Atheists and Theists of the World - Unite!

Well, I certainly got a response to my letter to the editor, published in The Age newspaper yesterday. Of course, I don't know how many people wrote to The Age, or whether the consensus view was for or against the case for mutual engagement that I outlined, but this letter published in today's edition is obviously the most vitriolically opposed (scroll down to the letter entitled "Problem With God").

A number of issues arise. Firstly, the author of this letter obviously only had access to the much truncated version of my letter that was eventually published; this may have affected the tone of this individual's response. Secondly, I don't know how extensive this responding letter was edited; that is, whether the published portion represents the thrust of the letter or just its most inflammatory aspects. Thirdly, and following on from the second point, I don't know how representative this letter was of the responses received, or whether The Age simply elected to publish the most trenchant response in order to generate a confrontational dichotomy.

Assuming, however, a minimum of editing and that the letter as published does accurately represent the author's views, this response is indicative of the approach adopted by fanatical atheists determined to misrepresent people of faith as irrational, superstitious fools who literally believe in anything. Briefly stated, the features of this letter are as follows:

• The patronising tone is typical of militant atheism. But this tone is quite deliberate, and serves a specific purpose. In the same way that certain fundamentalist Christians (for example) begin every theological sentence they utter with the phrase "Biblically speaking" in order to both assert their moral superiority and denigrate their opponents' theological credibility, so militant atheists use this kind of tone to imply both their superior reasoning capacity and undermine the rational credibility of their opponents.
• The next feature is obfuscation. Note how the author states that I complained about journalist Catherine Deveny "highlighting the absurdities of irrational belief". But a careful reading of my letter, even in its edited form, reveals that I did no such thing. What I did say in my letter was that Ms Deveny would be better served refraining from taking the easy option of mocking the abuses of faith that cultural practice or personal vanity sometimes impose, and instead make the effort to understand the interior, lived experience of faith. But this obfuscation, like the patronising tone, is quite deliberate: it is intended to project the militant atheist as the defender of reason and reasonableness against the raving illogicity of theism.
• The next feature is dismissal. The author refers to " 'the lived experience of faith', whatever that is", suggesting that my characterisation of faith as an actuality that informs the life of the theist is, in fact, just a clever confabulation of empty words. The writer then goes on to tell me what this experience actually is: 'the "feel-good" trust in an imaginary friend, or the "fellowship" from "belonging" to a "communion" with a "higher purpose"'. In other words, faith is either a quaint superstition in someone who doesn't actually exist, or a cosy social club for people too afraid to face the world and who accordingly invest themselves with a higher moral purpose as a compensation. Again, the objective is portrayal: the militant atheist has intellectual depth and credibility, whereas the theist is essentially a phoney - and a coward, to boot.
• After all this posturing comes condemnation. The author details various atrocities and horrors perpetrated in the name of faith and / or religion, and on the basis of these, condemns faith in its entirety as irredeemably corrupt and destructive. Of course, the author is careful not to detail all the positive and constructive and humane endeavours undertaken by millions of people around the world and across history on the basis of their lived experience of faith. But beyond this, the author's purpose is simple: any crime perpetrated in the name of God is sufficient to discredit faith in toto. As if: a) people of faith were incapable of being outraged by, and responding to, wrongdoing perpetrated in the name of their faith; and b) religious belief alone is capable of producing crimes and horrors and atrocities. In short, people of faith are by definition mindless automatons incapable of independent thought; faith as a lived experience does not involve wrestling with conscience, or holding in tension the claims of institutional authority with the promptings of individual conviction - it is just a process for mass producing clones who are happy to be complicit in inhumanity.
• Finally, the writer finishes with another round of obfuscation spiced by a dose of pretence to objectivity. Obfuscation in the form of suggesting that I claimed the "consequences of irrational belief" could be separated from religious practice - which I patently did not. The pretence to objectivity is the reference to the crimes of Hitler and Stalin, a passing acknowledgement to non-religiously motivated crimes that is intended solely to boost the militant atheist's "credentials" as an objective, non-partisan humanitarian (an especial irony given atheism was the official theological position of the Soviet Union).

So what is to be made all of this? Reflecting on the last 24 hours, I have become convinced that the problem is not the rise of "assertive atheism". Rather, the problem is that the debate has degenerated into a slanging match between entrenched militants on both sides, whose objective is not to engage in meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding, but to assert their claims to truth to the exclusion of all others. The result is that moderates, both theist and atheist, are being trodden on and silenced, leaving the field to the fanatics and agents provocateur on both sides.

