Ninglun on Blogspot

Not an April Fools joke: this blog is winding down

2008-04-01T23:20:00.001+11:00

All the posts, though still here for the time being, have been exported with their comments to New Lines from a Floating Life. In due course they will be deleted here.

Induction of Andrew Collis, South Sydney Uniting Church

2008-03-31T12:29:00.001+11:00

Yesterday saw more people in South Sydney Uniting Church than I have ever seen there. The occasion was the induction of Andrew Collis who had been serving as acting minister since the end of 2006, Vlad Korotkov having gone overseas, and then to Melbourne.

Representing NSW Synod (Sydney Presbytery) Neil Eriksson presided, and assisting were Dorothy McRae-McMahon, the assistant minister at South Sydney, and Pastor Sione Mohetau Hau of the Tongan congregation that shares the building with SSU. The Tongan Choir towards the end of the service was one of the highlights of the service. Other UC ministers present included Bill Crews from Ashfield; South Sydney participates in an Exodus Foundation literacy project for Indigenous students. The service began with an Aboriginal smoking ceremony performed by Uncle Max Eulo, seen below at St Vincents Hospital last year,and among Aboriginal groups in the congregation was Mark Spinks, chair of Babana Aboriginal Mens Group Redfern.

Father Brian Stoney from the Cana Community was also there, as Cana uses the church as a shelter during the week and SSU has been a partner in a number of ventures with Cana over the years. (I missed the Easter services this year so hadn't seen Brian since last year.)

One of the hymns sung appealed:

Faith will not grow from words alone

from proofs provided, scripture known;

our faith must feel its way about,

and live with question-marks and doubt.

That was also the theme of the occasional address by Dr Anita Monro, Lecturer in Liturgy, United Theological College.

RELATED: Local paper growing in range and interest. The South Sydney Herald is one of the works of South Sydney Uniting Church, but not a "church paper".

Yes, there are other viewpoints

2008-03-28T09:43:00.001+11:00

All readers, whether they count themselves Christians or not and whether they are US citizens or not, could do worse than visit thoughtfully, perhaps even prayerfully, the following site:

Linked image.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this site is known to our own Kevin Rudd.

I would be very suspicious...

2008-03-17T10:42:00.001+11:00

... of anyone who comes along and tells me to throw out good psychiatric care in favour of exorcism and demonology. Dangerous stuff, best kept, if anywhere, in the kind of crap movie I spit at on Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen…

Today's crusade de jour in the Sydney Morning Herald does raise serious questions about coffee shops, mental illness, Pentecostals and dodgy practices: see They prayed to cast Satan from my body and related stories linked there.

THEY call themselves the Mercy Girls. And after years of searching they have found each other.

Bound by separate, damaging experiences at the hands of an American-style ministry operating in Sydney and the Sunshine Coast, these young women have clawed their way back to begin a semblance of a life again.

Desperate for help, they had turned to Mercy Ministries suffering mental illness, drug addiction and eating disorders...

Instead of the promised psychiatric treatment and support, they were placed in the care of Bible studies students, most of them under 30 and some with psychological problems of their own. Counselling consisted of prayer readings, treatment entailed exorcisms and speaking in tongues, and the house was locked down most of the time, isolating residents from the outside world and sealing them in a humidicrib of pentacostal religion...

Go to Do Christian teachings have a place in treating young people with mental illness? and read the extensive comments. I would say "yes" and "no" is the only possible answer to that question. It really does depend on the person, the nature of the problem, the nature and quality of the spiritual and psychiatric advice on offer. Take Kate's comment:

Although I'm not a Christian, my spirituality has helped me with my depression, providing comfort, support, and the motivation to keep going. That said, antidepressants and cognitive behavioural therapy have saved my life. Prayer can't cure mental illness any more than it can cure diabetes.

One theme that does emerge from all this is that psychiatric and counselling services need to be more readily accessible.

Sin - a quickie

2008-03-15T09:07:00.001+11:00

The Catholic Church has published a new set of Seven Deadly Sins, as you no doubt already know. I take this version of the list from a forum on the Australian queer site SameSame:

Here are the 7 new "modern" sins:

Environmental pollution

Genetic manipulation

Accumulating excessive wealth

Inflicting poverty

Drug trafficking and consumption

Morally debatable experiments

Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

A mixed bag, in my view, and cynics might say a politically correct update of the medieval list. Well, it is probably a fair enough tool for discussion, but I really don't hold to the "deadly sins" business at all, as a Protestant in background. That, of course, is not always a good background, as there have been times Protestants, Calvinists especially, are so besotted with "falling short of the glory of God", as the 17th century Westminster Shorter Catechism (Presbyterian) in part defines sin, that they worry about whether polishing shoes on a Sunday is a "sin" befitting eternal fires of hell. (Compare on the "new" Seven Deadlies Helen Raser on ABC Unleashed.)

Frankly, a God who worries about such thing is a neurotic God, in fact an unspeakably stupid God. And I prefer to think God is neither.

Yet I do believe in sin.

I may come back to that. Meanwhile, a theologian whom Barack Obama apparently has some time for -- but of course if he is the Antichrist... -- is the German-American colossus of 20th century theology, the in some respects conservative Reinhold Niebuhr. See Reinhold Niebuhr's Doctrine of Sin, and for an overview The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. From the latter:

Niebuhr's criticisms of the inhumane treatment of workers in Henry Ford’s factory made him an outspoken advocate of socialist principles in social and economic matters, and in 1932 he supported the socialist candidate for President. His advocacy of socialism continued until he came to support the mixed economics of the New Deal policy in the early 1940’s on the grounds that it was "more just and realistic than Marxism or laissez-faire" (Brown 1992, 7).

