Russell Blackford's Secularist Religion

This took me all afternoon to write.  On ABC religion site you will find Australian atheist Russell Blackford's "Why the secular state has no moral mandate".  American political theologian William Cavanaugh answered a major justification of Blackford's argument with "The 'Wars of Religion' and other fairy tales".  This generated a reply from Blackford called "Don't mention the war! A response to Cavanaugh".  This is an intervention on Blackford's second contribution.  My perception was that Blackford was attempting to build an argument for the exclusion of religous arguments from modern political debate.  Further, I think Cavanaugh had nailed the problems with Blackford's argument.  (Note I have edited it)

 ==========================
Russell, I cannot agree that the William Cavanaugh in “The “Wars of Religions” and other fairy tales” got you wrong.  You have over simply history while Cavanaugh historiography is subtle and well argued. You want to establishment of a religion or world view for the modern Australia and need to a myth to justify this new religion.  You falsely call that 'religion 'secularism'.  Its doctrine is to exclude other religious reasoning from the public debate, there by establishing a religious test and, hence, destroying secularism!

True secularism lacks a religious or world view test for citizenship, pubic office or public debate.

You base your ideology on the myth that there were wars of religion.  You use two devises.  The first is repetition. In your opening paragraph of “Why the secular state has no moral mandate” you repeat the idea of religious wars three times.  Cavanaugh replies that prior to 1700 the distinctions between religion, state, political philosophy, society and so on did not exist.  He names a number of political alliances between those of different religious views.  He point to his own and others work to reinforce his argument.  Cavanaugh then concludes, “If "religion" cannot be separated out as the cause of these wars, then the idea that peace was made by the secular state setting religion aside into a private realm becomes suspect.”

That brings us to your other devise, you ignore the historical context.  The first is the use of the term ‘religion’.  You use it in a modern sense.  As mention above, that sense of the term did not exist prior to 1700.  The other is your comments of Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). Even though I have never read the essay, I feel I have a better understanding of Locke’s discrimination against Catholicism than you.  It appears to us moderns as that era's confusion between religion and politics.  About the same time, Britain excluded Catholics from the throne.  Thank you, Guy Fawkes!

Your real objection seems to be the use of theological reasoning in modern political discourse.  You over simply ‘political’ theology and ignore it depth.  Cavanaugh reflects my frustration with atheists’ pretence of neutrality.  Like the communists of old, they claim to have a scientific reasoning on their side, ignoring all the assumptions they take for granted.  There is none of the humility of political theology.  A great example is the recent address to the German Parliament by Pope Benedict XVI.  He claimed that the modern basis of the law came from the Romans and the Greeks, a point on which I agree.  Christian ethics is never complete; it simply has a vision for humanity. 

At the same time, in the period we have been discussing and without the language, Christians made the first pleas for religious freedom, established the first governments without religious tests and, hence, invented secularism.  This Christian, with my meagre intellectual resources, will defend secularism against anyone, like yourself, who wishes to pervert it and make it a religious test!

===========================

Please, tell me if I have nailed it.

What Leadership Challenge?

The mother of all beef ups is the continual sager of Kevin Rudd challenging Julia Gillard for the ALP leadership.  They never materialise for one simple reason, they do not exist!  For over a year, both the conservative crossbenchers supporting the government, Tony Windsor, member for New England, and Rod Oakeshott, member for Lyne, have said that the if Labor changes its leader they will withdraw their support for the government.  In other words, a change in Labor’s leader will cause a snap election!  Something Windsor pointed out on the 7:30 Report (Monday, 5 February 2012).

The continual speculation about the federal Labor leadership comes from the anti-Labor right.  They are the only beneficiaries.  The right needs a government in crisis, not the government that steered us through the Global Financial Crisis and definately not a government attempting to build a more socially just Australia.  Their allies are jaded journalists who fear missing the next Labor leadership change.  They forget that most of the ALP caucus missed it too.  However, given the chance, the ALP members voted Rudd out.

So ABC has stopped talking about policy and focusing on political tactics.  Last Sunday (5 Feb 2012), I wasted my time in watching the Insiders.  Barry Cassidy had one thing on his mind – ALP leadership speculation.   He wasted an entire interview on with Australia’s Treasurer, Wayne Swan. Cassidy tried to manoeuvre Swan to either criticise Rudd or speculate about the fictitious leadership challenge.  Cassidy got angry when Swan refused to play ball.