The solution to this can only come through an alliance of moderate, thinking atheists and moderate, thinking theists. By this, I mean those atheists who do not automatically assert that the phrase "thinking person of faith" is an oxymoron; and, likewise, those theists who do not automatically assume the term "atheist" denotes a rabid, aggressively blustering anti-theist. In other words, those theists and atheists who understand they have more in common with one another through a commitment to genuine dialogue and engagement, than they do with the hard-liners on their "own side".

Not that I'm suggesting for a moment that such an alliance should involve each side meekly accepting the views of the other, or conveniently looking the other way in respect of those positions or arguments with which they disagree. Rather, it is the commitment to a genuine process of exchange, in which each side, with humility and integrity, seeks to genuinely understand the other, and apply this understanding to their own assumptions and insights. In short, a process of mutual enrichment based on mutual respect and a shared determination to reject fanaticism.

Of course, I understand that forging such an alliance will be extremely difficult. But I think we owe it to ourselves to try; and I think the cost of not making the attempt will be far too high. Certainly, allowing the fanatics on either side to rule the roost will be to no-one's benefit.

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Farce is a genre that's closer to tragedy in its essence than comedy is. (Samuel Taylor Coleridge)

The Need For Engagement

I am a regular reader of The Age Online - which, as the name suggests, is the Internet version of Melbourne's terrific The Age newspaper. Indeed, it's part of my daily routine to read The Age Online to get my fill of what's been happening in the world.

One of the great aspects of TAO is its opinions section. That's because it provides a forum for all sorts of views on all sorts of issues. Many of the views expressed I disagree with; others I find myself in furious agreement with. Then again, some others I find I partially agree with and partially disagree with.

Of course, like every other paper, TAO has regular columnists who provide us with their thoughts on a daily or weekly basis, and "guest" commentators who are either commissioned to write a piece on a particular issue, or whose opinions are sourced from other media outlets. One of TAO's regular columnists is a person by the name of Catherine Deveny. Ms Deveny has been writing for TAO for a couple of months now, and I've noticed a pattern with her columns: she seems to take a particular delight in both wearing her oft-proclaimed atheism on her sleeve, and taking as many potshots as she can against anyone who believes in God.

Ms Deveny's style is simple: she locates any story she can about something absurd or vicious or idiotic being done in the name of God and / or religion, and proclaims, ipso facto, that this "proves" what an appalling thing it is to be a person of faith, and how much more enlightened and superior are those of us who aren't possessed by such a dreadful malaise.

I don't know what Ms Deveny's agenda or motives are. Perhaps she had an awful experience of institutional religion at another time in her life (something to which I can relate) and is angry and bitter and determined to "educate" the world as to the inhumanity of faith. Perhaps she genuinely believes the whole experience of faith is evil and destructive, and sees the need for a "crusade" to eliminate religious belief from the human condition. Or perhaps she just takes a particular pleasure from writing deliberately provocative and accusatory statements about faith and then sitting back and smugly viewing the resulting outrage as proof of her postulate.

Which is a pity. As I've said elsewhere on this blog about Richard Dawkins, the unfortunate thing about these all-religions-are-bad types is that whatever legitimate criticisms they make are buried beneath a veritable landslide of invective, hostility, and sneering name-calling (never mind the intellectual laziness and dishonesty - ironically, the very things which belief in God is supposed to produce - which litter such works). But the bigger disservice they perpetrate is that in adopting such a vindictive approach, they in fact destroy the good they might otherwise do by offering a reasoned and alternative critique of faith. People of faith cannot live in a vacuum; they must accept that others think differently, and attempt to engage with that difference in order to have a healthier, more robust understanding of their own faith.

But that of course requires that those who do not share a belief in God must likewise be prepared to engage with the interior experience of faith, and not simply rest content with mocking some of the absurd agglomerations that humans sometimes impose upon faith through cultural practice or personal vanity. Engagement takes real intellectual vigour and strength; mocking is the easiest thing in the world.

Alas, Ms Deveny's latest column fails this test - just as so many of her previous columns have done likewise. She takes a story about some girl in the UK suing her school because they won't let her wear a "purity ring" - apparently, a sign that, as a "Christian", she has taken a pledge of chastity until she gets married - as yet another indicator that all people of faith are morons. Or, in Ms Deveny's own words, we're all "barking mad". Moreover, the fact that this same school allows Muslim girls to wear headscarves is adduced by Ms Deveny as further evidence that faith is a matter of "mumbo-jumbo" and would be best jettisoned altogether.

Well, I wrote a letter to the editor, didn't I? Not in righteous anger, mind, merely pointing out that Ms Deveny's column might serve some useful purpose if it was about genuine engagement and not self-righteous mockery. Well, the letter was published, albeit in truncated form (you will need to scroll down the page to the letter entitled "Understand the Experience of Faith").