Niebuhr strongly concerned himself both with protecting automobile industrial workers and with changing the social and economic conditions that produce the problems that industrial workers must face. But in ding this he did not follow the methods of the Social Gospel. Rather, he criticized both the moral idealism of the liberal-leaning churches and their unconditional rejection of violence. In fact, he frankly acknowledged that his education in liberal theology was insufficient for the challenges of real ministry, and found the so-called "Neo-Orthodox" theological tendencies more useful. This preference is evident in Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932). Subsequently, Niebuhr's famous "Christian realism" viewpoint came into focus after his participation in the Oxford Conference on Church, Community, and State in 1937 with John C. Bennett. This developed view appears in The Nature and Destiny of Man (1941 and 1943), a two-volume publication containing his Gifford Lectures of 1939.

See also Dispatches from another America on New Lines from a Floating Life.

On mistaking the crazies for the sane

2008-03-15T08:49:00.001+11:00

Some of my atheist blogging friends show an absolute fascination with the dregs, crazies and total extremists of the religious world, specifically of the Christian world. I prefer not to waste too much time on such inhabitants of the undergrowth and bog sites of Christendom. I can, however, understand the fascination, I suppose. But to mistake such people for Christians as a whole would, of course, be exactly the same as suggesting atheists are all indistinguishable from Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, or for attributing the extremist doctrines of Al Qaeda, of the most dogmatic Wahabists, or of all the Bring Back the Caliphate mob to all Muslims.

So with that in mind, and also admitting I am myself a bit of a heretic, nearer to the Quakers in some respects, who seriously doubts God is quite as preoccupied with foreskins, to take just one example, as some ancient human texts would have us believe, I would nonetheless suggest we go to saner examples, even if they are less exciting, when we contemplate the broad mass of Christian believers.

I have commended the following before, which is not to say I agree with everything you will find therein. They are however all quite mainstream, in my view, and bear little resemblance to the -- dare I say "straw men" (should that be "straw people"?) -- manifestations of religion we all love to hate.

My own church's Insights.
Sojourners.
Christianity Today -- more conservative than the other two.

A much broader set of recommendations is posted here.

The Tao of sanity

2008-03-10T22:06:00.001+11:00

Yes, I have been continuing my reading of the Quran. Oh dear, no direspect intended, and anyway there's not much in there that you can't find parallels to in the Bible, but oh how I wish we could grow out of the Great Sacred Book syndrome.

The Tao Te Ching is not a Great Sacred Book. I don't think anyone has ever thought God wrote it or that it is infallible.

Without saints and sages

everyone would benefit a hundredfold.

Without propriety and righteousness,

people would be their natural selves.

Without profit and ingenuity,

there would be no swindlers and thieves.

Therefore

Be guided by these teachings:

Forget wisdom;

Honour simplicity;

Temper desire;

Abandon self;

Return to the formless.

-- Tao Te Ching 19 -- Ray Grigg translation.

John Howard is (and was) a fanatic

2008-03-07T10:02:00.001+11:00

Not in any technical sense a fascist, a word the Left throws around at times with gay abandon, but definitely a fanatic, something many on the Liberal Party side recognised -- and I speak here from direct knowledge -- over twenty years ago. Senator Marise Payne represents that viewpoint today:

Liberals need to be more liberal

The Liberal Party of Australia has been custodian of two strands of political thought: liberalism and conservatism. Individual freedom, the dignity of humanity, and personal responsibility are tenets of Liberal faith. References have been made to the Liberal Party representing a broad church philosophically, and, as a member of that church, I have on occasion felt that only one side of the congregation was welcome at the service.

After a lengthy run for the predominantly conservative position, I suggest the future of the party lies in a more representative expression of the full breadth of Liberal philosophy. Thus, we would be drawing on one of our strengths - our philosophical base, built by Menzies and his contemporaries through the 1940s and beyond.

The challenge for the future then is to re-examine and take up those core Liberal values and apply them in a relevant and modern way to contemporary Australian politics. The basic precondition for membership should be commitment to Liberalism, not any other premise.

So, in building broader representation and diversity, we must attract more members from multicultural Australia, more women and more young Australians who see membership of a centre-right party as a way to express their ideals in a stimulating environment of open minds and open debate. We need an agenda where the modern priorities include: climate change and water issues; addressing why women are still paid less than men in exactly the same jobs; dealing with the reality of modern family life in its many versions - particularly the notorious work-life balance. We cannot afford a head-in-the-sand approach to these and other pressing life challenges of the 21st century.

We must encourage open discussion and robust debate. If we feel constrained about open expression, if there is any culture of intimidation, we are venturing into illiberal territory and I have had enough of any suggestion that a political party is the last place to discuss policy. Debate is not dissent. It is an imperative for a party of broad appeal.

To look at how the future may take shape, I recall what I heard as a significant concern of many long-time Liberal voters at the last election as to why they would not be voting Liberal. The answer was, often, that we lacked compassion. For example, older women, who had been giving to the collection plate at their church for decades to support the dispossessed and disadvantaged, did not accept or understand our approach to refugees - in particular the detention of children.

A strong argument about our commitment to the humanitarian resettlement program cut no ice with these formidable advocates; the predominant impression was of heartlessness.

Also, a similar view from families, who believed that the life of their family member was perceived by our government as insufficiently "mainstream" to merit the respect and basic human rights that the rest of the community takes for granted, just because they were gay. We can talk about the importance of family all we like, but once we are perceived as telling Australians that we disapprove of the lives of members of their family, I believe we are crossing a line, and we also pay a philosophical price for that.

Politics is fundamentally about people. So, for all the departments and programs, all the theories, all the spin, it's the people who matter and the people who have the last say. Our democracy is a great institution in which viable political parties are indispensable.

The Liberal Party is fundamental to the future of our democracy - and the capacity and talent within its ranks will ensure that it will continue to remain so.

What is crystal clear in John Howard's report to his ideological peers is how difficult debate on policy would have been with him at the top. As today's Sydney Morning Herald reveals, we misjudged Howard when we thought at time he was either a populist or poll-driven, as he was in fact a man of conviction, or, if you were not over-fond of the convictions, a fanatic.

JOHN HOWARD reckons the Liberal Party should stay true to Work Choices despite November's election drubbing. Is this an example of political irrationality or a stand on principle?