Like Peter Lewis on the broadcast version of The Drum (Monday 6 Feb 2012), I can find no reference to any internal ALP source for any leadership challenge to Julia Gillard’s federal Labor leadership.  The supposed challenger, Kevin Rudd, denied there was any challenge.  Other ministers and member of the ALP caucus are saying they are not being sounded out about any challenge.  The key crossbencher Tony Winsor, on whose vote the Government requires, even does not think there is a challenge.

The only one to offer any source is the young Turk, Tim Wilson from the extremist right wing Institute of Public Affair.  In reply to Peter Lewis on The Drum, Wilson said that Tony Winsor had said that he had been approached.  The implication was recently approached.  Yet on 7:30Report (Monday, 6 February 2012) interview Tony Winsor said he had been approached about twelve month ago, hardly current for any recent leadership speculation. 

It is about time the media start reporting policy not political tactics.  We can start having a debate about Tony Abbott address to the National Press Club or Julia Gillard address to theAustralia -Israeli Chamber of Commerce.  There is a debate about what constitutes fairness in the Australian workplaces between employer groups and unions now.  There is little to no mention of this in the press.  No one is holding the right to account for is definition of workplace flexibility which is always preceded by complaints about overpriced workers in Australia.  Listen to Prue Goward on The Drum on Thursday, 2 February 2012 or Joe Hockey and Judith Sloan on Q&A onMonday, 5 February 2012.  Let face it, the political right does not want a social just Australia!  Above all, the right don’t want a debate about policy but political tactics! 

Ben Eltham suffered the same Insiders I did and picked out the right’s confirmation of this policy free zone.  Quoting the transcript Eltham reports:-

"Is there a point," Barrie Cassidy asked, "at which journalists will say to Rudd supporters, who have been on the phone the whole time, 'You've been banging on about this for almost a year, it's time to put up or shut up, we'll just stop listening'?"

"No," replied Nikki Savva, "These stories are too intriguing."

To right Nikki, why talk about policy?


PS I am willing to bet that there will be no challenge to Julia Gillard before the next federal election.  Say $10

WORDS=670

Being Puritanical about Porn is NOT Christian!

This is a comment I place on two opinion pieces of the ABC Religion and Ethics site. One is “Reasons to be weary of anti-porn zealots” by Jennifer Wilson. The other is Gail Dines’ “Exposing the myth of free porn”. I think I was too personal in my comments but I stand by the points made. I once agreed with Gail Dines but now I cannot!

==========
From the condemnation of Tamar (Genesis 38) to the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53 - :11) puritanical thought has appeared to be proper but really was totally oppressive. 

Most pornography is the objectification of a person, mainly women. They become objects of lust, not human beings. Yes, I must confess that I have used porn and have objectified women. It is this objectification of another that is the problem – not the graphic sex acting in a pornographic film. We might not like it, but pornography is just an art form that titillates.

Gail Dines seems to miss this point. She confuses the art with the sin. I have not used porn and objectified women also – however I have never been able to wolf whistle. I have also watched a ‘naughty’ film with my then girlfriend and had a very memorable night. Further, that film genre that was mentioned in the article. We loved playing it out but would be horrified if anyone did it for real! I would not say we were engaged in objectification but mutual exploration of the darker side of our humanity is a safe and trusted environment.

Trying to play the socialist moral card by pointing to the increasing porn industry corporatization simply does not work either. So how is the porn industry different from any other industry in the Western capitalist world? Our economies are now characterised by big corporate oligarchies with small players struggling for air.

The porn industry has engaged in a marketing strategy that has been forced on them. Can you imagine the music or film industry creating free film and music sites? No, both industries have fought what they have labelled piracy. Both industries have lobbied governments to make internet service providers responsible for what their customers download. Why? Because their products are freely available in shops and cinemas. The same is not true of the porn art form. To get around excessive censorship, ‘free’ porn sites have been created so that customers can sample the material for sale. In the past, we have prevented people from going to the cinema or buying a video (in its various historical forms). We have restricted the genres so that we could protect our children. Now, our children just need to fire up a computer.

Yes, pornography harms both men and women. We see it as naughty. So does driving cars or eating fast food which we don’t see as naughty. We need to stop being so puritanical about it. We need to stop threatening Tamar and the woman could in adultery with stoning.
============

Occupy for what?

The re-emergence of a left wing movement is something to be celebrated.  I have celebrated the Occupy Wall Street and its various children throughout the world.  However, I have one problem with it.  It is a protest against greed.  It joins a host of conservative organisations like the capitalist regulator like the ACCC, capitalist like Warren Buffet conservative politician like Tony Abbott and social conservative institutions like the Catholic Church are against greed.  Being against greed is a lot like being in favour of motherhood.