However, given the editing applied to this letter, I have reproduced it below in full.

Many people today describe themselves as "atheist" or "agnostic" or simply as "non-believers" for a variety of reasons ranging from their own experience of institutional religion to a straightforward scepticism about the existence of God. Personally, I welcome the increasing public profile of such persons, partly for the social diversity they provide, but mostly because they require persons of faith to engage with that scepticism and bring it to bear on their own understanding of faith.

However, for the exchange to be genuine, the encounter must operate both ways: those who are sceptics must seek a genuine understanding of the interior experience of faith, and use this to shine a light on their own reservations about religion or the existence of God. Only by doing so can people of each persuasion develop a genuine understanding of, and appreciation for, the other.

It is therefore disappointing that Catherine Deveny's latest column (Age 27/6) continues what is her apparent obsession with mocking the exterior absurdities that people sometimes attach to religion, as opposed to any genuine effort on her part to engage with the interior experience of faith. Does she really think things like "purity rings" are the hallmarks of belief in God and the expression of faith? Does she not understand that most Christians reading an article about a girl suing a school over an item of jewellery will roll their eyes in despair, knowing how superficial critics of faith will seize on this as yet more "evidence" of the absurdity of belief in God? Can she truly not distinguish between the lived experience of faith and the cultural agglomerations and personal vanities that are sometimes imposed upon it?

It is clear Ms Deveny sees herself as some kind of Australian equivalent of Richard Dawkins. My appeal to her is to drop this pretension and meaningfully engage with the interior reality of faith, and not merely some of the bizarre or absurd accoutrements of religion. By all means be sceptical or critical; but please do it from a position of genuine engagement, and not sneering self-righteousness.

Not that I expect Ms Deveny will change. But all we can do is keep trying to put the case that the phrase "thinking Christian" (or Muslim or Jew or Hindu, or Buddhist, etc) is not an oxymoron. Hopefully, there are enough "thinking atheists" who will likewise see the need for engagement and will respond.

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: A critic is a failed writer - but then, so are most writers! (T S Eliot)

IT - IS - FINISHED!

At long last, after nearly two and a half years, and 166,000 words, I have finally finished writing my novel.

Yeah, okay, so I now have to re-read the whole thing all over again and do what will no doubt be a multitude of corrections - but I've actually finished writing! Who woulda thunk it?

After I've done the corrections, I will need to find a few friends with whom I can stretch the limits of friendship and ask to test read the manuscript...but I'm sure I'll have no trouble finding volunteers! ;0)

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Literature is the art of proclaiming in front of everybody the things one is careful to conceal from one's immediate circle. (Jean Rostand)

Beautiful Islamic Art

The Art Gallery of NSW is currently exhibiting a collection of magnificent Islamic art from the Khalili Collection, one of the largest and finest collections of Islamic art in the world.

Dr Nasser David Khalili is an Iranian Jewish scholar who collects art in order to promote understanding and peace between cultures. His collection ranges across the entire span of Islamic history, and includes manuscripts, statues, glassware, furniture, and jewellery, and totals over 20,000 objects. Dr Khalili is also involved with the Maimonides Foundation Trust, which promotes peace and understanding between Jews and Muslims.

Sadly, I won't be able to make it to Sydney in order to view the exhibition; but the Art Gallery has an excellent website - and although the site is incomplete (the online exhibition has yet to be posted), what's already there looks fantastic, and I'll be re-visiting the site to check out the exhibition images once they come online.

The music accompanying the exhibition also sounds wonderful; I'm thinking that when the CD becomes available, a copy might just join my collection of sacred music.

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Dispute not, unless in kindly fashion, with the people of the Book, save with such of them as have acted wrongfully toward you; and say to them, "We believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God and your God is one, and to him we are self-surrendered". (Qur'an, Sura 26:45)

Friedrich Nietzsche: Not The Devil In Disguise

I've been reading and thinking a lot about Friedrich Nietzsche lately.

Nietzsche does not enjoy a good press among Christians. Those Christians who have any knowledge of his work tend to think of him as one of the great 19th Century humanist bogeymen, a vitriolic anti-theist who vilified the church, mocked faith, and made such outrageously provocative statements as "It's indecent to be a Christian these days" and, more famously, "God is dead".

So it's hardly surprising that Christians tend to take a dim view of Nietzsche. But I have a somewhat different view of poor old Friedrich; indeed, I think he is one of the most misunderstood and wrongly maligned figures in human intellectual history. And the reason why I hold this view is grounded in the social and historical context in which he operated.

