, the idea of obtruding unverifiable beliefs onto children may seem a little less appealing.

Did you remember secular values this Easter?

Christoncross

An earlier version of this article published in Rendezview The Daily Telegraph 17/04/17 – Christianity no longer a central part of Australian life

 

Last week, in the Courier Mail, Dr Kevin Donnelly felt the need to remind us that celebrating Easter proves the influence of the Bible.

Having taken off the bunny ears and coaxed our chocolate-filled bellies off the couch, most Australians observe the unfastening and remoteness of family Easter festivities from the biblical story of a risen Christ.

And, if Easter really did prove the importance of the Bible, why would we need reminding?

Because, it’s not due to short term memory loss that 9 out of 10 Australians no longer attend church regularly. Nor is sudden memory-failure the reason non-belief will soon overtake Catholicism to become Australia’s largest religious affiliation.

Quite simply, the Christian church is no longer a central part of Australian life, and gentle reminders will be insufficient to revive it.

Increasingly unmoored from religious rituals, it’s worth noting that Easter – a word derived from Eastra, the goddess of spring – was originally a celebration of the spring equinox, with the date determined by the cycles of the moon.

Resurrection and rebirth myths go back as far as recorded history. Cuneiform tablets from 2100 B.C document the resurrection of Ianno, who was judged and killed in the underworld, raised from the dead after three days and restoring fertility to the earth.

And that’s not denying the importance of the Bible in understanding western civilisation. Without it, it’s difficult to comprehend how we got here. Since Constantine adopted Christianity in the 4th century, it has been integral to the character and fabric of western civilization.

But acknowledging our history, does not imply that we should deny the pluralism and diversity of our current society, nor make us intransigent against change. Further, one cannot help but detect a “culture war” theme motivating Donnelly’s argument.

Why for instance does he quote Professor Higgins, from My Fair Lady, saying that English is the language of “Milton, Shakespeare and the Bible”?

The Bible was written in Aramaic, and Jesus was a Palestinian. The Bible was finally translated to English by Protestant reformer William Tyndale in the 16th century amidst theological outrage. The original translations were burned, and Tyndale was finally rewarded for his efforts by strangulation and burning at the stake.

Western civilisation began long before the supposed virgin-birth of Jesus. Rather than being founded upon the New Testament, western culture integrated Christianity into a milieu of Jewish wisdom, Greek philosophy and Roman law.

Again, I would not wish to understate the value of the Bible as part of western literature, but it is a prism through which we understand the past, rather than a light that guides the way in the future.

The recent furore over Coopers Brewing and their support for the Bible Society over same sex marriage, demonstrates the increasing chasm between biblical beliefs and modern secular values.

The idea that our society is somehow held together by the teachings of Jesus, is decisively undermined by the Enlightenment – the secular project, which finally wrested control of government and science from the church.

Finally, secular values allowed different sects and different religions to coexist without endless conflict. The era of science conforming to theology was over, and progress was thereafter swift.

Moreover, the Ten Commandments retain little influence on the modern Australian legal system or indeed modern ethics. Nor were they particularly innovative moral teachings in their time. Surely, it wasn’t the meeting of Moses and God for 40 days and nights on Mt Sinai, which convinced humanity that murder was inadvisable. The prohibition on murder, along with other values such as the golden rule, all appear in the civilisations of India, China, Athens and Rome, predating Christianity by thousands of years.

Raising his Bible to ward off Islamic terrorism, like a crucifix to a vampire, Donnelly suggests the antidote to religious violence is yet more religion. But promoting conformity to Christian teachings will only infuriate and isolate those from other cultural traditions. What we need is a broadening of cultural tolerance, not a narrowing.

What we should remember at holiday times is the things which unite us, not those which divide. Namely, the Enlightenment values of tolerance, secularism, freedom of thought, the rule of law, and democracy. If we owe a debt to Christianity, it’s because of the excesses and dogmas which necessitated modern secular values.

