Check your privilege

Here's a brief Christian response to the question of critical race theory. In short, it is incompatible with a Biblical worldview. Christians should reject and repent of racism, but not buy into this stuff.

Double standard

Following on from yesterday's post about hostility towards Christians involved in politics, a well known Australian newspaper columnist published a list of 100 organisations who participated in last Sunday's annual Palm Sunday rally through the streets of Melbourne. 

The original purpose of the march was to emulate Christ's entry into Jerusalem, and proclaim the Christian message to the people of Melbourne in the leadup to Easter. Since then, this original has been lost. It has evolved into a social justice rally in which a range of community groups participate, both religious and secular, and from across the political spectrum. 

Christians involved in politics are often told that they should keep their beliefs to themselves, and not allow them to influence their political ideology. I have also directly experienced hostility from the political left when attending political meetings run by conservative Christian organisations. Again, this is another form of pressure to keep faith private. 

Now I come to the point of this post. It seems to me that this talk of keeping religion out of politics only applies to contentious hot button issues like equal opportunity employment law exemptions for religious organisations, abortion, and same sex marriage. When it comes to social justice issues like refugees, secular groups are happy to ally themselves with religious groups.

Put another way, the inference is that conservative Christians should keep out of politics, but left wing Christians are more than welcome. 

What do Kevin Rudd and Al Gore have in common?

You know something? To lose a loved one after a serious illness and prolonged hospitalisation is one of the most testing, and for good or ill, cathartic life experiences that anyone can go through.

As a cursory reading of his blog will show, Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt is no fan of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Barely a day passes by without Bolt sticking his boots into Rudd over something.

The federal government has announced plans to increase taxes on the sale of tobacco products by 12.5 per cent over the next four years. This will add an estimated $5.00 to the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes by the end of 2016. According to the government, revenue raised will be used to fund cancer-related health services and new policies to discourage people from smoking.

Personally, I support any government measures to discourage smoking. This is all well and good, but it seems Rudd has been caught out using the death of his mother for political purposes. Because of his apparently contradictory public statements on this matter, it is unclear if she died of lung cancer or Parkinson’s disease.

His mother died in 2004, and depending on the audience, whether its to justify this tobacco tax increase, meeting a Parkinson’s disease sufferer, or supporting a womens cancer charity, he appears to embellish the story of her death to suit the occasion.

I couldn’t help but remember former US Vice President and 2000 Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore, who on the one hand reached out to tobacco farmers, and on the other gave an embellished account of his sister’s death from lung cancer, and how this moved him to do whatever he could to protect America’s children from the dangers of smoking.

This is called “making an emotional connection.” If you wanted to be cynical, you could say that this is a euphemism for spinning personal adversities to manipulate the electorate, and all in the name of political expediency. Not only is it dishonest, it is also offensive to anyone who grieves the premature loss of a loved one due to serious or terminal illness.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-01/premier2c-quit-victoria-welcome-plan-to-increase-tobacco-excise/4857842

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/kevin_rudd_recalls_illnesses_of_his_mother/#commentsmore

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/etc/transcript.html

Taking it to the streets

Unless you have a cold and hardened heart towards spiritual things, one cannot fail to be moved by the Psalms. Today we looked at Psalm 139 in our weekly staff devotional time at work. Authorship of Psalm 139 is attributed to King David. Verses 13 to 16 read as follows: 

For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.

This weekend I plan to attend the fourth annual March for the Babies in Melbourne. My home state of Victoria has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, with abortions now permitted up to the ninth month of pregnancy. It is estimated that 20,000 abortions are performed in Victoria every year. That equates to one in three pregnancies ending in abortion. 

In their context these verses have nothing to do with the abortion issue. Reflecting on his relationship with God, David marvels that God knows everything about us, we are always on God's mind, and there is nothing about us that we can hide from Him. The abortoin issue sprang to mind when I read them. Simply put, the implication of these verses is that every human life is precious in God's eyes, even before birth. This has complex ethical implications, but beginning in the womb at the moment of conception, and the formation of the embryo that gradually develops into a foetus during the gestation period, it is the hand of God that guides the processes that makes each human being unique. Because of abortion, millions of lives have been snuffed out and the potential and purpose that God implanted in them has been lost the the world forever before they even had a chance of life.

When I march on Saturday, it will not be to personally condemn or attack anybody who has ever had an abortion, or to pick a bone with any pro-choice activists, who will also be holding their own rally. I will simply be making a peaceful statement against what I consider to be an unjust and evil law.

