Nature abhors a vacuum

The release last week of the results of the 2016 Australian census indicate a rising tide of overt secularism. As a Christian, this concerns me. Australia is not a Christian country. Nonetheless, Christianity is the basis of the Western civilization of which it is part. In current civic discourse, secularists are attempting to drive Christianity from the public sphere. The question is, what will replace it?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/faithless-australians-may-lose-more-than-just-god/news-story/6a34b099a828ee3b5ccefbe52d2a20ee

Soap and water

It wasn't all that long ago that swearing was considered highly offensive. Now it seems this is changing. Some words that a few years back were considered to be expletives have now come into common usage.

It's fitting that Amanda Dunn observes that some newspapers have a more liberal attitude to swearing than others. Without naming names, The Age, in which this article was printed, clearly has a liberal policy towards printing profanity.

If this reflects changing societal attitudes, then I would suggest that it is also reflected in the lack of courtesy and respect that some people show to others these days.

Think of people who don't even apologise when they accidentally bump someone in public, or don't wait for passengers to alight from a train carriage before they get on it, don't bother to reply to invitations to events or turn up to them late, and using text messages to communicate with someone rather than talking with them directly if the subject matter is difficult.

Either these problems are becoming worse, or I'm becoming more aware of them as I get older. Whatever the case, it's something to ponder.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/why-theres-more-fing-profanity-these-days-20150515-gh1mgu

Pertinent questions

Jason Salomone over at Barbwire weighs into the same sex marriage debate. When and if Australia ever legalizes same sex marriage, Australia's so called "marriage equality" movement might care to answer the same questions. It seems to me that much of this debate has been based on emotionalism and sloganeering, and with very little evidence and cold, hard facts.

http://barbwire.com/2014/06/02/needs-featured-image-barbwire-author-21-questions-tolerance-crowd/#VXm6pdlAhg8t4HET.99

His and his

A same sex couple from South Australia have used surrogacy to adopt twin boys from Thailand. Conventional wisdom once held that where possible, the best thing for children was for them to be raised by their biological parents. Numerous longitudinal sociological studies show this set of arrangements provides the best environment for children to grow up to become happy, well adjusted adults who are productive members of society.

Society at large also subscribed to the social ethic that having children was a very important responsibility. Conventional wisdom no longer applies these days. This is the age of rights and not responsibilities. The rights of the individual seem to be paramount, and must not be restricted in any way. As such, it now seems that having children is a right that must be given to anyone who demands it.

My reader might be wondering why any of this concerns me. Aren't other peoples' domestic arrangements and sexual preferences their own business? This upsets me because I am a twin. The last time I said I did not agree with same sex couples raising children, citing a widely publicized research study that was published in 2013, someone tried to tell me that children raised by same sex parents turn out just as well as those raised by opposite sex couples.

This study was not worth the paper it was printed on. Its author found his research sample by advertising for participants in a gay and lesbian magazine, and not a peer reviewed academic journal with proper scrutiny. These participants were also told beforehand what the purpose of the study was going to be. This meant that its findings were skewed by favourable self reporting from the participants.

The fact of the matter is that because same sex couples and parenting is a relatively recent phenomenon, there is not enough social science data available to determine how children of same same parents may turn out as adults. When this data is available, it will need to be analysed and allowed to speak for itself, free of any spin or political agendas. Until then, they will seemingly be unaware participants in a radical social experiment. 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/south-australian-gay-couple-travel-to-thailand-for-birth-of-their-surrogate-twins/story-fnii5yv7-1226821437995

A (partial) spring in my step

According to a newly published peer reviewed study conducted by the Cancer Council of Victoria into Australia's plain cigarette packaging laws, those smokers surveyed reported an increased desire to quit the habit and reduced enjoyment of smoking.

As I've written on this blog before, the tobacco industry, which is also disputing the findings of this study, campaigned strongly against these reforms, but the Australian government proceeded with them anyway.
Now it seems safe to say that its actions have been vindicated.

According to research cited by Action on Smoking and Health Australia, tobacco kills around 15,000 Australians a year, which is more than the combined death toll from road accidents, alcohol, illicit drugs, all homicide, HIV, diabetes, skin cancer, and more. Tobacco smoking is the biggest single preventable cause of both cancer and heart disease, which are the two leading causes of early death in Australia; and is linked with the seven diseases causing most deaths.

Tobacco is responsible for more than $31 billion a year in costs to the Australian community. Tobacco is responsible each year for:

• Around 15,000 deaths (not including secondhand smoke exposure, which may be up to 2,000 more); average 36 deaths a year aged under 15.
• 56% of total drug abuse costs - more than alcohol and all other drugs combined.  
• Over $15 billion in workplace costs - twice as much as alcohol and all other drugs combined.
• Over 750,000 hospital bed days - around 8% of them occupied by children under 15.
• Over $600 million in hospital costs.