By Nietzsche's lifetime, the church, in Europe and elsewhere, had come to be seen not as the agency through which society was challenged and renewed, but as one of the pillars of the establishment supporting the status quo. The church was middle-class, complacent, and conservative, smugly assured of its own moral superiority, and deeply suspicious of any move toward change or re-ordering. The country parson with his butterfly collection, the metropolitan priest with his well-made house, the bishops and prelates with their palaces and political privileges: all these were viewed as emblematic of a church that was out of touch with the reality in which most people lived, and indifferent to the fate of those for whom it should have been caring.

So it comes as no surprise that Nietzsche's devastating critique should have burst into this insular, self-satisfied world with the force of an exploding bomb. This was especially the case given he was himself the son of a clergyman; and although Nietzsche was devoted to his father, and later paid for a beautiful headstone to be laid on his father's grave, in which was inscribed a passage from 1 Corinthians 13:8 - Love never dies - Nietzsche was excoriated by the Christians of his time. Indeed, in the parish registry that records his birth, someone later wrote: Friedrich Nietzsche - a known anti-Christ.

But was this fearful, demonising reaction warranted? True, Nietzsche wrote many harsh and uncompromising things about Christianity, much of which can be arguably viewed as excessive or overstated. But within this excess and overstatement lay a core of legitimate criticism overlooked by Nietzsche's detractors; indeed, they often failed to see that this over-the-top style itself served an important purpose.

Firstly: what was Nietzsche's principle objection to Christianity? Well, he didn't object to Christianity as such, he objected to the platitudes and home-spun homilies to which he felt conventional, unthinking faith gave rise. For example, Nietzsche argued that traditional Christian consolations that experiences such as sickness, failure, and suffering were "all part of God's plan" or "would turn out for the best" were highly destructive, because they involved a denial of life and prevented humans from achieving their full potential. Nietzsche based this objection on his principle that the truly healthy person does not seek to avoid or minimise suffering or hardship, nor do they even accept it as part of the reality of being; instead, they actively embrace "negative" experiences as part of the totality of existence, a totality that needed to be engaged with as a whole in order for a person to live a truly happy life.

Nietzsche argued that the "religion of happiness", the view that happiness is either the absence or minimisation of suffering, was implicit in traditional Christian consolations. By arguing that negative experiences were all "part of God's plan", Christians of the conventional variety denied humans their capacity to respond to the vicissitudes of life, and thereby caused themselves and others to lapse into apathy and lassitude. Likewise, by suggesting that everything would "turn out for the best", they provided false comfort that only exposed people to even greater suffering once "the best" did not eventuate. Nietzsche argued that a far better approach was be to meet suffering and hardship head on; that instead of tying to console ourselves, we should appreciate the value of hardship, its capacity to add meaning and fulfilment to our lives. This was the attitude to life which Nietzsche attributed to the "superman", a concept later misappropriated and warped by the Nazis to justify their theories of racial superiority.

Nietzsche compared the complacent, self-satisfied Christianity of his own time with the faith of the early church. He argued that the early church, in its attitudes, had been much closer to the "superman", the truly healthy human being, because it enabled people to engage with life and deal with suffering in ways that added meaning to existence. By contrast, the conventional Christianity Nietzsche saw around all around him was content with platitudes and maxims that unhealthily restrained human nature, restricting its capacity to wrestle with suffering and emerge as something greater than it had been previously. In other words, Nietzsche believed that Christianity could only have value if it was direct, vigorous, and muscular, instead of timorous, conventional, and apathetic.

Secondly: what was the point of the hyperbolic language in which Nietzsche often couched his criticism? Simply, it was to get a reaction. But a reaction not for the purpose of attention-seeking or self-aggrandisement; on the contrary, Nietzsche was trying to rouse those whom he saw as fatally asleep, and he felt the best way he could do this was to alert Christians, through the medium of harsh language, to the existential danger of their condition. Nietzsche felt that once they were awake, and once they had sufficiently recovered from the shock of waking, they would be able to rationally analyse their position, and thereby be motivated to change their approach to life and faith.

Alas, he was only partially successful. He certainly shocked many Christians out of their complacency; but they never really got over the experience. Instead of turning the energy of their shock into reforming Christianity, they utilised it to attack Nietzsche and denigrate him as an "anti-Christ" and a subversive. Well, he may certainly have been a subversive, but it was a subversion that was desperately needed.

And how is any of this relevant today? Quite simply because there has been much discussion among Christians (and people of faith generally) as to how they respond to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins, and their loud and vociferous attacks on faith and religion. Some argue that they should be simply ignored. But I think this would be a mistake for two reasons; one, because it would leave the intellectual field to Dawkins and co, and I don't think they deserve it; and, two, because sticking our heads in the sand would do an injustice to both ourselves and our critics. Others believe we should use Dawkins' and Hitchins' own weapons against them, and deal insult for insult, gross generalisation for gross generalisation. But I also think this, too, would be a mistake, because descending into the sewer of ignorance is, ultimately, an ineffective weapon; you only end up tainting yourself.