As prime minister, Howard was frequently chastised for expediency, accused of governing according to opinion polls rather than sound policy.

But research carried out for the Coalition government after it pushed its Work Choices reforms through Parliament now reveals just how comprehensively Howard ignored the polling when it came to labour market reform.

The government dipped into taxpayers' funds to hire the market research firm Colmar Brunton to track the attitudes of employees, employers and others to Work Choices from late 2005.

Make no mistake: Colmar Brunton's findings, which were being handed to the government each fortnight until the middle of 2006, must have set political alarm bells ringing deafeningly.

The research would have told Howard that Work Choices was in dire trouble right from the start. After a softening-up campaign by the unions against the mooted changes, the first report in early August showed employees were highly anxious about Work Choices before the ink was dry on the cabinet decision.

And these apprehensions did not budge, despite a television advertising blitz, as Colmar Brunton tracked attitudes over the following 26 weeks.

If Work Choices were a commercial product, results like this would have indicated the ad campaign was a failure.

Yet Howard persisted.

Despite the catastrophic polling, he refused to countenance backing down on Work Choices until well into last year, after his new chief salesman for the reforms, Joe Hockey, persuaded him to introduce the fairness test.

By then it was too late.

Howard had punted his government's survival on performing a feat akin to his 1998 selling of the GST. He gambled that he could turn around public opinion by force of political argument where tens of millions of dollars of advertising, glossy brochures, computer mouse pads, call centres and employer information programs were clearly failing.

That's conviction politics.

The full text of Howard's speech is on the AEI site. Just to take one issue:

Today's world remains confronted by the ongoing threat of Islamic fascism, a new and quite unfamiliar assault on our values and way of life.

It relies on indiscriminate terror without regard to the identity or faith of its victims.

It also calculates that it is the nature of western societies to grow weary of long struggles and protracted debates. They produce, over time, a growing pressure for resolution or accommodation.

The particular challenge posed by extremist Islam means therefore that more than ever before continued cultural self-belief is critical to national strength.

Ronald Reagan and that other great warrior in our cause, Margaret Thatcher, taught us many things.

One of them was to remain culturally assertive, to understand always the importance of self belief in the psyche of a nation; to be willing to stand against the fashion of the time.

In his book The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister, John O'Sullivan wrote of Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher: "all three were handicapped by being too sharp, clear and definite in an age of increasingly fluid identities and sophisticated doubts. Put simply that Wojtyla was too Catholic, Thatcher too conservative and Reagan too American." ...

In the protracted struggle against Islamic extremism there will be no stronger weapon than the maintenance by western liberal democracies of a steadfast belief in the continuing worth of our own national value systems. And where necessary a soaring optimism about the future of freedom and democracy.

We should not think that by trading away some of the values which have made us who we are will buy us either immunity from terrorists or respect from noisy minorities.

If the butter of common national values is spread too thinly it will disappear altogether.

We should not forget that it is the values of our societies that terrorists despise most. That is why we should never compromise on them.

It is not only their intrinsic worth that should be staunchly defended. It is also because radical Islam senses--correctly--that there is a soft underbelly of cultural self-doubt in certain Western societies.

There are too many in our midst who think, deep down, that it is really "our fault" and if only we entered into some kind of federal cultural compact, with our critics, the challenges would disappear.

Perhaps it was this sentiment which led the archbishop of Canterbury to make the extraordinary comment several weeks ago, that in Britain some accommodation with aspects of sharia law was inevitable.

It is fundamental to the continued unity and purpose of a democratic nation state that there not only be respect for the rule of law but the state have but one body of law, to which all are accountable, and from which all are entitled to an equal dispensation of justice...

One thing John Howard seems not to have done is read what the Archbishop of Canterbury actually said. See Perhaps we should listen? on this blog for more on that. I quote there a Minnesotan in the UK:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has caused a lot of trouble by saying something sensible. Meanwhile, the British press (even the BBC) is acting like its normal hysterical tabloid self and turning it into an even bigger storm in a teacup. Let’s recap...

Howard has gone. The Americans can keep him if they want to...

Mind you, he is rather more sensible about China.

Mirrored from WordPress which is having issues this morning.

UPDATE

Compare Long live the King, the King is dead by Peter van Onselen.

Some interesting thoughts from people I tend to ignore...

2008-03-06T09:08:00.001+11:00

As I mentioned on New Lines from a Floating Life a few days back, the ABC-TV program Compass was good last Sunday.

I guess it is a good thing when one’s prejudices get worked over and one is left feeling a bit of a fraud. That is one effect watching Compass last night had on me, as I was made only too aware of my lack of experience and qualification in so many ways. In Part 2 of a series that began with “Australian Men Pt 1: The New Dad” I found many presuppositions challenged as Geraldine Doogue presented a number of our well-known wheelers and dealers in rather a novel light...

Here is a sample; the previous link takes you to a full transcript.

Good evening, welcome to Compass and something rather special tonight as we continue our series with Australia’s men. Tonight it’s a group of high flyers from the worlds of business, sport and the media. How do their beliefs and values influence the decisions they make? Who do they turn to when the chips are down?

Now, I regret to say that since filming this dinner one of our six guests, mobile phone entrepreneur JOHN ILHAN died suddenly last year from a heart attack. His widow and family have given us their ‘blessing’ so to speak to show this program as a memorial to a lovely man...