At present I have not participate in them due to work.  However, I crave one that actually has an objective.  The left does not need an ideal or another story, it needs something concrete.  One example in Australia is to counter the mining industry’s campaign against the original mining tax or one for a progressive taxation scheme instead of the calls to raise the GST rate.  That way we can fight greed and have an impact on something other than demonstrating liberal democracy’s hatred of politics.

Dawkins, Polkinghorne and the Templeton Prize

Dawkins criticises an unnamed Cambridge geologist who is “well advanced along the Faustian road to a future Templeton Prize”.[1]  Earlier he asserted “Templeton’s money corrupts science”[2].  For those who have never heard of the Templeton Prize, it was established by Sir John Templeton (1912-2008) in 1972.  It is awarded to the person who most advances the spiritual incite of humanity.  It is often given to a scientist who has promoted the understanding between the sciences and religion.  Currently the prize is worth one million pounds sterling.  Dawkins implies that winner of the Templeton Prize like the Rev John Polkinghorne made the Faustian deal with religion.  Polkinghorne was a committed Christian in both the 1950s and 60s, years before the inaugural Templeton Prize.  He justly won it in 2002.

Like Polkinghorne, I have travelled that Faustian road willingly.  Like Faust, I gave my life.  Unlike Faust, I did not make my deal with the devil and have gained nothing worldly.  Unlike Polkinghorne, I have done nothing to deserve to win the Templeton Prize.

I would like to remind my friends that the 2012 TempletonPrize nominations close on 3 October 2011. God knows I need the moeny!

---

[1] Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion (London: Bantam, 2006), p.156.

[2] Dawkins, 2006, p.153.

An Example of Secterian Secularism

This is a reply to Simon Longstaff's "Objections of Fred Nile to ethics classes are baseless" posted on the ABC Religion and Ethics website.

I have two problems with providing special ethics education as alternative to special religious education.

Firstly, why should religious children be deprived of an ethics education so that they can be educated about their faith?  Ethics should be in the curriculum and taught to all students, not only those who will not be involved in special religious education.  Grandad’s comment (21 July, 9:10:36 am) informs us that this is the position of the Churches in NSW.

Second, there seems to be two different forms of secularism.  One of those forms derives from a Christian tradition, namely Baptists.  Baptist preacher Roger Williams help found Rhode Island, the first administrative area without any religious test.  This secularism is now accepted by most Christians.  It basis comes from Queen Elizabeth I’s desire not to see into a person’s heart.  It is their behaviour and actions a state should judge.

The other form of secularism could be called sectarian secularism.  This form of secularism wants religious thought excluded from the public debate.  It promotes an anti-religious view of life.  Any contact with religion is seen as brainwashing.  Or a regression to some more primitive form of thought.  This is the use of secularism to promote some form of atheism or agnosticism.  It wants to dictate what is in a person’s heart.

Simon Longstaff’s article takes the form of many of the more recent contributions of the sectarian secularist.  He takes a bovver boy of Christian thought, like Fred Nile, and pretends that he represents the entire religion.  Many seem not to understand that the majority of Church going Christians do not and have never voted for the Christian Democrats.  Nile’s objection that special ethics education should not be scheduled at the same time as special religious education does not go as far as the NSW Churches objection, but fits into that criticism.

Unfortunately, I have not seen the curriculum of the NSW special ethics classes.  Does it pretend that common sense is the basis of ethics?  Does it address issue of where our understanding of ethics comes from?  Many thoughtful academics argue that ethics has a religious origin while other equally thoughtful ones disagree.  Are the students being exposed to that debate and allowed to make up their own minds?

Finally, it is not for the state to organise alternatives to religious education.  If someone wants to organise special atheism or agnosticism classes, that is fine.  However, ethics is a subject that should be compulsory to all students, not only in New South Wales but also my own state of Western Australia.  If parents do not want their student subject to special religious education then they will suffer the consequences.

Comrade Isaiah - Part 1

I keep being told that Christian socialism is a theological oxymoron. These people spend time defending the acumination of asserts. However, Comrade Isaiah might disagree

Woe betide those who add house to house and join field to field, until everyone else is displaced, and you are left as sole inhabitants of the countryside.  In my hearing the Lord of Hosts made this solemn oath: “Great houses will be brought to ruin, five mansions left uninhabited. Five acres of vineyard will yield only a gallon and ten bushels of seed return only a peck” (Isaiah 5:8-10 - REB).

I wonder what that says about acumination private property?  I wounder how the religious right woud respond?