So how should we respond? Quite simply, by adopting a Nietzschean approach, by becoming "supermen" who engage with and embrace our critics, who wrestle with their criticisms and incorporate them into our life experience in order to become something greater than the sum of our parts. That does not mean we must meekly accept any old calumny which Dawkins or Hitchins choose to throw at us, nor that we refrain from arguing back or pointing out the flaws, errors, inconsistencies, and downright untruths of their position. Rather, it means that we should see Dawkins and Hitchins not as our enemies, but as people doing us a great and necessary service; for beneath the hyperbole and prejudice are legitimate criticisms that should spur us to reform and renewal - without in any way compromising our opposition to their anti-theism.

Afterall, it was Karl Marx, that arch-atheist of all atheists, who, writing about Nietzsche, declared: "Shame on you, Christians! Shame on you that it took an atheist to demonstrate to you the essence of your own faith!".

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Philosophy is common sense in a dress suit. (Oliver Braston)

Who's Afraid of Industrial "Reform"?

As the Australian Federal election starts to loom large on the horizon of most Australians' political consciousness, and as opinion polls continue to suggest that the Labor Opposition are in with a real chance of breaking the Howard Government's decade-long stranglehold on power, industrial relations is shaping up as one of the key battlegrounds for the hearts and minds of the voting public.

In some respects, the pitches thrown at voters by both sides are somewhat predictable. The Howard Government continues to trot out the tired old whipping horse of secretive "union power" should the ALP win the next election; the ALP continue to pose as the party that champions decency and fairness in the employment relationship. Yet, beneath these familiar masks lurk some subtleties that may have escaped most people's attention. For in reality this is not a battle between parties with opposing perspectives on industrial relations, but a contest to determine who can best massage their message and thereby convince the public of their right to electoral support.

In part, this is played out in the overt messages that are issued by both the Coalition and the ALP. The Coalition continue to trumpet their record as "economic managers", pointing to Australia's "record low" unemployment figures as proof of the veracity of Coalition industrial policy, and in particular, the so-called "Workchoices" changes to industrial relations legislation. The ALP responds by arguing that the Howard Government have simply benefited from "reforms" instituted by the Hawke/Keating Labor Governments, while at the same time strongly playing up the social injustice implications of the Government's industrial policy.

But this posturing only hides the less attractive reality. The "official" unemployment figures are highly suspect, both methodologically and qualitatively. Aside from the fact that the "unemployment" rate only counts those who are formally registered with the Government's privatised "Jobs Network" (and many tens of thousands of people are not so registered, for a variety of reasons), the integrity of the figure suffers from rules such as the stipulation that an "employed" person is defined as someone who has an hour or more of paid employment per week. So if you are unfortunate enough to suffer from irregular or highly variable hours of work, you are counted as gainfully "employed"! The truth is that the real unemployment / underemployment rate in Australia is at least double the "official" (and supposedly "record low") rate. But this is the kind of duplicity that is to be expected from a Government who have made an artform out of dissembling, distorting, obfuscating, and downright dishonesty.

For the ALP's part, it is essentially attempting to have its cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, it argues that it is as economically "competent" (if not more so) than the Government, citing the aforementioned "reforms" under previous Federal Labor governments. On the other hand, it portrays itself as the friend of the working person / self-employed person / skilled tradesperson against the "big end of town"; the friend of the "battler" and the "aspirational class". This is a decidedly dishonest strategy, replete as it is with a sad combination of "me-too" politics and phoney class identification. The "reforms" of the Hawke/Keating Governments opened the door for the lamentable erosion of citizens' capacity to direct their own industrial / financial future that has been entrenched by the policies of the Howard Government; and even as it has been turning its back on its social-democratic foundations and mindlessly embracing neo-liberal economic orthodoxies, the ALP has been posturing as the party of social equality and conscience.

And it is this essential artificiality on both sides of politics that has underscored some of the recent manoeuvrings on industrial relations. Stung by a highly effective union campaign against the "Workchoices" legislation (an effectiveness derived in large part from the fact that the campaign drew on the real experiences of people victimised by the "reforms"), the Howard Government has dropped the "Workchoices brand", recruited the employers federations (isn't it funny how they're never called "bosses unions"?) to fund a multi-million dollar pro-Workchoices ad campaign, and have seized on the fact that the union movement has a campaign strategy for the forthcoming election to hysterically suggest an ALP-union conspiracy. Predictably, the ALP have attempted to destroy the claim of union control by assuring employers that unions will have neither a free rein nor a guaranteed future should the ALP win power, and has bent over backwards to water down its initially robust policy response to "Workchoices" as a sop to the powerful employer federations (no hint of a Coalition-business conspiracy, though).