Geraldine Doogue
John for you, your Muslim is very real and active isn’t it?
John Ilhan
It is, yes. When I went through my toughest time, lost my brother and almost bankruptcy, well I turned to my faith so I turned to it for strength, and I found it. So if it wasn’t for my spirituality, and my belief in a God, I don't think I would have um, got through that dark period.
Geraldine Doogue
Did you pray five times a day?
John Ilhan
I fast, I don’t pray five times a day,
Mike Carlton
You won't be wanting that red wine though will you?
John Ilhan
I've said to many people, I'm actually too much of a coward to be an atheist, so I need to grab onto something.
Mike Carlton
But I worry now that there is a return of religious bigotry in the dislike of Muslims in this country. And that we are seeking a rise in sectarianism and intolerance on a religious basis.
John Ilhan
I've never seen any form of racism towards myself or my family, none what so ever.
Mike Carlton
But you don’t look like a Muslim. You don't have the white hat and the funny beard.
John Ilhan
But my mother does.
Geraldine Doogue
And your brother did.
John Ilhan
My brother did. So I think it’s all Muslims have a responsibility to behave like Australians. My parents came to this country to have a better life. So if you come to this country you need to align yourself with parliament and Australian values.
John Symond
Terrorism has just sparked this debate, because it was never ever like it is today, ever. And even before – September 11 just really brought it out. We don't want, we do not want to be victims to all this.
John Ilhan
So it’s up to the Muslims to speak out. So when the Bali bombing occurred John, not one Muslim stood up and said, how dare they, in Australia.
Geraldine Doogue
Well they did but it was quietly done.
Mike Carlton
They did but they didn’t get a hearing in the media because the media didn’t want to hear them say it …
John Ilhan
So when something happens in Bali, Muslims should march down the streets and say, how dare they bomb Bali and how dare Australians die.
Mike Carlton
This has been the most successful melting pot in the world. It just has you know. And the thought that we might jeopardise it now is the most terrifying thing I can think of. I honestly don’t know how significant talk radio is. I think we who do it, practitioners of the black art of talk radio, I think we grossly over inflate our own importance.

No further comment from me, except this is worth noting, isn't it?

Spiritual predator

2008-03-03T08:30:00.001+11:00

There's a lot of them around, of course, but I have in mind a piece in today's Sydney Morning Herald by David Millikan, at one time minister at South Sydney Uniting, about one Toufik Benedictus Hinn (right): God, power and money.

There is nothing mysterious about how you earn $US200 million ($215 million) a year promising people prosperity, healing and eternal salvation. No one knows how to do it better than Pastor Benny Hinn. I was at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre last month and saw the Hinn machine in action - healing and sucking in the money.

I went with my friend Greg Toohey, who was in a wheelchair. There is nothing wrong with him - he wanted to get on the stage in front of 8000 people and pretend he was healed. The idea was to put a question to Hinn at the moment Toohey was meant to collapse under Hinn's touch, "slain in the spirit". This was the question: "Pastor Benny, is it true that the US Senate is investigating your finances?"

No one does it like Benny Hinn. In the world of televangelists, he reigns supreme. Leadership in the charismatic movement is established through "the anointing". Theological or pastoral studies mean nothing. If people are healed and you raise a lot of money, you have the anointing...

Even more damning is Benny Hinn in Uganda by David Kuo, who can hardly be accused of being an atheist or a mocker:

David Kuo has been walking with Jesus for more than 20 years, during which time he has served as special assistant to the president in George W. Bush's White House, policy director for Sen. John Ashcroft, and speechwriter for a gaggle of conservatives (plus a few liberals here and there). He is the author of "Tempting Faith," a book about God and politics, and is currently the Washington editor for Beliefnet.com.

It certainly is hard to reconcile the world and style of Toufik Benedictus with Jesus of Nazareth.

Picture found on Mark Mallett's blog 2006.

Benny Hinn has already taken delivery on a new Gulfstream jet, and wants you to pay for it, because "it is the only we Pastor Benny can continue to go as God directs." If you don't pony up for Benny Hinn's jet, "safety will plummet," Pastor Benny will be plumb tuckered out, and most importantly, untold numbers of precious souls who might have been saved will go to hell. All because of you. But if you do help pay for Benny Hinn's jet, he'll put your name in the special prayer cabin he's going to use as he races across the planet aboard, ahem, "Dove One," fulfilling the Great Commission from "the highest prayer tower in the world ... where he will intercede for you... ." And God will hear him better because he'll be 40,000 feet closer to heaven. ...Benny Hinn says in his appeal for the rest of the $6 million downpayment on the jet, "What we do for the sake of the Gospel, we must do now!"

I'm amazed

2008-03-02T15:53:00.001+11:00

Checking back from Sitemeter I find that my Obama Antichrist post scores very well on Yahoo!

Just goes to show, eh!

The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions

2008-03-01T09:47:00.001+11:00

This is of some interest. The idea goes back to Swami Vivekananda and the first "Parliament" in Chicago in 1893: see Wikipedia. This from Vivekananda's address to the Chicago meeting is very relevant to the world we see today:

"Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful Earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often with human blood, destroyed civilization, and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now."

I came upon all this via an email from someone connected to this movement in the USA; having read my Indigenous Australia page, they wanted to know more about Australian Indigenous poetry, a subject I will attempt to address soon on New Lines from a Floating Life.

What you may not have known -- I certainly didn't -- is that the next Parliament of the World's Religions is to be held in Melbourne Australia in 2009.

Here is some truth about Obama's religious position

2008-02-29T10:46:00.001+11:00

I have already posted on the quite seriously insane idea -- and I mean insane quite literally and clinically -- that Obama is the Antichrist. The benefit of course has been to this (and other blogs) who mention the words Obama and Antichrist, a great recipe for increasing traffic at the moment. Malevolent, though, as well as ignorant have been the Obama is a Muslim posts and comments: not that there would be any great harm, except to his electoral chances in the USA, if Obama were a Muslim. But he isn't.

For a bit of truth on this go to Sojourners and read the whole article: I just got the email minutes ago.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Defending the Facts on Obama's Faith (by Jim Wallis)
I don't endorse political candidates, but I will defend them when it becomes necessary. On this, I agree with my friend, Richard Land, the conservative Southern Baptist leader who is often identified with the Religious Right. Richard and I agree that faith has a place in politics and, when we agree on fundamental moral questions, have worked together. Richard says, "I have defended various candidates from time to time when I've felt that they have been unfairly or inaccurately criticized. At other times, I have been asked by the media for my assessment of a particular candidate's chances or weaknesses and strengths. Neither defense nor assessment should be confused with endorsement. As a matter of policy, I have not endorsed, do not endorse and will not endorse candidates."

