A nice dilemma

If you've been to the funny, but lovely, little town of Bath then you will have been to the square wherein the Abbey is located (it is the major feature of the town).  There is a curious article in Church Times (here) about Evensong having to be cancelled because the activity outside  the Abbey was too loud.
It reminded me of one of the profoundest religious experiences I ever had in Paris (here sorry the picture has disappeared if you need one ...here you go)
My dilemma is this:
What is more authentic; the people who sit on the steps of the Basilica ( a truly amazing place...no doubt), or the people who are inside at 10 p.m. on a Sunday night.
I must admit I went in and I was overwhelmed that the 400 or so people who were there at the dead of night were probably not going to turn up on Sunday morning; many of them clearly gay and Bohemian. What ever either of those terms might mean in today's world!
Isn't this the dilemma for Bath ( and indeed the Church where I work)? Is Evensong or busking the more authentic expression of life?
I think I know the answer. It is not always comfortable...or if you were in Paris confortable !

Caution about intolerance

Although it looks as though Abbott will pressure the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate to backdown on not allowing  women wearing Islamic religious dress to sit in the Gallery opf the Parliament; It remains to be seen if that will actually happen. 

I suspect it will. But we shall see.

The Abbott machine has obviously sussed out very quickly that the community is "not very happy" about the arbitrary erosion of religious freedom

One of the great problems is that the non religious community is pretty unaware of what such things are all about. And often use such issues for expressions of fear, intolerance and....frankly    ignorance.

Most of us, for example, are not aware that there is a variety of religious garb...quite a good article on the ABC News website here.

I also have often made the observation that you don't have to go very far to find that the sort of criticisms that today are offered about Islam, or Judaism, Hare Krishnas...could just as easily be fired at Christians.

The typical characterisation of "cults" for example...that people sell up their lives and give their money to the faith body; make acts of commitment and ultimate obedience....could just as easily be aimed at many Christians.

Indeed I make the observation : would nuns of the most conservative Christian traditions (like the one that Senator Bernardi and Mr Abbott belong to) also be banned because their bodies and faces can't be readily identified.

I know that lots of modern nuns don't wear habits at all. And most people don't understand what they are all about it. Some of it is anachronistic (see below)...but in a pluralistic and democratic society people are allowed to choose to be religiously conservative ...even if you or I would not choose to be so.

And so it passes

People seem to have spent the last year saying "Where has this year gone?", and here we are on New Years' Eve.

On this day last year I blogged about the price of petrol complaining that it had gone up from $1.18 to $1.33...I note that this year it appears to have been an even greater leap to $1.39. Being blamed on the Northern cold snap. I remain unconvinced now, as I did then, "that local petrol stations can act so responsively to international fluctuations"

In January 2010 the unsexy country of Haiti had an awful earthquake, there was awful flooding in Pakistan and of course there was the usual drivel from the meanest amongst us in this 'lucky country' that we should give to our own. I asked then, as I ask now "n the end that human/religious principle... do to others what you want to have done to you....

might cause us to ask what we would like others to do for us if we were subject to earthquake, flood or fire."

Today, indeed, to the north some of us this day will have the awful catastrophe of flood, while in SA it is a 'catastrophic' fire day.

I suspect that the meanies will find an excuse to not give to those either

During February I managed to blog from Adelaide Airport, Singapore Airport, Bangkok, the Phi Phi Islands, Phuket and then again in Singapore. Good trip.

In March we had a State Election...the first of a number of elections, making us a bit testy and bored with the process. I wondered if God had an opinion on who should win (other than, of course, simply agreeing with me).

ANZAC Day 2010 came in a year when there seemed to have been death after death of our servicemen ( and indeed of countless others) in theatres of war. I noted that the ''great" thing about the Great War was that a number of young poets, many like Wilfred Owen killed in action, challenged the glorification of war naming it rather as what old men require of young men. A shocking thing for the Empire.

One of a number of theatre/music highlights of the year was the visit of Ute Lemper, it is always amazing to see performers who are world class. W& J who were also there didn't think it was very good. Sarah and I thought she was amazing. Also Patricia Piccinini's "Big Mother" in the Art Gallery of SA is an amazing sculpture which was well worth the visit.

There was a running debate in all sorts of fora (not over by any means) about the place and relationship of science, art and religion.I don't for the life of me see why these things are mutually exclusive.