But perhaps one of the most sweeping - and yet unnoticed, or at least, uncommented upon - aspects of the ALP's industrial policy has been its proposal to effectively make the governance of industrial relations an arm of the public service. It proposes doing this in two ways: by making the oversight of industrial relations the province of a "one-stop shop" entity called "Fair Work Australia"; and by abolishing the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). True, the AIRC has effectively been reduced to a shadow of its former self under "Workchoices", and its substantive functions outsourced to creatures of the Howard Government such as the Australian Fair Pay Commission and the Office of the Employment Advocate; but the proposed abolition of the Commission represents the effective abandonment of a framework that has made Australia’s IR system unique in the industrialised world.

As an independent judiciary, the AIRC has been the sole instrumentality capable of holding both capital and labour to account, restraining the excesses of both mindless union militancy and callous libertarian capitalism. The net result has been an economic prosperity and social cohesiveness the envy of the rest of the world, built largely on Keynesian principles of judicious intervention in the economy, and achieved without the appalling inequalities that characterise the “boom” economies of post-Thatcherite Britain and post-Reaganomics America.

That the Coalition should wish to see the Commission eviscerated is hardly surprising, given the dominance of neo-liberal ideologues on the conservative side of politics. That this feat will be enacted by the ALP should it win power not only indicates a similar neo-liberal ascendancy in what passes for progressive politics in Australia, it also points to a shockingly one-dimensional understanding of economics. In other words, it’s not actually about the economy - that is, the totality of the relationship between business, finance, employment, human dignity, bargaining power and social equity - it’s actually about convincing the electorate who can secure the biggest budget surpluses, maintain the lowest interest rates, and provide the biggest tax cuts.

Moreover, the name of the entity which the ALP propose will take over the role of the AIRC not only smacks of the jingoism for which the present Federal Government is notorious, given the politicisation of the public service under that selfsame government, it produces the alarming prospect that the entity itself will simply be a tool of party politics. There are already sufficient examples of this under the Howard Government for the potential loss of an independent AIRC to be truly worrying. Equally importantly, it makes a mockery of the rubric under which these “reforms” have been proposed: fair for all, not free for all.

Without an independent judiciary, industrial relations in Australia will become a free-for-all. And, as usual, the ones to suffer will be the most helpless: those with the least bargaining power; those without skills or only minimal skills; those stuck in the round of casualised work, unemployment, and underemployment. The Australian economy - that is, the nexus between human dignity and bargaining power in the workplace - is already on shaky ground; the “reforms” proposed by the ALP - and the further "reforms" that will almost certainly be implemented by the Coalition should they win the next election - may well cut the ground out from under working Australians completely and irrevocably.

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: A poll is when people come to their census. (Anonymous)

What's Your Theological Worldview?

I found this little quiz on Louise's Blog via Caro's blog.

What's Your Theological Worldview?

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern, You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern		64%
Neo orthodox		61%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan		57%
Classical Liberal		57%
Roman Catholic		54%
Modern Liberal		46%
Charismatic/Pentecostal		39%
Reformed Evangelical		36%
Fundamentalist		7%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Hmmm...not sure I agree with all the conclusions of this quiz, especially the disillusioned bit...that's putting a bit too strongly some of the concerns and issues I feel...good to know, however, that I've only got a teensy-weensy bit of the fundamentalist in me!

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Modernity: all signposts and no destination. (Louis Kronenburger)

Which Wine Are You?

Well, seeing as Caro's blog keeps coming up with these interesting little quizzes - and because my Dearly Beloved reckons I like a good w(h)ine - I couldn't resist this one, either!

You Are Chardonnay

Fresh, spirited, and classic - you have many facets to your personality. You can be sweet and light. Or deep and complex. You have a little bit of something to offer everyone... no wonder you're so popular. Approachable and never smug, you are easy to get to know (and love!). Deep down you are: Dependable and modest Your partying style: Understated and polite Your company is enjoyed best with: Cold or wild meat

What Kind of Wine Are You?

I reckon they've got me down to a tee!

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: No longer drink only water, but also take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and for all your ailments. 1 Timothy 5:23 (NRSV)

Which Theologian Are You?

My buddy Caro had this quiz on her blog and I just couldn't resist!






















Which theologian are you?

You scored as a Friedrich Schleiermacher

You seek to make inner feeling and awareness of God the centre of your theology, which is the foundation of liberalism. Unfortunately, atheists are quick to accuse you of simply projecting humanity onto 'God' and liberalism never really recovers.