So I am going to defend my friend, Barack Obama, from an increasing number of ridiculous and scurrilous attacks on the Internet and in the media. The latest incident occurred when a loud-mouth radio talk show host in Cincinnati let loose with a barrage of disparaging remarks against Senator Obama and kept using his middle name—Barack HUSSEIN Obama—over and over, seemingly to tie into the Internet accusations that Obama is really a Muslim who, as a child, attended a Muslim "madrassa" school in Indonesia that taught Islamic fundamentalism, etc. As a Chicago Tribune blog piece commented, "Anyone who uses Obama's middle name repeatedly, like Cincinnati radio host Bill Cunningham the other day, knows what he or she is doing and what feelings they are trying to evoke. There's simply nothing innocent about it." ...

So let's set the record straight. I have known Barack Obama for more than 10 years, and we have been talking about his Christian faith for a decade. Like me and many other Christians, he agrees with the need to reach out to Muslims around the world, especially if we are ever to defeat Islamic fundamentalism. But he is not a Muslim, never has been, never attended a Muslim madrassa, and does not attend a black "separatist" church. Rather, he has told me the story of his coming from an agnostic household, becoming a community organizer on Chicago's South Side who worked with the churches, and how he began attending one of them. Trinity Church is one of the most prominent and respected churches in Chicago and the nation, and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is one of the leading revival preachers in the black church. Ebony magazine once named him one of America's 15 best Black preachers. The church says it is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian," like any good black church would, but is decidedly not "separatist," as its white members and friends would attest...

Thank God nothing quite as putrid as this Obama idiocy disgraced the recent Australian elections, except for one little sideshow out in the west of Sydney which disgusted everybody and was one small part of Howard's come-uppance. If after reading Jim Wallis anyone wastes any more time on this then I just feel sorry for them. It's not my country, of course, but unfortunately your nuttiness does impact on the rest of us, and who you vote for will concern us because we have to live with it too. I imagine the majority of Americans are comparatively sane, and that the majority don't take any of the crap we have been reading seriously. I certainly hope so. As for the rest: don't stop your medication.

I did however read recently that Obama has stepped up his personal security. Unfortunately, he probably needs to.

Just out of interest: Obama's religious views, from what I can see, are not dissimilar to our own Kevin Rudd's.

LATER

This post is interesting, not so much on the above as it takes up a different aspect; but given my interest in diversity and multiculturalism (properly understood) I found it informative: Trevor Phillips is wrong about Barack Obama.

Don't say you weren't warned

2008-02-25T15:15:00.001+11:00

In the previous post I declined to name the sub-Christians in Topeka, but couldn't resist when I saw this on Queer Penguin.

So loving....

UPDATE

ZGeek has got in early: www.godhatesaustralia.net/

Mardi Gras related

2008-02-24T14:54:00.001+11:00

If I go I will be about an hour late... Sounds interesting though, and I am not doing much about Mardi Gras this year. As for last year, see here and here, and before that quite a few entries and pages on the Big Archive.

The Empress is a 78-er: that is he was in the first Mardi Gras in 1978. (That's from a left-wing source and they do romanticise themselves a bit, in my opinion. Shame about the attitudes and policies of people like Castro and Mugabe...) He's not participating this year on the grounds it is all too commercial now and, he thinks, has lost the plot. That is perhaps a bit too strong, though I know what he means. I think it still serves a useful purpose, and is also one of Sydney's more colourful occasions, though some still find it confronting. That last may in fact be proof The Empress is not right...

This did catch my eye today:

UP TO 100 reverends, ministers and pastors will march in the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras to apologise to those rejected by churches because of their sexuality.

More than 30 clerics - from the Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal and Uniting churches - planned to march and more than 60 had signed an apology, 100 Revs group spokesman pastor Mike Hercock (right) said.

"Church has been a hostile place for a number of people, including the homosexual community. It's really trying to get away from the ideology of throwing rocks," he said.

Mardi Gras chairman Marcus Bourget: "It's a historic moment in the history of Mardi Gras for ministers to be marching to say sorry. In a way, it's what Mardi Gras is all about - understanding, compassion and acceptance."

Sojourners does Oz

2008-02-22T10:12:00.001+11:00

The latest email alert from God's Politics, that splendid blog of the emergent church and evangelical left in the USA, included this item on our Sorry Day (February 13).

Australia Says Sorry: "This is history, unna?" (by Jarrod McKenna)

Black and white, we waited like I had waited in the mosh pit for Rage Against the Machine two weeks earlier. Yet the main feature on this day, a day that so many had been waiting for, working for, praying for, was just one word: "Sorry."

Matty is one of the many awesome kids in our neighbourhood who don't mind that we are white and often hang out at our houses. As one kid put it, "it's not shame 'cause youse are different." (It must be the dreads.) Matty likes hip hop and reckons Jesus would love Aussie Rules footy (football). Matty just started his first year at high school and though it was a school day, this 13-year-old excitedly wanted me to pick him up before six in the morning so we could get to the Perth foreshore in time because, as Matty told me, "Mum reckons it's important for us."

I added, "I think it's really important for us wadjelas [white people] as well!"

Crammed at the sides of the thousands of people stacked into the "Music Box" before seven in the morning, the crowd was amazingly civil considering the wait: 200 plus years. The first hour of sun light shone through the gum leaves hitting us as we waited to watch Australia's new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd live from Australia's capital. Matty turned to me and said:

"This is history, unna?" ["This has made history, yeah?"]

I heard a number of people, both white and Black, who had been waiting for such a long time, say, "I don't know what to feel." I heard one aboriginal friend put it, "This is a day of celebration!" Yet another friend just down the street said: "I saw it on television and just cried. He's not like most them that are all talk no action. I couldn't stop crying. I just kept thinking of mum and my dad, my cousins. All ripped away from home and family."