There were of course lots of religious stories. Some show that the church can be just ridiculous (see here). And some like the saga of the Murray Diocese which show it is just really, really sad (here ) Our own Bishop works a little too hard and struggles with us as people. I hope he has a productive time away from the Diocese for a few months.

And...we survived. Yes after a rather bloody transition, Australia woke up to find it had not only a woman Prime Minister. But also a 'ranga'

And of course, amongst other things in August, I couldn't resist the temptation to blog about the irrationality of petrol prices again.

I began to feel in the latter part of the year that blogging was getting to be a bit of hard work. So I do apologise to those of you who come back and keep on reading. I am taken aback that you are all over the world, and in all sorts of places and positions.

The cold winter almost killed me this year . Which might explain why I started to endlessly glog about flowers and tomatoes (here and here and here). I think I had lost a little too much weight. Some days I just couldn't get warm. This is not the case since Christmas when I have put on a 'couple' of kilos.

My mother would have been 90 in November. I was going to go and visit her grave but in the end I didn't get there. But we all remember her fondly, as indeed we do our father.

And so the year has gone. A lot of talk about same-sex marriage, and a different-sex marriage in our family have given us much pause for thought about that august institution. I still consider myself to be 'married' even though my wife and I no longer live together. I still wear my ring, and don't consider I am at liberty to enter into another marriage relationship. Should the time come when this situation has to change then I will have to do something more than just go to the Family Law Court which, after all, cannot dispense with my religious vows.

The refugee issue continues to haunt our island nation. It is profoundly confronting. But like most things there are good news stories too!

Happy New Year to us all!

Who does God think should win the SA election?(i)

Yesterday I had half an hour to spare so I went and sat in the Dean's Chapel at the Cathedral and prayed for the State election. So it's all my fault! (here is why Anglicare urged us to do it)
In my last entry I made the not so bold statement that it won't really make much difference to our stability and sense of well-being whether Liberal or Labor win tomorrow.
No doubt some of us will feel disheartened (either way), but I suspect on Monday most of us will go about our normal business.
There has been much talk about people's personal religious beliefs, and in particular how this might impact on their ability to be able to carry out their role as an elected leader.
The (allegedly) non-religious seem to think that some how extraneous pressure will be brought to bear, but I think this is a bit bizarre.
I actually feel a lot happier knowing that Joe O'Flynn (it was St Patrick's day this week after all) has a coherent set of beliefs, even though I may differ in part or total. Than not-knowing that Jerry O'Grady is not religious...and I don't actually have a clue what sorts fo things he might regard as important.
I do remember being at one of those open-slather meetings some years ago when the clean-cut plants of the right were trying to expose some of the social policies of the local Greens candidates.
Most of us tend to think of Greens as being single-issue candidates. Plant more trees and save the whale sort of thing! But over the years they have taken time to develop social policies which would scandalise some and delight others. They are pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro delgalistaion of marijuana...and so on.
The plants in the audience were doing a good job of exposing some of these.
My point?
Everyone has some belief structure. At least the religious belief structure is open to examination where the private belief structure could be much more outrageous.
I am not of the opinion that we should dismiss whole classes of people because of their beliefs.
So lets have less of dismissing people just because they are 'religious'.
I will get round to telling you what is really going on...but maybe that is blog (ii)........

Religion and politics (ii)

Part of the debate that has been doing the rounds on this question is whether or not is desirable that people of religious faith should be allowed to also exercise secular power.
The anxiety about this seems to come (not unexpectedly) from those who declare themselves to be not-religious.. It seems to me that this anxiety is misplaced, and comes about from a fundamental misunderstanding about religion that it is a private pursuit.
To the person of religious persuasion nothing could be further from the truth. Religion is essentially about whole-of-life, it is not a hobby or an interest, but about the way you view the world.
Now there are many things that are like this, not just religion, you education, background, ethnicity, social class...all affect the way you see and do things. We do not say that people of a certain racial background, or type of upbringing have to put that to one side...or that if you happen to have been educated at a state school, a private school or at home...then you are not allowed to bring that to bear on your political perceptions.
Why then would we say that some how you should park your religious perspectives (as if you could)?
The answer is not to some how detach ourselves from these things which colour our perceptions, but rather to declare them.
The truth is it's good that K Rudd talks about his Christian faith, or that T Abbott can tell us about why Roman Catholicism has shaped him. If we actually try to suggest that these things are some how unimportant and therefore should be set aside (and I say it again...as if you could) then this is more disturbing in actually making a clear apologetic for your sincerely held belief.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY that religious views, or any others, should go uncritiqued.
Quite the reverse. Critics of religion are right to suggest that we should not just accept an argument "because the Bible tells me so", or because that is what my religion teaches.
The religious person should be challenged to defend their position. This, to my mind, presents no threat to organised religion. Rather it enables those of us who are religious to respond to the challenge to not only be faithful, but also to be artional, reasonable and intelligent.
Nothing less should be expected in modern society.