Fundamentalist Islam and rise of alt-right go hand-in-hand

Fundamentalist Islam and rise of alt-right go hand-in-hand – 25 January 2017, as published in the Rendezview, Courier Mail, the Daily Telegraph and The Mercury.

———————————————————————-

One Nation’s second incarnation reflects a global mood of concern with Islamism and jihadism. Pollsters from the major parties have confirmed that its support is grounded in a hardening of attitudes towards Islam.

Growing levels of support for One Nation and other parties of its ilk are amplified by the infuriating determination of major party leaders to deny the link between religious belief and Islamism. This failure to make even the most elementary distinctions about Islam underpins the stunning rise of far Right parties globally.

Barack Obama was fond of saying more people die from falls in the bathtub than from Islamic terrorism. Studiously avoiding using the word “Islam” in relation to incidents of terror, he somehow even contrived to ascribe blame for the Orlando shooting not on the Islamist perpetrator, but on general attitudes to the LGBTI community.

In a telling footnote from the presidential campaign, an email from Hillary Clinton acknowledged Saudi Arabia’s efforts in exporting fundamentalist Islam to all points on the globe, while banking millions of Saudi dollars into the Clinton Foundation.

Pauline Hanson

One Nation’s second incarnation reflects a global mood of concern with Islamism and jihadism. Pollsters from the major parties have confirmed that its support is grounded in a hardening of attitudes towards Islam.

Mentioning or criticising Islam supposedly “feeds the narrative” and “plays into the hands” of terrorists.

But, on the contrary, the “nothing to see here” narrative actually plays into the hands of right wing opportunists and populists. Refusing to acknowledge what is so obvious and in plain view fuels an ardent desire to hear someone talk honestly about it.

Surely, we can acknowledge the influence of the Islamic fundamentalism in groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram, while calmly recognising that these extreme views are held by only a minority of Muslims. Concepts such as jihadism, martyrdom, hard-line sharia law and Dar al-Harb (House of War) are central to Salafi jihadism, and inseparable from Islamic terrorism.

With the signature of Islam written all over these crimes, it’s false and counter-productive to insist they have nothing to do with Islam. Just as it would be false and counter-productive to claim horrors such as the Inquisitions, Crusades and witch burnings were unrelated to Christianity.

Such admissions impugn neither Christianity or Islam, they only highlight the importance of identifying and defeating ideas at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

Failing to isolate and place Islamic terror as a fundamentalist strain of Islam, allows the hard Right to promulgate the culture war narrative, Islam versus the West, reinforcing negative cultural stereotypes and impugning Muslims as a whole.

Promoting social cohesion and tolerance is admirable, but requires stating the facts as they are, not by re-cooking them in more digestible form.

Just as moderate Christians are easily distinguished from their fundamentalist forebears and counterparts, so too are moderate Muslims.

The outstanding success of our Federal and State police and security agencies in foiling home grown terror plots could not have been achieved without a specific focus on the locations, groups and individuals seeking to proselytise Islamic fundamentalism.

Only western arrogance gives no credence or utility to the jihadist ideology, obscuring the unpalatable truth that terrorism is undertaken by rational actors pursuing an explicit religio-political ideology. By ignoring and underestimating the ideology, we ignore the problem, we close our eyes, we cover our ears, and we give a political free kick to anyone willing to honestly name it.

Islamic fundamentalism will not disappear with the defeat of ISIS: watch for the inevitable phoenixes rising out of the ashes promoting the same Islamist ideology. Observe the growth of Islamic fundamentalism close to home, demonstrated by recent terror attacks, public demonstrations, and an insistence on Islam dominating politics.

Support for ISIS registers 11 per cent in Malaysia and 4 per cent in Indonesia, according to a 2016 Pew poll — add to this the return of battle-hardened jihadists from Syria and Iraq.

Note also the harsh sharia law punishments in Aceh and the blasphemy trial of Christian presidential contender Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (known as Ahok), for commenting on a Koranic verse saying Muslims must not elect non-Muslims.