She shared later, "things are different now." Somehow wrapped up in this one little word, "sorry," was a new future. This strong aboriginal woman, who I'm proud to call my friend, was saying that in this word a new day is possible for her people and our nation. In this word, grief can now find its energy in change rather than despair. The cries of mothers who have had their babies torn from their arms and stolen from their breast have finally reached the halls of government. And miraculously, government has started to repent from the legacy of racism and colonialism.

Yet Matty's question still hangs in the air: "This is history, unna?"

If we think a couple of speeches is going to solve a history of genocide and colonization or the reality that Indigenous Australians die 17 years earlier on average than the rest the country; or the poverty of remote indigenous communities in one of the richest countries on earth; or the fact that when I go into prisons in Australia I see white systemic sin expressed in black incarceration, my answer to Matty is, "no." A number of years back, the famous indigenous activist "Uncle Kev" Buzzacott told me while we were on a Peace Pilgrimage that, "It's recon-silly-ation if reconciliation talk doesn't come with justice for us."

Yet, if instead, "sorry" is a call to enact real reconciliation which is not seeking to appease one's guilt but seeking to put right the wrong we have done, my answer is, "yes." If "sorry" looks like the healing justice we see in Christ and experience in relationship with God, and have seen in the ministry of peacemakers like Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Bishop Desmond Tutu, and many others, my answer to Matty is, "yes."

By God's grace, maybe the call to action and healing which has started to flow out of Sorry Day can be an icon for the church to hear how the cross and the empowerment of grace is a call to active witness to the ministry of reconciliation that is ours in Christ. I think on Sorry Day I heard afresh from the empty tomb the whisper of the Holy Spirit in the words of a 13-year-old Indigenous boy asking if my life witnessed too:

"This is history unna?"

Is religion a force for good or evil?

2008-02-18T19:58:00.001+11:00

Yes.

Apparently Barack Obama is the Antichrist

2008-02-18T10:29:00.001+11:00

Many years ago I had a friend who concluded he was the Archangel Michael, when in fact he was merely an out-of-work English teacher. It had its amusing side, like the night he concluded Satan had turned off his radio in the early hours of the morning in Forest Lodge. My friend had been listening to JJJ at full volume apparently, and Satan, in the guise of a pissed-off neighbour, pulled the plug at my friend's fuse box. My friend -- it was a hot night -- set off in search of a public phone (this was before mobiles) to inform JJJ, as you would, about what Satan had done but forgot that he was naked at the time. That's when the police spotted him, and on hearing why he was wandering about in the nude took him to an appropriate place.

My friend of course was mad.

People with a similar hold on reality have apparently come to the conclusion that Barack Obama has apocalyptic significance, as reported by an amazed Christian blogger in Scotland: "a 29 year old teacher, musician, worship leader and husband from the Isle of Lewis in Scotland".

This is rapidly moving from silly to scary.

This was originally going to be a reply to a previous blog comment, but it outgrew itself. I simply cannot believe some of the ideas and arguments being expressed by certain individuals. Things were bad before, but they suddenly got worse.

For those who have just dropped by, I’d better explain briefly. Over a year ago I expressed the opinion that I liked Barack Obama’s political and religious attitude. Some wingnut mentioned that they thought he was the Antichrist and to my horror, I noticed my blog stats climbing from people searching for “Barack Obama Antichrist”. I posted some tongue-in-cheek stuff mocking this a bit, but soon realised that a lot of people actually believed it. I got two comments today though that simply terrified me. I shall post the highlights here…

I too like Obama's political and religious views and like that blogger find the reactions he reports very scary indeed. When I remember what happened to Bobby Kennedy it gets even scarier.

Lynn Sweet: Obama: On Faith and Politics. And Alan Keyes. This post has the Call to Renewal Keynote Address 2006 which I referred to on WordPress: On the US presidential race. There are lots of comments, some really sane! Then there are "I am really the Archangel Michael" people as well, and others who stay within the bounds of not needing to be certified -- just:

I heard this morning that none other than AL FRANKEN is endorsing this man. If Al Franken has chosen this man over Hillary Clinton, I am concerned and anything the man says is suspect to me. Obama is affiliated with a group called Sadeen. After some research, I have found this group to be PLO supporters. Tell me how "moderate Democrat" Obama is garnering support from the Jewish Al Franken and a Democratic voting Jewish public? Also, as the son of a single, immigrant mother, who funded his exhorbitant education? And why, in early November were there literally thousands of hits when searching "anti-Christ Barak Obama" and now there are barely any? Those that are found are Christian parodies. The old adage warns us to "follow the money." I suggest we do so because there is a lot more to this man than meets OUR eyes. I am not suggesting he is the anti-Christ, but I would not argue his sinister intent. Remember - this Great Country was founded on Christian values, regardless of what the secularists may say. Evey minute of our existence, the success of the US is challenged by forces we may or may not understand. Tread carefully.

Oh dear!

And there is this blogger. Where do they come from, these people?

As for Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 71,200 for barack obama antichrist. Have fun.

And as for the Bobby Kennedy comparison: this has occurred to others. See the VodPod.

UPDATE 28 February

I find there is now an entire blog devoted to this important topic:

Barack Obama the Antichrist

Many things were said about Kevin Rudd during the 2007 Australian election, but nothing quite like this, even by the most deranged.

Two quotes to chew on in Lent

2008-02-17T10:07:00.001+11:00

From The Mighty & The Almighty by Madeleine Albright (Macmillan 2006):

The Protestant theologian Paul Tillich wrote, "Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith." I like the sound of that.

From Religion in Exile by Diarmuid O’Murchu (Dublin, Gateway, 2000):

Relativity: ...Theologians of the future will cherish relativity as both a pathway to the truth and an essential safeguard against self-deception and idolatry...

Gerry McCarthy: You've spoken about the need to re-conceptualize what sexuality is and what it's about. Can you talk to me about this?

Diarmuid O'Murchu: I have spent 15 years working as a couples counselor and 6 years as an AIDS-HIV counselor. This provides something of the experiential background for my views on human sexuality.

