The media reports that earlier this month Howard met with Bruce Hale, the leader of Exclusive Brethren. Howard claims that there is nothing objectionable about the meeting, stating "They're Australian citizens, its a lawful organisation and as prime minister I have met an enormous number of organisations." I guess almost $400K in pro-Liberal party advertising buys a meeting with the PM, even if the group is under investigation by AFP. It is somewhat ironic that the group which prohibits its members from voting lobbies for conservative and religious-rights politics worldwide and contributes great amounts of money to right-wing causes.
Tony Abbott, who admitted to meeting with the cult in the past and expressed a readiness to meet them in the future, also jumped to the defence of the cult:
"I don't see why he should ostracise them. They're perfectly good citizens. … they live perfectly respectable lives, they pay their taxes, they obey the law of the land. I don't know why Kevin Rudd has allowed himself to be spooked by them."
So who are these "perfectly good citizens" that ministers in the Howard government are happy to meet?
The cult has about 15,0000 members in Australia. Members are required to shun contact with those not in the Brethren, called 'worldlies', including having friends outside the cult or sharing meals with them. Members of the cult are not permitted to go to the beach, watch television, listen to the radio or recorded music, to have mobile phones, faxes or computers. Movies and novels are frowned upon, as is higher education. Women must wear headscarves and long skirts and men may not wear shorts. Marriages must be approved of by the leadership. For some more information about the sect's practices see here and here.
Yes, hard to see why anyone would be "spooked" by the PM and government ministers meeting with this sect! If the PM received funding from and held meetings with an extreme Muslim group, there'd be hell to pay. But an extreme "Christian" sect seems to be fine. Of course, Exclusive Brethren members have a right to their religion, just as the rest of us have the right not to have our government's policies influenced by an extremist religious group.
August 23rd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Religion |
no comments
Yesterday I wrote about the prejudiced approach of the Howard government to the question of access to assisted reproduction technology, adoption and parental recognition for same-sex couples. I'd like to look at a slightly different aspect of the debate - the use of child rights or best interests of the child rhetoric to justify one's own prejudice and hatred.
Following the release of the Law Reform Commission report, a spokeswoman for the Australian Family Association said that the report "pays lip service to the needs of children" and stated that "We hope that the State Government puts it in the bin. There's virtually nothing in the report that seriously addresses the rights of the child."
Anyone who has read the LRC report will see that the needs and interests of the child are given careful consideration. The AFA statements suggest that they have either not read the report or, which is more likely, are pursuing an agenda which has nothing to do with interests of the child. There is a disturbing practice among right-wing and religious groups to rely on the "right of the child" to justify their bigotry. Anything they don't like - be it homosexuality, childcare or working mothers, they claim it to be against the rights of the child.
Because what is and what is not in the interests of the child is never defined, there is a great deal of flexibility in when this claim can be used. There is a reason why the definition is always absent. Defining what is in the "interests of the child" would immediately reveal the underlying prejudices and enable critique of the definition. It would have to be justified, rather than merely bandied around whenever these "concerned" adults need to conceal or explain away their hatred.
Lets take a look at the AFA and ask whether their rejection of the prospect of same-sex couples or singles adopting/accessing IVF stems from the interests of the child. If it does, there should be no underlying prejudices, there should be no hatred, there should just be concern for the welfare of the children and the basis for that concern should have some foundation based on evidence or objective facts.
The fact that the AFA has misstated the contents of the report is not an encouraging start. But lets look at this organisation's principles and history.
The AFA was formed in 1980 as an off-shoot of the National Civic Council by its then president B.A. Santamaria. Santamaria was a staunch catholic and supported such "admirable" political leaders as Franco and Mussolini. He was so strongly an anti-liberal traditionalist that he broke with the Catholic church because it was too liberal for his liking (he was later reconciled with the church by none other than George Pell, who was apparently conservative enough). By the way, John Howard is reported to have had strong admiration for Santamaria.
Lets take a look at the NCC, which AFA is an affiliate of. Anyone with a strong stomach can head over to their publication website - www.newsweekly.com.au, where they will be treated to interesting articles about how contraception will give you cancer; an account of a "scientific" study which concluded that "married gays" have a 24 year shorter life span, based on overwhelming evidence of reading about 30 obituaries in a newspaper; they will be told about the ground-breaking campaigns of anti-abortion groups and will be pleased to know that climate change is a dangerous myth. Enough said.
If anyone thinks that the AFA fell far from the tree - a visit to their website (www.family.org.au) and a quick search of the internet will tell you exactly what their ideology is and what standpoints their "rights of the child" rhetoric is designed to disguise. Their homepage if filled with calls for censorship, highly "objective" articles about abortion with titles such as "we kill babies", celebrations of Howard government legislating against recognition of foreign same-sex unions under non-positional titles such as "Marriage - We won!" and warnings that "Australia is dying", presumably designed to encourage women to pop out more babies.