Meanwhile, a review of 2016’s list of terrorist atrocities reads like a gruesome travel itinerary, stamped in the blood of citizens from Paris, Nice, Berlin, Orlando, Ankara, Ohio, Rouen, Java, Marseilles, Kashmir, Bagdad, Quetta, and many more.

And so, while the “nothing to do with Islam” mantra prevails, One Nation and other right wing parties’ candles burn bright.

But, in the main, the Pauline Hanson’s and their parties are long on articulating grievances and short on sensible solutions.

Leaders of the mainstream parties therefore have the opportunity to better articulate the rise of fundamentalist Islam and offer balanced and sensible policy positions on immigration and counter-terrorism.

They can supplant vacuous appeals to nationalism with unapologetic reassertions of our society’s secular, liberal and democratic values which are simultaneously anathema and an antidote to Islamism.

The continued rise of One Nation and others is contingent on their continued failure to do so.


 

 

 

farage refuggee hoardes

 

PS. The following comment on Rendezvie:

 

Boz

Yup. And what’s more, many of us who voted for Hanson don’t agree with the majority of her views, she is just a vehicle for us to tell the major parties to get their heads out of the sand or lose votes.

 

In Defence of Santa: Why he’s just as likely to exist as Jesus

In Defence of Santa – The AIM Network 24/12/2016

————————————

 

By now, the elves are wrapping the toys. The reindeers are running test flights. Santa is busy double-checking Xmas lists, and plotting the logistics of the world’s greatest overnight delivery.

But a new UK board game, Santa vs Jesus, has blighted the festive season with unwelcome sectarian dissension, presenting Xmas as a pitched battle between Jesus and Santa. Cries of “insult, blasphemy” ensue: the satirical board game is accused of falsely equating belief in Jesus with belief in Santa Claus.

My blood boils at this sacrilege. Yet another example of politically correctness gone mad, and elitist intellectuals tainting our most cherished institutions. How dare they demean the good name of Santa Claus? On behalf of children everywhere, let us rise up and defend Santa’s honour. If not for own sake, for the sake of our culture, of our civilization, and by God, for the real meaning of Christmas.

That is, what Christmas really is: an end-of-year celebration, retail bonanza, and family reunion. A shop-til-you-drop procession of tinselled shopping malls, parking rage, office parties, Kris Kringles, twinkling streetscapes, Die-Hard and Love Actually re-runs, culminating in the once-a-year family get-together with the usual disputes and rows – all of the above made tolerable, joyous even, by stupefying quantities of sugar and alcohol.

Arrogantly, anti-Christmas-carol activists poke fun at the Santa story. How could anyone believe a jolly fat man at risk of early-onset-diabetes has the stamina and wherewithal to deliver gifts to every child in the world? Claiming that Santa is only Coca-Cola’s amalgamation of the yuletide characters of various traditions, these immoral, believe-in-nothings only demonstrate their blindness to the value of culture and tradition. Can they prove Santa isn’t real? No.

Frankly, I’m agnostic about the existence of Santa. But just because infrared technology fails to find any trace of an enormous toy shop at the North Pole, doesn’t mean I should rule him out altogether. Sure, I’m sceptical about Santa even fitting into most chimneys and I’ve never seen a flying reindeer. But “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, as they say.

And, since when must omniscient beings lower themselves to mere terrestrial standards of empirical proof? Why should the lowly and common measures of evidence be applied to Santa alone? Indeed, using the arguments applied to other contemporary deities, belief in Santa is more than reasonable.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

As St Anselm argued: given we can conceive of the greatest possible being – and, we accept that a being which exists, is greater than one purely imagined – then, that greatest being must exist. Thus, if we accept the premise that Santa is the greatest gift-giver, then, by irrefutable logic he must exist. Never mind that this also applies to the greatest sophist, the greatest idiot and the greatest obscurantist. They exist also, and often employ St Anselm’s argument in favour of their own articles of faith.

And, as we know, faith is an element of proof in itself. Have faith and ye shall be rewarded. Where a deficit of proof exists one can legitimately insert “faith” to bridge the gap. Then – Poof! – the object of faith reliably appears!