Friedrich Schleiermacher 73%
Karl Barth 60%
Paul Tillich 60%
Jürgen Moltmann 60%
Anselm 60%
John Calvin 60%
Martin Luther 53%
Augustine 40%
Charles Finney 33%
Jonathan Edwards 13%

Which Theologian Are You?

Talk to you soon,

BB

Quote for the Day: Theology is the effort of explaining the unknowable in terms that are not worth knowing. (H L Mencken)

Venting Some Spleen

Maybe it's the fact that I managed to survive my semester exams intact (although the outcome of said exams is still unknown), but I saw this article in yesterday's Age by Christopher Hitchens that really made my blood boil.

It's not that I disagree with Hitchens on two key points - that the recent media frenzy about Paris Hilton has been ugly and distasteful, and that Hilton herself is a rather sad individual - what set me off was the hectoring and morally self-righteous tone of the whole piece. Here was rich ground upon which to explore the social meaning of the whole "Hilton saga", while at the same time expressing some genuine concern for a damaged human being. But what does Hitchens do? He indulges in self-righteous diatribe replete with artificial, self-referencing mea culpas, the ultimate effect of which was to proclaim Hitchens' bombastic sense of his own moral superiority.

Why am I getting so worked up about this? Because I am getting rather tired of the presently prevailing notion that intellectual and moral rigour are synonymous with aggressive conceit and plain rudeness towards those with whom one disagrees. From Richard Dawkins' anti-theist crusades (in which Hitchens himself has participated) to every two-bit commentator and self-proclaimed moral crusader on talk-back radio, there's a wash of loud-mouths out there who believe their right to expression also involves a right to lambaste and vilify.

And I, frankly, am sick of it. Most of all, I am sick of occasions when, even in the midst of making a valid point, someone nonetheless stoops to name calling or sneering deprecation.

And so I fired off a letter to The Age. I'm afraid I was rather annoyed when I wrote it, and it resembles a Hitchensesque rant. But I think I made my point. You can read the rather editorially truncated letter here, (you'll need to scroll down to the letter entitled "Holier Hitchens"!!), or you can read the unedited version reproduced below. (You may want to read the article first to place the letter in context).

Christopher Hitchens' pompous, phoney counter-culturalism (The Age 13/6) reveals that he possesses not a single shred of genuine compassion for Paris Hilton, only that he views her sad plight as another opportunity to vent his splenetic sense of moral superiority over the rest of the world.

I say this having agreed with Hitchens' on two points: firstly, the hysterical media coverage of Hilton's travails has been truly obscene; and, secondly, that Hilton herself is a rather forlorn figure whose narcissistic expectations of life as a meal ticket are reflective of the venal undercurrent of consumer capitalism.

But Hitchens himself is not content with exploring the fact that if Ms Hilton had not been brought up as a self-involved person-turned-consumer-product surrounded by fawning lackeys, her current encounter with the legal system may not have been as traumatic as it evidently has been. Within these issues lie genuine cause for reflection on the nature of our society, as well as compassion for the damaged, truncated human being who is the subject of Hitchens' rant.

Instead, Hitchens uses this situation as the pretext for a histrionic diatribe as narcissistic and self-important as the banal pronouncements of any self-proclaimed "celebrity". This is made even more odious by the artificial self-admonishments for involving himself in the "Hilton drama" which punctuate his piece. Here is Hitchens in all his glorious self-righteousness: condemning the rest of the world while proclaiming his own moral superiority for having sufficient conscience to feel bad about making a buck off Hilton's misery.

No more of this smug artificiality. If the whole Hilton saga must produce an op-ed piece, at least let it be in a form that incisively dissects the social meaning of this matter while at the same time displaying genuine compassion for a sad human being.

So there you have it: that's me in attack mode. Now I'll just go back to being a quiet little church mouse...

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Learned conversation is either the affectation of the ignorant or the profession of the mentally unemployed. (Oscar Wilde)

Exams Schmexams!

Yesterday, I sat exams for the first time since I left high school - and the first of these was Greek!

You may recall from earlier posts my somewhat hysterical reaction to Greek; the complexities of its grammar, the convolutions of its noun declensions and verbal conjugations. Indeed, by the end of the first day of the pre-semester introduction, I was ready to chuck the whole subject in before I'd even started - that, and a good deal more besides! To say Yours Truly came close to a complete emotional breakdown is an understatement of vast proportions!

But I decided to stick at it - not so much from hope as sheer bloody-minded stubbornness. Even as other members of the class began to fall away and decide it was too tough to continue, I ignored the rising tide of panic within my cowardly heart and pretended to absorb the information my lecturer provided in ever-increasing abundance. Ultimately, as the class numbers stabilised, I found an effective mechanism for dealing with my fear: I resigned myself to failure.