The top four links on their link page are Australian Christian Lobby, Endeavor Forum, Festival of Light and Focus on the Family Australia (all of them "Christian-right" organisations.)
If that is not enough, there is an excellent collection of quotes from various publications of the AFA, which very neatly illustrate its views on same-sex relationships, discrimination and, just as interestingly, child abuse. While AFA apparently does not believe that a loving same sex family is in best interests of the child, it is on record as supporting corporal punishment of children and opposing government measures to prevent child abuse! Beating kids is ok, if its done in a traditional heterosexual family.
Anyone who does not yet feel nauseous after reading these statements, consider the following few passages from an article by Bill Muehlenberg of the AFA (http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2003/challenge.htm):
"Even in purely nonreligious terms, homosexuality represents a misuse of the sexual faculty and, in the words of one…educator, of 'human construction.' It is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life. As such it deserves fairness, compassion, understanding, and, when possible, treatment. But it deserves no encouragement, no glamorization, no rationalization, no fake status as a minority martyrdom…"
"…we are "defining deviancy downwards". Deviancy has reached such huge proportions that in order to deal with the problem, we have changed the way we think about normality and abnormality. What used to be regarded as deviant behaviour is now reclassified as normal, and what we used to call normal behaviour we now call abnormal. Thus the only abnormality now is to be "homophobic". Indeed, the pressure by the gay lobby to redefine deviancy resulted in the 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the listing in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Mental Disorders (DSM-1)"
"Also, it needs to be stressed than whenever you grant special rights to homosexuals you have to take rights away from other people. If gays are granted special rights to force homeowners to rent to them, those homeowners will have lost certain rights - the right to conscientiously choose who one wishes to rent to, for example. If a homosexual is granted the right to teach sex education in schools, the parent of the child in that school loses the right to have a say in the moral calibre of the teacher.
Admittedly, morality and law is not based on numbers, but how is it fair that one and a half percent of the population should be granted special rights at the expense of the other 98.5 per cent? Why should Australia's four and a half million families be forced to concede rights to Australia's 250,000 homosexuals?"
"discrimination is both desirable and healthy. In the same way that society "discriminates" against 8-year-olds by not granting them licenses to drive, so society "discriminates" against those who choose to remain outside of the institutions of marriage and the natural family."
And my favourite one is:
"And we need to remember that all homosexuals deserve to be treated with respect, love and compassion, even though society has a legitimate right to dislike and censure homosexual behaviour and activity. Society, for example, can rightly disapprove of alcoholism, while seeking to help individual alcoholics. So too, society has a right to deem homosexual behaviour as unhealthy, a threat to the family, and not in the best interests of society, while ensuring that individual homosexuals are not vilified or roughly treated."
What does the above mass of disgusting quotes illustrate? That the AFAs position has absolutely nothing to do with children's interests. It has to do with hatred, it has to do with prejudice, it has to do with medieval, conservative religion-inspired attitudes. The claim of children's rights to mask this bigotry cheapens and devalues these rights, it makes them nothing more than a smokescreen for hatred. It is rank hypocrisy for an organisation which supports beating children and opposes laws to protect children from abuse to use children's rights in such a way. The rights and needs of children are more important than that, as are the rights of people who love a person of the same sex.
Thanks for reading. Now I need to go and scrub my monitor.
June 10th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Human rights, Religion, Gays and Lesbians, Family |
no comments
Threats of "consequences" by Cardinal Pell did not sway members of the NSW Legislative Assembly, which voted overwhelmingly in favour of repealing the ban on therapeutic cloning. Pell was unapologetic about his conduct, stating that he hoped that the upper house "will be better informed" and vote against repealing the ban. Presumably "better informed" means more receptive to the dictates of the Catholic church. Perth Archbishop Hickey apparently decided to add a few threats of his own, stating that Catholics who vote to allow therapeutic cloning should not go to communion and stated that he would consider excommunication as a sanction.
It is difficult to imagine how in a secular society like Australia such religious trespass on political matters could be considered appropriate. John Howard, however, was quick to come to the defence of the church. It seems he does not object to church interference in politics, so long as it is consistent with his own ideological views. Speaking on ABC radio he said that Pell and Hickey are "entitled to express their views".
He's right. They are entitled to express their views. What they are not entitled to do is to force their views onto others. They are not entitled to threaten "consequences" and they are not entitled to coerce. They are no more entitled to use the might of the catholic church to attempt to sway the democratic process than their predecessors were entitled to use the torture chambers of the Inquisition to sway the political, social and scientific processes.
