Where is love?

One blog's collection of comments about Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center plans to burn the Holy Koran, the Holy Book of the Muslim world on the day of the anniversary which is tomorrow runs as follows

Tomorrow is the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States

The Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue of the Vatican says that terrorist attacks “cannot be counteracted by an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community.” It also insisted that every religion “has the right to respect and protection.”

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the idea is a “disgraceful plan.” She is hoping that the pastor will not push through with it.

Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie, who is currently in Pakistan, said this when asked about the pastor’s plan: “I have hardly the words… that somebody would do that to somebody’s religious book.”

US General David Petraeus, the Commander of the International Coalition Forces in Afghanistan, said that the burning of the Koran will endanger the lives of the US troops.

It is an interesting collection of 'commentators'. The Church, The State, Film, and the Military; what a curious world we live in.

The irony of such an outrageous action is that American would die for 'freedoms' like owning a gun. And I would be prepared to bet that the so-called "Pastor" is outspoken on such. Yet the freedom to religion is denied.

For people such as myself the difficulty is whether such religious vilification should be prevented by law. I am inclined to think that it should.

Many, many years ago when they banned the Hare Krishnas from their harmless chanting in public shopping areas in Adelaide I remembered thinking that Christians should be careful because we will be next. Google: fined for handing our bibles and you will get an interesting selection of articles from all over the world. I note that the rather eccentric old chap who does this in Adelaide has just been fined in Brisbane.

There have been, however, serious attempts over a number of years and in different States by some conservative Christians to prevent legislators from addressing religious vilification...this often looks like fundamentalists wanting to be allowed to slam non-Christian religions.

(see some thoughts on a range of issues in previous blogs)

The real philosophical dilemma for the small 'l' liberal is can freedom be extended to those who want freedom to be intolerant. This particular case certainly highlights that dilemma.

Orthodox political thought

In the last week I have had a bundle of political information but only two direct requests to make 'information' available to the people of our church community.

Now, the Anglican Church (despite often being otherwise characterised ) is not politically homogenous. It has often been characterised as "the Tory Party at Prayer"...or sometimes more whimsically (referring to the Anglo Catholic section with which I identify) as "The Communist Party at Mass"!

The reality is that we are theologically, socially and, most certainly, politically a heterodox community. It's often observed that our one defining characteristic is that we are all totally different...and we respect each other's right to be so.

This doesn't always make for easy living, but it does make life interesting.

So at times of election I try to be careful to not promote the line of one particular party, though many people would know and/or guess that I lean to the left.

The two requests to make the policies of particular parties known have actually come from other religious groups. One from an agency which promotes Christian Pastoral support Workers (formerly called chaplains) in state schools. Their advice is about the one issue of funding. Though they also urge people to write to their local member (of any persuasion) about the issue. This latter action seems to me perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to be seen to be promoting one or other party in particular.

Given, also, what I note above...that Anglicans cherish difference...it would be a mistake to make the assumption that we are all particularly sympathetic and think the same way.

The second solicitation comes from a party which clearly identifies itself as a Christian Party-even though when it suits them electorally they back away from that association, though it is clear that Family First seeks to draw support from mainly conservative evangelical churches.

Such churches probably do not tolerate theological diversity in the way that the Anglican Church does!

It would seem that they also have a fairly narrow conservative political agenda. I don't have any particular problem with people being conservative. What I do object to is the use of descriptors that seem to claim there is only one Christian viewpoint.

Thus when they put out a Christian Values Checklist (see here for similar information) it is for me some what problematic.

Of the 15 points on this particular document, which seems remarkably like the document put out for the recent State election...even though it claims to relate specifically to the Federal parliament..I don't have problems with some (possibly 6 of the 15....) but I would take exception to the bland statement that some points clearly represent "Christian values"

Item 3 for example : Support parental choice of schooling with education vouchers is clearly not a specifically Christian value at all

Of more concern are those matters where I actually think the value is not Christian at all

Item 4 'Protect marriage' (quite happy with that...but it goes on) 'oppose Relationship Registers for same-sex couples'

To my mind this flies in the face of the freedom that God gives to us in the Gospel. I don't dispute that many Christian, perhaps even most won't agree with me. But while I want to protect marriage I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage is the key strategy. What about providing adequate childcare, support for new parents etc. etc?

In fact I want society to stop acting prejudicially against people simply because they are gay. Where is that Christian value.