Slip and slide

If this story is any guide, supporters of same sex marriage who try to reassure its opponents that it will not lead to other new forms of marriage in the future are either disingenuous or naive.

What a combination

I took this quiz to find out what my political views are. I don't know how scientific it is, but apparently I am a left social authoritarian.

The results may be slightly skewed because some of the questions were about American political issues. Nevertheless I feel quite strongly about the rights of workers to earn a decent living, and that all people should have access to affordable health care and education, regardless of their socio-economic status. I wouldn't call myself a Greenie, but believe in the principle of good environmental stewardship, and governments have a role in this area. The global financial crisis showed us what happens when you have blind faith in the free market, so I believe that it is appropriate and necessary to have some government regulation of the economy. I was also opposed to the privatisation of public utilities that federal and state governments undertook during the 1990s.

What makes me a social authoritarian? It must be because of my conservative views on the usual grab bag of issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, and am concerned about the apparent lack of respect for authority that some young people have. A case in point here is a train station in my neighbourhood that has a reputation for being a notorious trouble spot, with numerous incidents of theft, assault, and vandalism. Government social policy should be informed by a moral framework. As a Christian, my idea of what constitutes morality is different from those of other mindsets. Morality is not just a private matter. When people do as they please, there are often consequences that impact society as a whole. Somehow a balance must be achieved between individual rights and what is best for society.

My Political Views
I am a left social authoritarian
Left: 4.82, Authoritarian: 3.53

Political Spectrum Quiz

I am not a theocrat

Joe Hockey, Shadow Federal Treasurer, recently addressed the Sydney Institute on the sometimes thorny issue of the separation of religion and state. Click here to read the text of this speech. Hockey quite eloquently asserts that religion does have a place in political discourse in a secular democracy such as Australia, and argues that it is unreasonable to ask religious politicians to set aside their beliefs when making decisions. This is a perfectly valid observation to make.

I'm not sure what to make of the other points he raises. They are less well articulated, so that without the benefit of being able to speak to Hockey directly, it's difficult to put the finger on where he's coming from. As far as the Bible is concerned, he appears to assert that it is no longer possible to support a literalist reading of Scripture. It's not exactly clear what he means by this. Read a good book on Biblical interpretation, and one of the key principles is that the Bible is to be taken literally unless the context demands otherwise. Part of the task of hermeneutics is to determine how to apply this principle.

Hockey is a politician, and for this reason needs to be pragmatic in his public statements. He affirms the positive values that religious faith contributes to the fabric of society.

In his words, these are "a fair go, tolerance and respect, the importance of family and of making a contribution to the lives of others."

You don't need to be religious to subscribe to these values. In fact, you'll sometimes find that atheists or agnostics do a better job of embodying these values than the religious, which raises another set of questions. And broadly speaking, all the major religions may support these values, but that does not mean that all religions have the same essential underlying message. On closer inspection you will find great variance in the teachings of the major religions. This is not the place to explore this question, but I'd encourage any independent thinking and intellectually honest spiritual seeker to do so.

Discrimination or commonsense?

After a long review process, last weekend the Victorian government announced that the current exemptions in place in Victorian equal opportunity legislation that allow religious organisations to not employ staff who share their beliefs will be retained. While the religious organisations themselves have welcomed this decision, other community groups have expressed their deep disappointment. For its part, The Age reported this news with the inflammatory headline, "Government bows to religious right."

Even religious leaders and opinion makers themselves are divided on this issue. Anglican Bishop John McIntyre found the decision "perplexing," while education consultant Kevin Donnelly disagrees with McIntyre. On the day Donnelly's article was printed, The Age ran an online forum to discuss it further. This is what I had to say when I weighed in with my five cents:

For some of you it seems that this is an emotive issue. Have you thought of it this way? Do you think it's unfair to make accusations of bigotry against religious schools for only wanting to employ teachers who share their beliefs? These arguments aside, it seems to me that it's also a matter of commonsense. Let's imagine you're looking for work. If you don't support the ethos of an organisation, religious or otherwise, you're not going to be a good fit for it, and chances are they're probably not going to waste their time by employing you anyway.

Let me expand further on the above by stating that I speak from personal experience here. Many years ago, when I was looking for work, I applied for a job working for a political party. During the interview, since I didn't wholeheartedly support their ideology and wasn't prepared to join this particular party, it was clear to the interview panel and myself that despite having the skills they required, I was unsuitable for the position. If you don't support the ethos of an organisation, you're probably not going to be a happy, motivated, and productive employee. In no way was I being discriminated against, it was simply a matter of commonsense, and that's all there was to it.