Behold, every year, millions of children put their faith in Santa and the Christmas team dutifully delivers. After days and days of breathless anticipation the big day comes… Then, hurrah! Squeals of delight, and yelps of excitement attend the feverish unwrapping of real, actual gifts. Ask any child how convincing this is.

Further, Santa is ubiquitous during the festive season, appearing on television screens constantly. News services track his progress from the North Pole. Parents everywhere use the supervising presence of Santa to wring some good behaviour out of their otherwise insolent offspring. Either Santa exists, or most of the adults in the world are complicit in a global Santa hoax conspiracy.

If this still fails to satisfy, allow me to borrow one of the planks of Biblical scholarship. The “criterion of embarrassment” states that if historical accounts are embarrassing to their author they can be assumed to be true. Now, consider the story of a ridiculously attired and morbidly obese man who supposedly travels all around the world on flying reindeers delivering presents to children he somehow divines as good. Embarrassment galore! Increasingly, scholars dispute the validity of this criterion – justifiably so, considering debate in the Australian Senate.

Austere scientific thinkers may have trouble accepting the Santa narrative. But remember, this is a moral tale not a scientific one, not meant to be taken literally. It’s about favouring “nice” over “naughty”, “good” over “bad”, by rewarding the good children with presents and lumbering the rest with smelly coal.

But, as all parents of young children know, this begs the question as to how children actually behave. The problem of evil. Given Santa’s omniscience and superpowers, how do we explain the continued reign of terror by these frightening midgets? Free will hardly suffices to explain temper tantrums, impudence and addiction to video games, rivalling that of present-day Australian tennis stars. Seeing as the incentive of gifts has conspicuously failed, and since global warming has curtailed Santa’s access to coal, a more interventionist policy is warranted. It’s unsurprising that the world’s major religions moved to slightly harsher penalties such as an eternity of roasting and re-roasting in the flame-pits of hell. Likewise, it’s easy to see how the religions of Abraham condemned the whole of humanity as corrupt and fallen, requisite of salvation.

And so, a radical new plan emerges. A new prophet will arise – Santa Junior – an elfin messiah of the children. He will be seized by secular powers and gruesomely tortured to death, signifying Santa’s gift of redemption to horrid little monsters everywhere. And then, showcasing Santa’s full repertoire of magical powers, Santa Junior will be sensationally brought back to life. Although this somewhat negates the supposed sacrifice, it caps off the story nicely. And, if this doesn’t work, Santa will equip his sleigh with intercontinental ballistic missiles and commence laying waste to play centres and schools. So please, give Santa some respect. And kids, if you don’t like the sound of apocalyptic Santa, you had better actually be good from now on.

Want to stop nativism listen to the tribe

From the Rationalist Journal December 2016

——————————————————————————————

 

On August 8 2016, over 100 mourners gathered at the Quetta Civil Hospital in Pakistan following the shooting death of the president of the Balochistan Bar Association, Bilal Anwar Kasi.

Nearby, an unknown member of the Taliban affiliated group, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (JuA), was strapping eight kilograms of explosives filled with ball bearings and shrapnel to his body. Soon, a sickening explosion ripped apart the emergency services ward of the hospital, killing 70 mourners and injuring over 120.

One of Pakistan’s most loved musicians, Amhad Sabri, was famous for performing devotional songs from the Sufi tradition dating back to the 13th century. He was shot dead by two men on motorcycles on June 22 2016, because the Taliban consider his music blasphemous.

A month later, in a church in Rouen, France, a priest’s throat was cut and four nuns were taken hostage before the two assailants were shot by police. They were later reported to have been “two soldiers of the Islamic State”.

A satellite view sees the Earth rocked by Islamist attacks on almost a daily basis. These always involve a multitude of different motivations: local, political, ethnic, religious, sectarian and other, but they are held together by a common and identifiable thread – fundamentalist, literalist Islam.

quetta-attack

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While suicide attacks usually happen a long way away, and the chance of being killed by a local attack is small, it’s not irrational to hold some concern over the growth of militant Islam. In a post 9/11 world, where frequent Islamist atrocities coincide with an exodus of refugees from Muslim countries caused by a war being waged in the name of Islam, it would be astonishing if such concerns did not exist. The horror of Islamic terror – its distinctive methods, such as suicide vests and beheading, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians, including women and children – is a language which articulates a clash of cultures in an undeniable way. Even the most illiterate of observers cannot fail to notice.