     Our current understanding of human sexuality strikes me as being heavily influenced by classical Greek thought. One example is Aristotle. For Aristotle, men alone are sexual, they alone possess the seed; women are endowed with wombs, biological receptacles for the fertilization of the seed which hopefully will produce a proper human being, namely a male.

     Thomas Aquinas embraced this view, so did the Council of Trent. Hence the first Catholic theology of marriage, the purpose of which was: the procreation of the species. In this view there is nothing to sex except biological reproduction.

     The view is still widely adopted especially by the major religions. Meanwhile, from about the middle of the last century a new consciousness around sexuality began to evolve, one far more congruent with how humans have understood sexuality in ancient, pre-Greek times. Sexuality is understood to be a spiritually infused, erotic, psychic energy, generative of creativity and intimacy, with procreation as just one possible outcome.

     This is now the prevailing view, and in my opinion will continue to be so, despite the fact that no government or religion has yet officially endorsed it. Perhaps, the consciousness is not yet ready, but meanwhile there is gross confusion around this very central aspect of our human experience. You'll find more on this topic in my books Reclaiming Spirituality and in Poverty, Celibacy and Obedience...

What else happened yesterday?

2008-02-14T09:01:00.001+11:00

I had a new coachee in Chinatown yesterday afternoon; he goes to The Mine. I gather from talking to MK, who teaches Science to the new coachee, on Monday that Delenio is now in Cambridge pursuing his French heretics; the coachee recalled the talk Delenio gave at an assembly at The Mine a couple of years back, where he had recommended following one's curiosity wherever it may lead, unexpected directions in D's case. The coachee did not recall the talk last year by D's ABC (as in broadcasting, not ethnicity) classmate. Perhaps the coachee was away that day. He was impressed by my being able, at this first tuition session, to look him up on my laptop and tell him how he had performed in literacy in 2005, what his mother tongue was, and how long he had been in Australia. No, not magic: just that my Mine dossiers are still on board here. In fact I have a new round of literacy tests for the current Year 7 waiting for processing right now...

Yesterday's events were streamed live to classes at The Mine, apparently.

After coaching I went up to Oxford Street hoping to see Sirdan and The Empress at The Midnight Shift. They had arrived back in Australia yesterday morning. The Empress was there, but Sirdan had gone home. The Empress was carrying two original William Hogarth prints he had picked up in London, including this one:

That is in the Tate Gallery, of course, and given The Empress did not steal it I gather his print is either another 18th century copy, or (I suspect) a modern print from the original plates. I suspect that because the paper is in such excellent condition. He had "Beer Street" as well. Great things to have though.

Sirdan telephoned me while I was in the pub. We are meeting for Sunday lunch, and perhaps M is coming too. If so, I can just sit back and listen to travellers' tales going back and forth. (Tierra del Fuego and Antarctica, not to mention Copacabana Beach and Machu Picchu, probably trump London, Amsterdam and Hong Kong. ;) )

WordPress having problems this morning?

2008-02-14T08:59:00.001+11:00

Regular readers: WP seems to be having difficulties right now. I have some posts sitting in Live Writer waiting to go. They will be sent on up asap to New Lines from a Floating Life and OzPolitics. Meantime, I will mirror one here as the next entry.

UPDATE 15 February

It was apparently a denial of service attack on one of WP's servers; all is well now.

13 February 2008

2008-02-13T00:01:00.000+11:00

Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of

this land, the oldest continuing

cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations – this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australian.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have changed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country.

Perhaps we should listen?

2008-02-11T19:32:00.001+11:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been behaving quite differently from the standard political mould lately. I am sure he would regard this as a valid part of his prophetic duties. He is of course not infallible, and his opinions, to me, are no more influential than anyone else's.

Consider just since December:

He has told us the truth about the Three Wise Men -- it's a legend.
He has made some statements about how we should talk about other faiths that caused some concern.

And now he has apparently recommended that the UK might consider the application of Sharia law in certain circumstances. This was on a BBC Radio Four interview, full text here.

CL In the end, do you think that some people might be surprised to hear that a Christian Archbishop is calling for greater consideration of the role of Islamic law?

ABC People may be surprised but I hope that that surprise will be modified when they think about the general question of how the law and religious community, religious principle are best and fruitfully accommodated. What we don't want I think is either a stand-off where the law squares up to religious consciences over something like abortion or indeed by forcing a vote on some aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the commons as it were a secular discourse saying 'we have no room for conscientious objections'; we don't want that, we don't either I think want a situation where because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do, making them part of public process, people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes a way of intensifying oppression within a community and that happens; that happens. So how does the law engage critically and intelligently – the law of the land – with the custom, the imperatives, the principles of distinctive religious communities? It's a large question, much larger than the question about Islam and I think it's a question which the Church can quite reasonably be thinking about.

This produced the responses you might expect, but consider:

1. Here in Australia the Jewish Beth Din in Melbourne already is capable of hearing certain matters: Melbourne Beth Din set to hear commercial disputes.

2. There are those, though for some this remains controversial, who believe an accommodation between Aboriginal Customary Law and Australian Common Law may deliver better justice in some circumstances.

In any non-monocultural society such issues are bound to arise, and it may well be that the Archbishop is pointing to something eminently reasonable. I don't think he is advocating the stoning to death of adulterers, for example, despite the excellent Biblical precedents.

I was interested in these reactions culled from around WordPress lately:

-- The Archbishop and Sharia Law by Dave Keating, an American journalist living in London.

The problem may be that Williams comes from academia and is an intellectual, and his ethereal, pontificatory statements have been confusing for Anglicans/Episcopalians around the world. All of Europe is currently grappling with the issue of how to assimilate the large and growing Muslim population in their midst, and it tends to be the most incendiary issue of the day. The right-leaning tabloids in the UK were practically falling all over themselves to heap as much scorn as possible on the archbishop today. “Victory for Terrorism!” declared The Sun, for instance. It seems the Archbishop couldn’t have handed a better gift on a silver platter to the tabloids. And with Tory leader David Cameron recently saying London could eventually be turned into “Londonistan,” his comments are a great gift to the Tories as well.