Now, before you object too strenuously and start banging on about the need to keep up a positive attitude and all the rest of that optimistic guff, let me tell you that it worked very successfully. Resigning myself to failure meant I no longer approached my Greek classes with trepidation: indeed, an air of serene detachment seemed to pervade the whole of my being. And it must have done some good, because against all expectations, I kept on passing the weekly tests that were part of the subject assessment. And that's the joy about not having any expectations: because this state, being a form of expectation in itself, always produces joy when it is not fulfilled. The expectation that does not exist cannot be unfulfilled - it can only be joyously contradicted.

So do I think I've passed the subject? Who knows; for myself, a bare pass will be good enough, and anything beyond that an unlooked-for bonus. But let this be a lesson to the rest of you: never underestimate the constructive power of negative thinking.

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Optimism is the digitalis of failure. (Elbert Hubbard)

My First Sermon

The universe has been having some fun at my expense this week.

This morning I was scheduled to deliver my first sermon. The opportunity to do so arose because our local minister utilised the long weekend to take a more than well-earned break. Fortunately, my local Uniting Church congregation is blessed with any number of people who can lead a service and preach a sermon; but given my Dearly Beloved and I are presently applying to candidate to the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church, our minister offered us this chance to preach in his absence.

My Dearly Beloved has had some opportunity to preach as a consequence of her work as a school teacher; and so she graciously allowed me to take up the offer to preach this sermon. Moreover, our minister has generously offered to mentor my Dearly Beloved and I and take us through some of the issues, methods, and skills of preaching; and so I thought this would be an unprecedented opportunity to get some preaching experience under my belt.

I won't bore you with all the details of how I went about constructing the sermon; afterall, everyone approaches this task differently, and everyone has their own method that works for them. But I will say how gratified (and surprised) I was to discover that many of my initial impressions gelled closely with observations made by the various biblical commentaries I consulted; and, more importantly, how such commentaries enabled me to expand upon my first reading, enabled me to access a more complete insight that was a combination of personal reflection and the wisdom of those much more learned than myself.

I guess that's just a long-winded way of saying I was delighted to realise I didn't get it completely wrong!

Additionally, having the benefit of my Dearly Beloved's experience as an English teacher, and our minister's experience as a, well, minister, really made the difference in shaping my sermon from a rambling mish-mash into an at least vaguely coherent commentary. So I was reasonably confident that I'd be able to deliver something worth making people get up on a Sunday morning to listen to.

All I had to do was deliver the sermon. And that's where the cosmos stepped in.

For the past week, I have been battling a cold that started as a mild irritation in my throat on Monday, and by Friday had become a full-blown malaise characterised by a running nose, a throbbing head, burning eyes, and a 48-hour absence of sleep. And all this in a week in which I was meant to be studying for my Greek and Biblical Text exams scheduled for next Tuesday. To make matters worse, given this was to be my preaching debut, my parents decided they would attend the service to watch their little boy in action. Needless to say, I wasn't in any fit state to be doing any studying; and it was looking like I wasn't going to able to deliver any sermon, either! My preaching "arrival" looked over before it had even commenced!

The universe was pissing itself, no doubt. Personally, I had no trepidations about my capacity to deliver the projected sermon - a decade addressing meetings of angry union members as an organiser had more than prepared me for facing a church congregation. The issue was whether or not I'd be physically capable!

Fortunately, my condition improved over Saturday, due in large measure to hefty doses of medication, aided and abetted by 8 blissful hours of uninterrupted sleep on Saturday night. By Sunday morning I was feeling as washed out as a load of winter washing, but my nose had stopped dripping, my throat was no longer burning, and my eyes had returned to their normal focal acuity (admittedly not great). My voice still sounded like a kazoo with a severely strangled hernia, but as I explained to the congregation, having suffered for the sake of this sermon, it was now their turn to do likewise.*

Anyhoo, the upshot is that everything went swimmingly. Not because I was particularly good, but because the congregation responded with the grace and generosity which I have now come to expect from them. They laughed at all my gags, didn't yawn or fidget, somehow managed to preserve interested expressions on their faces, and after the service offered much undeserved praise and compliments. And because they are such good and generous people, I was able to walk away from the service with a nice inner glow! (Mum and Dad also thought I did good, too!)

So, all in all, a wonderfully affirming and rewarding experience. Now all I have to do is cram a week's worth of study into the next 24 hours!

Talk to you soon,

BB

Quote for the Day: Sermons are like pie-crusts: the shorter the better. (Austin O'Malley)

*Yes, I know this is an old gag, but under the circumstances, highly appropriate!