The concerns and fears which fuelled the Brexit movement and the rise of hard right politics in Europe is made comprehensible by the proximity of millions of mostly Muslim refugees. In contrast, the rise of Donald Trump and our own home-grown groups such as Reclaim Australia and One Nation, come from exploiting and exaggerating these fears. Populist policies have been rewarded by the quadrupling in Hanson’s support, and polls suggesting nearly half Australians want to ban Muslim immigration. This poll is not so surprising after considering Pew’s 2016 survey, which noted a median 43% of the populations of European countries have an unfavourable view of Muslims. A 2013 Ipsos survey commissioned by the newspaper Le Monde noted 74% felt Islam was incompatible with French society. Despite the rhetoric of western politicians who’ve promulgated the nothing-to-do-with-Islam narrative, public perception consistently forms the view that jihadism has everything to do with Islam.

Nativist attitudes are exacerbated by the excuses presented for terrorism. Extremism is excused by Western aggression, the invasion of Iraq, and a long list of other complaints. The Grand Mufti of Australia blamed the 2015 Paris terror attacks on “causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention”. It’s difficult to ignore the veiled threat in his warning that “any discourse which attempts to apportion blame” to a “certain segment of society” would “undermine community harmony and safety”.

The explainer for extremist views is radicalisation. Somehow we’re meant to imagine that no sane person could hold such views unless they come under the hypnotic spell of evil recruiters. And, that most people who rush to join ISIS or join terror cells are already vulnerable to radicalisation because they have been brutalised, racially abused or disenfranchised by their own country. “Radicalisation” joins hands with the “nothing-to-do-with-Islam” narrative obscuring the unpalatable truth that terrorism is undertaken by rational actors pursuing an explicit religio-political ideology.

Reflecting upon this, we must acknowledge that the religion and culture of Islam is a broader church than Christianity. Commentators and apologists are right to criticise those who associate all Muslims with terrorism. We can and should focus on the specific groups and ideologies within Islam who explicitly advocate war with the west. Most modern Muslims view the Quran and the Hadith’s in a similar way to the way Christians view the violent episodes in the Bible. It’s those who do not who represent the problem.

islam-dominate

“Radicalisation” joins hands with the “nothing-to-do-with-Islam” narrative obscuring the unpalatable truth that terrorism is undertaken by rational actors pursuing an explicit religio-political ideology.

A simple but key distinction remains. Within the religion of Islam, specific groups under the umbrella of Salafism reliably spout hateful, intolerant, violent and misogynist philosophies. The subset of Wahhabism, the form of Salafism exported to the world by the oil money of Saudia Arabia represents the revivalist ideology in its most puritanical form. Salafist groups such as al Qaeda, ISIS (ISIL), Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, the Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba all promote a similar insular ideology predicated on the universal application of hard-line sharia law and an apocalyptic vision where Islam finally conquers the world. Regarding other Muslims such as Shias, Sufis, liberal Muslims and other sects as kafir or heretics, terror groups engage in regular sectarian attacks against them.

These groups and ideas are plain to see. There’s no reason why an attitude of tolerance and acceptance must be extended to the small yet identifiable ideologies within Islam that plot our own destruction. To accept that not all Germans were Nazi’s would not have justified tolerating the violence and anti-Semitism of the growing Nazi party.

Several studies on jihadism in France, indicate that deep religious convictions may not be crucial to becoming radicalised. Most recruits are young, some are religious novices, and many are recent converts to Islam. Olivier Roy 2015 writes that jihadism represents “the only cause on the global market”, and “if you kill yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ you are sure to make the national headlines”.