Religion and the polls (ii)

I am a bit intrigued by Paul Toohey's brief exploration of all this interplay between religion and politics in Saturday's press. "My dwelling on religious belief might seem overbearing", he says, "but we have a right to know what sort of Prime Minister we might possibly be getting."
He then goes on to raise the issue of Creationism, and points out that neither Abbott nor Rudd, though they are both declared Christians, believes that the world was created 6000 years ago.
It always makes my blood boil when reporters who should know better make the simplistic sort of analysis that belief in God means that you have some how parked your brain in the 12th century. Any modest analysis of history will show you that many contemporary and leading scientists are also mean and women of faith.
There are of course some Christians (often very outspoken) who are biblical literalists, that is they are so ignorant of the nature of the text that they hold so dear (The Holy Bible), that they cannot see any other approach to it than to take a simple literalistic reading and make it (often twisting it) into black and white fact. This seems to me to do a great injustice to the text, and indeed does nothing to advance its serious study.
But there are, as I say, many biblical literalists. Some of those churches are big and influential, and indeed there has been deliberate attempts in the last decade to ensure that these ultra-conservative churches are wooed (or rather not alienated). We have seen this very much in America, but also in Australia where, for example, the very influential Hillsong church has been some what feted. Even the last Federal Treasurer and Foreign Minister were publicly lauded (here) by them even though they may have seemed a little uncomfortable!

But, to my mind, the issue is not about faith leading to Creationism, (even though Abbott has famously declared climate change to be "crap" this does not appear to be because he is a Catholic, and/or creationist but rather because he is a political opportunist); the issue is about whether we deal honestly with the reality that Australians are allowed to practise their faith freely, seriously and openly.
Our nation is ambiguous about this.
We trumpet pluralism, but we are not so much irreligious as anti-religious.
There is also a new scientific fundamentalism in some quarters which would deny religion any place in public life at all. These analyses often seem to me to not address the profound nature of religious experience and reflection on human life but dismiss it as superstitious hoo-hah.

As a serious religious person myself I believe that the quality of life is enhanced by people who take faith seriously. Don't play games and don't pretend to be Christian (or Buddhist, or Moslem or....?) if you are not going to be serious.
I believe it is a good thing that religious faith should inform our wider beliefs. They are after all more fundamental, perhaps a better word is "radical".
They should not go uncritiqued, and they do not need to prevail simply because they are religious. But we should not be frightened to be political, scientific and religious people.
Indeed we should see this as a key human right.

Religion and the polls (i)

I am personally pleased that the leaders of both major political parties in the Federal Parliament appear to be serious and practising Christians.
This is a change from the sort of wishy-washy tokenism that we appear to have had (which, by the way, Anglicans are used to) of leaders who say they are Christian but who are at pains to show that they do not have any meaningful attachment. Sadly they have most often called themselves "Anglican" as a sort of establishment stamp. But their analysis of matters religious and how this might affect day to day life is often simplistic and dismissive. John Howard was a classic example of this sort of Anglicanism.
So in comes Ruddy who not only seems to be an Anglican, but seems to know about it, and takes it seriously. He is often pictured going to Church and seemed to even smile when he came out as if he might have actually enjoyed it. Most un-Australian!
My impression of what really happens is that the Canberra gallery knowing where he would be at 10.30 on a Sunday morning habitually lined up for a door-stop outside St John's Church and Kev obliged.
Then the Opposition began to feed into our Australian wariness of anything pious and started suggesting that this was staged and, indeed, not what ordinary Australians do.

I am, of course, pleased that Kev has stuck to his guns. Which is what you would expect if he does indeed take his Christianity seriously.

Tony Abbott, too, has made no secret of the fact that he is a serious Catholic. Though he constantly equivocates (as in the Murdoch press today...."I do not regard myself as a Christian. I regard myself as a politician who just happens to think religion matters.") lest we think some how his Catholicism informs his conscience! I think this is bizarre.

