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?

Christian Values?

The Australian Christian Values Checklist has been produced by the usual Christian right suspects for the past few elections. This election’s one wants all polices assessed by “family impact” statements. Presuming these would look for options that reduce the divorce rates and promote stable long lasting marriages. A recent study found that American states with affordable abortions and same sex marriages (among other things) have the lowest divorce rates. Indeed Massachusetts, the first state to solemnized same-sex marriages, has the lowest divorce rate in the United States. Yet the Checklist favours political parties that would remove Medicare funding for abortion and opposed legislative changes to permit same sex marriages. The family impact statement for the Australian Christian Values Checklist would consist of one word – FAILED!

John Kenneth Galbriath on Conservatism

"The modern conservative is engged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."