Even so, these studies provide little succour to those who fear Islamic attacks. It’s remains the case that the ideology of Salafism dictates the goals and the methods used to bring terror. Arising usually from within Islamic communities, jihadists attend mosques, observe Islam, often becoming part of a terror cell which is exclusively dedicated to propagating political Islam.

Similarly, scant consolation is derived from the adage that the victims of Islamic attacks are predominantly Muslims. This only indicates the sectarian nature of the conflict, and bears out the enormous span of the Islamic faith. This platitude if often used to emphasize prosaically that not all Muslims are terrorists. Yes, but if we could just get past this simplistic distinction, we’d acknowledge the sectarian nature of the violence suggests that it has everything to do with the perfervid pursuit of a religious and political ideology.

Moreover, little comfort is found in the fact these atrocities are committed by small minorities within the Islamic community. Yet again, let’s acknowledge that not all Muslims are Islamists, but that jihadists come from attributable groups within the Muslim community.

And since we know the names and character of these ideologies, nothing should stop us from openly discussing them. We should discriminate and mitigate against those who profess them, while guarding against the stereotyping of Muslims.

Further, there’s no reason why it should be unacceptable to discuss which cultural or religious beliefs hold pride of place in our society. We have no trouble discussing and enforcing acceptable community attitudes to sexism or racism or free speech. But we have a curious reluctance to discuss religion, and Islam particularly. If a secular group demanded the right to wear clothing which demeaned women there would be an open discussion. If a secular group wanted to install a separate legal system for its own adherents this would be met with derision. (Yet, sharia councils exist within the UK). Christian views on the sanctity of marriage, right to life, or euthanasia are often the subject of vociferous criticism. Whether a person agrees with these views or not, suppressing debate about them because of religious or cultural sensitivities is bound to result in unresolved tensions building beneath the surface.

For such a small minority at 2.2% of the Australian community, Islam receives undue media attention, but also undue deference. Whether this is because of the success of the “Islamophobia” campaign or fear of reprisals and fatwa’s it’s difficult to know. It’s worth noting the anti-racism leader who coined the phrase “Islamophobia”, UK Labour politician Trevor Phillips, now says, “he got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration, with migrants fostering “nations within nations”.

Rather than daring to speak openly about militant Islam, we have government policy operating by stealth. Immigration is offered to other parts of the world rather than trouble spots in the middle east. Malcolm Turnbull proclaims that we have a non-discriminatory immigration policy. But the government has no intention of allowing open slather for Muslim migrants.

If we want to curtail the rise of the xenophobic wingnut right, represented by One Nation, we need to listen to the tribe. Without resorting to farcical policies, such as banning Muslim immigration altogether, we need to listen to the concerns and address the issues. Adopting an attitude of nuance and tolerance entails more than relentlessly reasserting the fatuous claim that not all Muslims are jihadists. We need to discard the obligatory accusations of Islamophobia or bigotry, and engage in an honest discussion which acknowledges the challenges of integration, and the genuine problems within Islam.

The Child is Father of the Man

As published in the Rationalist Society of Australia Journal, September, 2016

——————————————————————————————–

 

What should we tell a child about the world? How do we distinguish between knowledge and beliefs? Answering this question requires us to reach deep down into ourselves and grasp for the forgotten struts that hold one’s view of the world together. Proceed with caution however, as once the supports are prized away the whole thing is apt to collapse.

childthinking

My atypical view comes as a result of my six-year-old son’s placement in a fundamentalist and evangelical religious instruction (RI) program. Despite us immediately pulling him out of it, and even after I’d written opinion pieces opposing RI in the Australian media, our boy was put back in the class without our knowledge.

The experience brought me unwillingly face to face with the question of what to tell my son about religion. I’d prefer him to find these answers on his own. The conversation went like this: I tried to explain the limits of our knowledge, and cast some doubt on his new found certainty of the existence of a Creator God; while my son grilled me as to what I believed – presumably so he could instantly adopt my position. The resentment at being placed in this position cements and reinforces my opposition to proselytising in schools.