Item11 also want to prevent same-sex couples from having access to IVF and adoption

There is an agenda here. But to my mind it is not a Christian agenda. It is an anti-gay agenda, and I find no Christian value on this 'checklist' about protecting gay people from discrimination.

Quite the reverse. Items 12 & 13 promote narrow religious privilege with regard to vilification laws and anti-discrimination legislation....that is they want religious groups to have the right to be intolerant and discriminatory in a way that no other sector of society can be allowed to be so. I just think this sort of narrow seeking of privilege is so against the spirit of Paul's teaching about being responsible citizens that it is shocking.

So, I won't be issuing their narrow political advice in the name of "Christian Values"

A

Curiouser & Curiouser

It is curious to receive communication from the Family First Party about maintaining Eccelsiastical privilege in legislation.
Belonging to a denomination which has often been accused of exercising undue influence in the Parliaments of this land in a quasi-established-church way I sometimes detect from some of these newer groups a sort of influence envy. Indeed this would seem to be a major dynamic in the formation of Family First...a wish to influence the politcial process. This is so obvious that it doesn't need to be spelled out.
The Anglican Church should remind these folk of that which it needs to periodically remind itself, something to do with cutlery required for supping with the devil (hence the cartoon).
The particular matter that the Honourables Evans & Hood put before us is the seeming removal of the church's right to vilify whomsoever it likes in the name of preaching and "Biblical" teaching.
To be sure they name these issues rather differently "REMOVING" the right to preach and the right to counsel.; which is I sufggest something of a furphy.
There is a real question to be asked here of whether anyone should be allowed to say anything they like in the name of religious faith. I just think this is not on.
While they are particularly citing (surprise, surprise) the right to call a spade a sodomite; if this is to be taken to its logical conclusion then would they be so keen to allow a Calathumpian to say that Pentecostals are narrow-minded bigots, or that Christians in general are polytheistic cannibals, or that Jews add the blood of children to the Passover loaf. [Students of history will note that I use those examples because they represent real accusations of the past]
My problems is that I think it is a very selective exegesis of how Christians are supposed to practise their faith and live as responsible citizens. My reading of (particularly Paul's) teaching about citizenship is that we should be exemplary in complying to the laws of the State, and require at least as much, and probably more, compliance and obedience as the general populace.
Surely when it comes to decrying vilification we shouldn't be reserving the right to vilify who we like, we should be at the forefront of compliance.
I do not want to stifle public debate, or give permission for the sermon police to be formed. But being religious does not give me, or anyone else the right to insult, demean or diminish the rights of anyone else.

Vilification

Thank goodness we lost the soccer! We have enough sport to brag about don't you think?
A parishioner asks me to write about part of an article she sent me concerning the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act in Victoria.
There was much talk about it at the time I seem to remember.
As usual the religious right had plenty to say about it at the time. I guess few people bothered to actually read it. I did take the time, and as far as I could tell it was all fairly innocent. (what would I know I am not a lawyer) the religious right were of course paranoid.
Indeed they appear to be the main ones to have been dealt with by the legislation. Apparently they don't like not being able to call a Muslim a spade. If you get my drift.
The article, by a curious Brazilian, Augusto Zimmerman (see here) makes fairly bold statements about what the act might develop into...which is what the religious right were always worried about. They might not be able to say that all Muslims are women-hating shariahites who want to hack off the hands of thieves, and thus frighten everyone into becoming Christian.
Personally I don't want to say that for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that it is not true!
But Zimmerman's paper (which reads rather like a brief tutorial) also suggests that the Act states that "truth is not relevant and cannbot be used as a legal defence"
I don't get this, this doesn't seem to me to be what the Act says at all (download it here if you want). It does suggest that it is no defence that you have made incorrect assumptions about people's ethnicity or religious affiliation...that is if you make offensive remarks about them and then find out that they are not Albanian or Hindu or what ever. In that sense I think the act is correct. It also says that your intention does not essentially affect the offence (that is if you call someone something they find offensive it is not a defence to say you did not intend to cause offence ) I agree with that too.That is rather like expecting to be let off when you have just killed or maimed someone because you say you din't intend to do it. While that might influence the process or the outcome it doesn't essentially mollify the offence only the degree of offence. And that is for the court to work out.
I just don't get this. Surely any right thinking person wants to lessen offensiveness to anyone.
However you may find the picture of the Argentinian penalty defence line (above) to be offensive. If so, I apologise I didn't intend to offend.