Howard's defence of this conduct reveals his hypocrisy. He has been very outspoken about what he perceived as international interference in Australia's internal affairs (ie justified international criticisms of his governments breaches of human rights law) and he continually attacks unions for real or imagined interference in politics (in fact in the same interview he made a completely unsubstantiated allegation that union bosses on daily basis direct Labor how to vote). Interference it seems is only ok if it is in line with his own ideology and does not involve criticisms of his government. He can't have it both ways. And neither can Pell. If he doesn't want politics interfering in Catholic doctrine, he should keep his doctrine out of politics.
June 7th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Religion, Health and Welfare |
3 comments
A few days ago I criticised Cardinal George Pell over his plans to force educators in Catholic schools (which receive government funding) to take a "vow of fidelity". It seems that compelling educators to surrender their intellect and will to the church is not enough for Pell. He'd like politicians to do the same or face the "consequences".
The NSW parliament is debating repealing the ban on therapeutic cloning, with a conscience vote expected tonight. It is hoped that research, presently prevented by the ban, may lead to cures for serious and debilitating conditions. However, curing disease by using stem cells does not sit well with the catholic doctrine, which holds that life begins at conception (what happens to that life afterwards appears to be of far less interest to the church).
Cardinal Pell seems to have decided that it was legitimate for him to force his religious doctrine on Australian legislators. In what can only be described as a threat, he warned the MPs subscribing to Catholic faith that there would be "consequences" if they vote to overturn the ban. What those consequences are is unclear. Pell has apparently declined to reveal whether he was threatening to excommunicate those MPs who dared to cast their vote in accordance with what they think is in the interest of their electorate rather than what is in accordance with the catholic faith. Perhaps he was alluding to the fires of hell rather than any earthly sanction.
The point is that Pell's conduct is quite extraordinary. He would be the first to complain of political interference in church doctrine if such interference occurred. No doubt he would make an eloquent argument about the need for the separation of church and state, about freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and about how politicians should not interfere in matters of faith. And he'd be right. However the separation of church and state is a two way street. Politicians should stay out of religious doctrine and ministers of religion should stay out of politics (unless of course they are elected to political office). Pell's conduct reveals a contempt for the institution of parliament and a disrespect for the electorate. Voters elect their representatives on the basis of their policies (most of the time anyway), not on the basis of their religious belief. Pell's attempt to coerce parliamentarians to vote in accordance with religious doctrine shows a disregard for this principle.
Lets not forget what happens when religion and politics or science merge. Lets take a look at the Islamic states, lets remember the religious wars, the Inquisition and religious violence through the history or the less violent, but no less instructive, story of Galileo. There too the catholic church wished to stand in the way of progress, insisting that the doctrine of men was the word of God and threatening "consequences" for following the path of progress rather than of religion.
Thanks for reading
June 6th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Religion, Health and Welfare |
no comments
I was going to do a post on Richard Dawkins' "The Root of all Evil", but found myself ambivalent about writing it. While being an atheist (or more accurately an agnostic), I agreed with his argument, his presentation of it did not appeal. For someone living in Australia his vociferousness was hard to sympathise with. But on further reflection, perhaps it is understandable.
Sydney's Cardinal George Pell has revealed plans to force senior educators at Catholic schools to take a "fidelity oath". They would have to vow to adhere to "church teaching on homosexuality, birth control and women's ordination." The oath would demand a "religious submission of intellect and will" on questions of faith and morals (whatever morals mean) - even if these are inferred but not defined by the pope and his bishops and an acceptance that everything taught by church tradition is divinely inspired.
Dawkins point about religion requiring people to suspend their critical thinking faculties becomes more poignant. Here we have a proposal that educators - the people who are supposed to develop children's ability to function in and contribute to the contemporary society - are required to leave the "intellect and will" at the door to be allowed to teach. They cannot question the doctrine promulgated by the pope and his bishops, notwithstanding the fact that there is continuing debate within the church regarding its doctrines. They are not allowed to consider that religious doctrine is subject to interpretation, the outcome of which varies with the ideological position of the interpreter. They have to allow someone else to think for them.
And, having done that, they can go ahead and "educate" children. They can teach them to "love thy neighbour", but to hate homosexuals, they can teach them that use of condoms is more repugnant than deaths of millions of people in Africa from AIDs, they can teach them that women were not created equal.
And the Australian taxpayer can foot the bill for this education (at least in part).
There is a difference between education and indoctrination and its like the difference between "divine inspiration" and human ideology disguised as the word of God. Pell crossing that line makes Dowkins' seemingly extreme approach appear not so extreme after all.
June 4th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Religion |
one comment
RSS