The school curriculum is a perennial source of controversy. Was Australia settled or invaded? Is Safe Schools an anti-bullying program or misguided social engineering? What should we teach children about culture, and religion? Opponents of both religious instruction and the Safe Schools program argue against teaching children contested beliefs or ideologies.

One of the architects of Australia’s National Curriculum, Professor Ken Wiltshire, recently demanded a stop to the “outsourcing’’ of religious instruction and sex education to “ideological interest groups’’.

“We don’t want material creeping into the curriculum without it being quality assured. You should never outsource the development of a curriculum to any group with a particular agenda, or blindly accept any curriculum material they have provided to be used in schools”.

The issue is fraught by evolving attitudes toward the rights of children – no longer merely the “don’t speak until spoken to” property of parents.

We should distinguish between rights as they apply to learning in three ways: the rights of parents, the best interests of society, and the rights of the child. In western cultures, parents still enjoy inordinately high levels of control over their child’s education.

According to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), parents have the right to bring up their children in their chosen religious or non-religious belief system.

Consider the tension between the rights of parents, and the rights of the child. The child cannot assess what is best for them and can only rely on the assumed best intentions and good judgement of their parents. But what if the parents insist on inculcating their child into an extreme or harmful belief system?

We also need to balance the entitlements of parents with the utilitarian notion of what is best for society, and reflect on the significance of a child’s potential.

As poet William Wordsworth noted “The child is father of the man”.

 

My heart leaps up when I behold

A rainbow in the sky:

So was it when my life began;

So is it now I am a man;

So be it when I shall grow old,

Or let me die!

The Child is father of the Man;

I could wish my days to be

Bound each to each by natural piety

 

Our days “bound each to each” the child begets the adult, connected by a continuous line of experience. The outcomes of what we teach children extend well beyond the lives of the parents, influencing the temper and texture of our future society.

But how can we measure the rights of parents? Beyond chattel ownership, parent’s rights can be measured in maximising the child’s ongoing welfare and opportunity to flourish.

So, to the extent that the parent’s rights rely on satisfying the best interests of the child, then the child’s rights take precedence. The rights of the parent turn on the best interest of the child. Given the prevailing balancing of parent’s rights over children’s rights, this should give us cause for alarm.

Children’s rights aren’t adequately protected when it’s legal to indoctrinate them into closed orders, send them to extremist schools, or proselytise fundamentalist dogma in state schools. Serving the best interest of society involves providing the child with knowledge and arming them with the critical skills to deploy it.

Those arguing against teaching contesting beliefs strike upon the crucial distinction: beliefs are secondary to knowledge. By definition, beliefs lack the verifiability and or universality which would otherwise render them as knowledge.

So, how about this rule of thumb? If adults cannot agree on a particular proposition, don’t teach it to children.

Challenging the generally accepted meme of parental entitlement, involves allowing the child greater autonomy and freedom of thought to develop their own framework of ideas and beliefs. Wordworth’s phrase evokes the unbroken link between a child’s world and the adult world, but it should also motivate us to reflect upon the gradations between belief and knowledge.

man-w-child-inside

Great Offense at Gay Marriage

A response to a letter to the RSA expressing Great Offense at Gay Marriage that is #SSM #samesame.

Published by the Rationalist Society of Australia website – 21 November 2017


From time to time we get unsolicited letters relating to one or other of our campaigns or policy stances. This one queries why the minority of LGBTI people in our community are being “allowed to undermine the rights of the majority.”

To RSA: On Civil Liberties and Human Rights, by Marianne Melnikas

I take great offense at Gay Marriage that is marriage equality. The LGBTI group will never have the equality of heterosexual couples. Why, simple as a norm a heterosexual couple can produce offspring without the need for a surrogate, donor egg or donor sperm. Yes some heterosexual couples do have trouble conceiving and need assistant of IVF, however this is not the norm.

For LGBTI people they will always need assistance to reproduce, why should a minority have a access to a program which was originally set up to assist otherwise childless heterosexual couples. Now it is down to whoever has the money.

As to actual marriage ceremony, it should be confined to civil ceremonies only, the State does not have the right to tell any religious body what services they can or cannot undertake.