He is, perhaps a little unfairly, constantly asked about the issue of abortion and whether he accepts contemporary social attitude or enforces catholic social teaching. There has of course been reason to explore this since he has made no secret of his anti-abortion stance and the fact that he is clearly at one with Roman Catholic teaching about matters such as the 'morning after pill'. This seems to me to be a much more potentially explosive matter than Rudd's attendance at the Eucharist Sunday by Sunday.

....more coming

Very sad

The very sad case of Michael Gugliemucci, pastor of a leading Pentecostal Church, pretending to have cancer and reaping a degree of financial reward from that begs all sorts of questions.
Not the least of which is the venom that is spewed out by correspondents to the local rag. Today, for example , all letters are very anti-Christian and anti-religion. They are, of course also pretty shallow.
But it needs to be observed that in a pluralist society the wholesale ridiculing of people's sincerely held religious beliefs is to be deplored. The sad failure of one person does not give others the right to make blanket accusations about other Christians which are shallow and untrue.
Comments such as "self deception.. is the core business of all religions"and "religion is superstition" are wild and open to question.
More than that they are insulting to those whose religious commitment is genuine, sincere and good. And whose works are charitable, generous and kind.
I think there are all sorts of serious questions about this case that need to be asked. By and large they are not being addressed. The serious questions are being ignored (in my opinion) in favour of sensationalism...but why should we be surprised by that
One of the questions is why a young man who was obviously very seriously disturbed from the age of 12 onwards (all admitted in the press) allowed to exercise such power and control any way.

Politcs and religion

On another blog ( here & here) a commentator writes:

I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea that religion influences politics full stop. From my point of view when the RU486 debate was on it seemed that Tony Abbott was not able to see any reasonable argument but his own.

So I replied:
Isn't it a bit naive to think that religion might not 'influence' politics?
As though politics exists in some sort of vacuum. By definition (I would have thought) that those things which engage the populace at large are going to influence politics...clearly religion does engage a large sector of the population.
I am not suggesting that the religious viewpoint should be given any more of a standing than any other viewpoint, and should be open to the usual democratic scrutinies but its nonsense to say that any legitimate group in our society should be barred from exercising its democratic rights!
Quite frankly if the gun lobby can be allowed to speak its mind, I don't see why organisations that have decidedly more benevolent goals shouldn't. If BHP or Santos or Gunn's can be allowed to have their say then why shouldn't a church, or a temple or a synagogue.
They don't have to prevail, but they do have the right

Mea Culpa!

I found myself yesterday with a moment to spare(see here for an outline of yesterday), an hour to kill or what ever and did not resist temptation. I bought myself the Christmas present I was going to tell other people to buy me ---Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
This book, whilst glaringly flawed, is I think probably quite important. Like von Daniken's "Chariots of the gods"(but rather better) it is important because it is popular and will therefore reach an audience that will not necessarily be able to properly critique it. Because it deals with complexity both in religion and in science, few are equipped with the intellectual tools that enable them to weigh the arguments. People do have a lot of common sense though and if they read around it they will be able to have bash at weighing the arguments.
Dawkins' original premise is that religion should not be without scrutiny, and the special place afforded to religion throughout the world often means that it is not scrutinised where almost all other aspects of life are. I take his point and think it is rather a good one.
Though I am a convinced Christian I also think of myself as a sceptic, I do not accept everything simply because it is part of the package. And we say in the post-modern religious world (if that is not an oxymoron) that everything is provisional, and I mean everything and I live with that exciting dynamic.
I don't think Dawkins does. He is something of an anti-religious fundamentalist. That is, there is one truth and that truth is that religion is bad. Even when he is being vaguely tolerant (seldom) there is a strong undercurrent of thgis fundamentalism.
This has been exposed by others more competent than I, I notice Frank Brennan on the First Tuesday Book Club said much the same thing (only better). Not terribly scientific of Dr Dawkins, but good polemic.
I am enjoying it, becuase it is actually too light (like von Daninken) and therefore popular (which is good) but also inadequate (which is bad).
I will no doubt say more in the coming days. (I suspect it's the sort of book that I'll finish today!! because while frustrating and curious in parts it is easy and compelling reading-this too is both good and bad)
I will have to find myself another Christmas present....though I did hear news of a really, really big one last night from someone who loves me a whole lot.
Bloody hell! How will I top a European progress?