Of course it should be pointed out that at no point did Williams ever advocate for Shariah law, as the tabloids are reporting, he merely argued that such a development was “inevitable”. But it’s hard to see the logic in even this statement. Indeed, the idea that the UK would apply different laws to different citizens based on their religion is rather absurd. But in an age of heightened sensitivities about Islam’s place in the West, it’s interesting to see how even speculation about this possibility gets everybody so worked up.

-- The Archbishop’s storm in a teacup by a Minnesota expat.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has caused a lot of trouble by saying something sensible. Meanwhile, the British press (even the BBC) is acting like its normal hysterical tabloid self and turning it into an even bigger storm in a teacup. Let’s recap...

-- Sharia Law in the UK from Feminist Philosophers.

...The Archbishop now says his remarks were misinterpreted, but unfortunately his clarification isn’t really much help. I find myself thinking that discussing this would be a great way to get students interested in issues of law and justice in multicultural societies, but also getting discouraged by the very unsatisfying degree of clarity in the discussions I’m finding.

I first noted the story in Five Public Opinions, and responded there: Has Archbishop Williams lost the plot?

The first article of any faith must be...

2008-02-06T19:11:00.001+11:00

... that God is, one hopes, not a raving loony.

By that creed, God would no doubt find the following particularly vexing, as (not for the first time) raving loonies have done what they have done far too often, projected their madness, their cultural hangups, their fetishes, their inadequacies, their fear of change, as His will.

You may have seen the story, and yes it is about Muslim purism; things just as mad, just as bad, have been done over the years in other theological jurisdictions, whenever the twin scourges of power and belief in infallible texts have come together.

Maryam Namazie, who admittedly writes from a feminist left viewpoint, posted this in New Statesman. There is a parallel post on Renegade Eye: Downloading: Punishable by death?

Unfortunately, the discussion on what religion in power means for people’s lives, rights and freedoms is neither theoretical or restricted to ex-Muslims who have renounced Islam and religion.

Since religion is divinely ordained, it follows that any real or imputed questioning, criticising or transgressing will lead to blasphemy, apostasy or some form of ‘corruption’. Of course it doesn’t matter so much if you live in a place where religion is to a large extent a private matter. But if you don’t, then a lot of things become ‘crimes’ punishable by death.

One of many examples is the outrageous death sentence imposed by an Islamic court in Afghanistan on Parwiz Kambakhsh, the 23 year old journalist and student, for downloading and distributing an article criticising women’s status under Islam.

Many have rightly come to his defence and must keep the pressure on. But to defend Parwiz by saying he did not ‘intend’ to blaspheme misses the entire point.

This is exactly what the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain say in order to conceal the responsibility of their political Islamic movement. For example, the MCB ‘greeted’ the release of Gillian Gibbons (the British schoolteacher who was imprisoned in Sudan for allowing her 7 year old students to name their class teddy bear Mohammad) by saying she had not ‘intended to deliberately insult the Islamic faith.’

What they are basically saying is that victims and their ‘intentions’ are to blame for the injustices and barbarity of Islamic law.

Moreover, they are implying that if someone knew they were blaspheming, or if their actions or statements were so clearly blasphemous that they should have known better, then the death penalty or calls for their death are permissible - or at the very least understandable.

The smokescreen of ‘intent’ aims to conceal the real issue at hand, which is Islam in power, so their movement can go about its business as usual - often aided and abetted by US-led militarism. So it can continue to hold millions of resisting people hostage to medievalism enshrined in constitutions and legal codes and enforced by religious and morality police, the militia, Sharia courts and the state.

Any life saved is despite Islamic law and because of a vast left, secular and humanist opposition movement in the Middle East and elsewhere, which refuses to kneel.

Clearly, when religion equals power, millions have no freedoms or rights worthy of 21 century humanity.

And until it is pushed back, our loved ones - like Parwiz, or the two sisters, Zohreh and Azar, who have hours ago been convicted of death by stoning by the Islamic supreme court in Iran for ‘adultery’ - will face a torturous death.

But not if we can help it.

I hope the Jihad Sheilas feel comfortable about this.

On the other hand, those who have addressed the HIV/AIDS question from some dogmatic position that "the will of God" excludes condom use have blood on their hands too. Not much better, when you think about it.

Marcel contributes to freedom of religion debate

2008-02-06T10:07:00.001+11:00

Obviously the previous post raises questions about freedom of speech and of religion in Australia, as have some other posts here on issues like "Is Australia a Christian country?"

Marcellous has rightly pointed out that here we tend to forget we are not Americans. He is reflecting on what right-wing newspaper opinionista Miranda Devine had to say in defence of Tom Cruise and his science-fiction inspired "religion".

Recently St Miranda has been complaining that people are picking on Tom Cruise. “What’s wrong with Scientology?” she asks. Well, that’s a paraphrase.

Sure, he belongs to a religion, Scientology, that seems pretty kooky on face value, but that is his right, as in any country that is supposed to respect freedom of religion.

and

While Scientology certainly appears eccentric, with its talk of extra-terrestrials and “thetans”, so, too, does most New Age claptrap. Many traditional religions have oddball elements, strictly speaking, and among the most bigoted and dogmatic people around are atheists.

I don’t actually see the equivalence between the bigoted and dogmatic nature of some atheists, and the kookiness or otherwise of some religious beliefs. It’s a false comparison.

Nor do I know where this “freedom of religion” thing comes from. Actually, I do know: it’s a US concept. Miranda can’t help that: it comes with the neocon water and she after all was born in the US when her father was working there. As any reasonable neo-con actually ought to know (given their views on human rights) the only freedom of religion in Australia is the freedom from an established religion. The charitable treatment of religion is an indulgence, not a right, albeit that it has also been extended, in Australia, to Scientology...

Keep that in mind.

Marcel is a lawyer.