LGBTI play both sides of the coin, they co-habitat and claim to be single when claiming Government Assistance. Yet a heterosexual couple are less able to make the same claims.

An individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, should not be forced to provide a service to a LGBTI couple wishing to marry or arrange to have a child. The right of the individual is being set aside to satisfy the LGBTI group, therefore discrimination is taking place which is not being addressed.

Why is this? Why are a minority Group being allowed to undermine the rights of the majority?traditionalmarriage

Yours

Marianne Melnikas

To Marianne Melnikas Re: Offense at Marriage Equality

Thank you to for your letter to the Rationalist Society of Australia outlining your “great offense at Gay Marriage”. Your argument provides an insight into some of the objections to Same Sex Marriage. In responding I’d like to try to clarify precisely what your offense at gay marriage entails, because your argument appears to fall prey to the fallacy of the non sequitur. As I’m sure you’re aware, this occurs when the conclusion does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement, often referred to in shorthand as “does not follow”.

You say “the LGBTI group” will never have equality with heterosexuals because “as a norm” they don’t produce offspring. And then, you readily acknowledge that some heterosexual couples cannot produce children either. You ask why should the minority LGBTI community, who will “always” need assistance to reproduce, have access to IVF which was set up for childless heterosexual couples? Well Marianne, why shouldn’t they have access to IVF? You seem to have omitted your reasons for excluding them. Aren’t both the LGBTI community and childless couples minority groups? What exactly is your rationale for wanting to grant the rights of one minority group and deny the other?

Even if IVF was set up for heterosexual couples, there’s no reason why this fact should exclude other couples. We need to assess the legitimacy of your reasoning to prohibit LGBTI couples. Perhaps a clue is found in your first sentence highlighting your “great offense”. Why take offense? Implied within your argument is the premise that because LGBTI couples cannot naturally have children, they should not be allowed to. You might also recognise this as the “naturalistic fallacy” — ie, just because something is natural does not necessarily mean it is right or good. MIT cognitive scientist Steven Pinker describes this as follows:

“The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the naturalistic fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK)”.

 

I’m confident you don’t ascribe to the naturalistic fallacy, and so I’m confused as to your “great offense”. Is it because of their sexuality? Because they’re not normal or immoral? They offend you because they are different?

You go on to assert several ways you feel LGBTI couples are infringing on the rights of individuals. Individuals may be forced to provide services to gay couples wanting to marry. But aren’t LGBTI people individuals also? What about their rights? It appears you want to deny their right to marry and raise children because they are a “minority” and “not the norm”.

But equality does not depend on what is the norm.

We assign rights on the basis of our shared humanity, rather than how similar we are to each other. That’s the whole basis of civil rights. That’s why it’s offensive to segregate black people, to refuse to service them or to relegate them to the back of the bus. Our rights do not depend on being part of the majority. Quite the opposite, in fact, as modern notions of human rights are rooted in the post-World War 2 Declaration of Human Rights which specifically sought to protect minorities.

You make the curious claim that governments should not have the right to tell any religious body what services they can or cannot undertake. Notwithstanding the fact that no government has proposed that churches be forced to perform same sex marriages, your assertion also subordinates our democratically elected government to any group claiming to be religious. Is this intentional? Should any religious body have carte blanche to perform any religious service? Think of exorcisms, animal or child sacrifice, circumcision, crucifixions, self-flagellation (such as Ashura day), sharia punishments, infant dropping, vine jumping and countless other harmful practices. I’m confident your answer would be no.

You claim that LGBTI couples cohabit but claim to be single, while claiming Government assistance, whereas heterosexuals are less able to do so. What evidence do you have of this claim? Wouldn’t this be a consequence of the law disallowing them to marry? So, if we make Same Sex Marriage a reality your problem is solved.

Feel free to respond with the missing premises of your argument. Irrespective, I hope this response provides some food for thought.

Best regards

Hugh Harris

Rationalist Society of Australia

We received no further correspondence from Ms Melnikas.