You might read this and think that individuals' lifestyle choices are none of my business. and that I'm being a wowser and a killjoy. If people want to smoke it's their choice. As a taxpayer, I have the right to speak on this issue. This is a public health issue. Through the Medicare system, a portion of my taxes contribute towards running Australia's public health system, and therefore treating people suffering from tobacco related health problems.

As you can see from the bullet points above, the costs are staggering, running into millions of dollars per year. That is millions of dollars in health funding that could have been used to employ more doctors and nurses, reduce elective surgery waiting lists, or build more health care facilities. Instead it has to be used to deal with the damage this immoral industry inflicts upon society.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/research-backs-move-to-plain-cigarette-packaging/4835060
http://www.ashaust.org.au/default.htm
http://theconversation.com/plain-cigarette-packaging-works-study-16269

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.

Vietato fumare

Members of the Occupy Melbourne movement

Corruption and greed were contributing factors to the global financial crisis/crises. The worldwide Occupy movement claims that the capitalist financial system is irredeemably corrupt and needs to be overturned, and also campaign against what they see as greedy, exploitative multinational corporations. By all means call for stricter regulation of the financial system, and for corporations to conduct themselves more ethically, but at least be consistent about it.

Over the weekend I was in the city and saw a small group of Occupy activists holding court in the City Square. I noticed that one of them was smoking a cigarette. Presumably he was smoking tobacco, which strikes me as somewhat ironic. After all, the worldwide tobacco industry strikes me as being especially amoral.

Despite a wealth of scientific evidence, for years the industry denied that tobacco consumption was hazardous to health. It lied, and despite the lawsuits brought against it many countries, it has never been brought to account for its activities. Every Australian taxpayer has to bear the burden that tobacco related illnesses place upon the public health system. Then it deviously campaigned against the federal government's plain cigarette packaging legislation by feigning concern about the threat it posed to personal liberties.

If I was one of these activists, I would have thought having a smoking habit and thereby contributing to the revenue of a multinational tobacco company would be against my principles.

What you find underneath when you turn the rock over

If, as seems possible, the Australian government legalizes same sex marriage next year, it will have opened a Pandora's box of both forseen and unforseen consequences. Either same sex marriage advocates are unaware of this, or they are and have deliberately deceived the Australian public to achieve their aims.

Vociferation

The following is an edited version of the text of a speech given by Bishop Peter W Ingham DD at a Seminar titled "Concern for our Religious Freedom" sponsored by the Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty in Wollongong last month. Bishop Ingham is the Catholic Bishop of Wollongong.

In Australia, it seems true to say that we enjoy a tolerance that values difference and diversity.  We believe popularly in giving everyone a “fair go!”  Like you, I try to read and hear the news critically so I’ll know what’s going on and make my own assessment about what I hear and see.  However, I detect that our tolerant Aussie acceptance of where the other person is coming from, is being more than somewhat threatened.

Richard Dawkins, was recently given a lot of publicity when he visited Australia to address the atheists’ convention in Melbourne. Jewish author, Melanie Phillips, writing in The Australian on 16 March 2010, called him, “the high priest of belief in unbelief” and she said “Dawkins has made a career out of telling everyone how much more tolerant the world would be, if only religion were obliterated out of human psyche.”

Furthermore she states, “Dawkins showed himself remarkably intolerant towards anyone who disagrees with him. When Dawkins claims religion is responsible for all the ills in the world, he conveniently overlooks the atheistic creeds behind the reign of terror after the French Revolution, the anti-religion dictatorships of both the Nazis and of the Communists.” 

Good atheists who present their arguments soundly and respectfully are quite ‘embarrassed’ by Dawkins’ methods of ridicule and intolerance, his bullying approach which shouts over the top of, rather than enters into dialogue with people of differing viewpoints.

A major target of today’s growing intolerance seems to be people’s religious beliefs and their freedom to hold what they believe in conscience to be true and good, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu or of no religion. We are facing the ominous doctrine which attempts to build a society with no regard whatsoever for religion and which seeks to destroy the religious freedom of its citizens – an ideology hostile to the Christian faith.

That’s why, I believe, it is timely and it’s vital that we people of goodwill defend our religious freedoms and be alert to what is subtly going on in our society. Well-known media people are today publicly proclaiming their atheism in print. It has become fashionable to be dismissive of all religion particularly Christianity. This arrogant dismissivness could be quite aptly described as the new modern method of martyrdom.

People of faith were once upon a time fed to the lions, decapitated, crucified and the like. We instead find ourselves today subjected to death by 1000 cuts with the new mode of martyrdom coming in the form of ridicule, derision and character assassination, as opposed to being silenced through physical death. The torture of believers is to be found in the constant attempts to have them relegated to the sidelines, unable to contribute to the morals, laws and structures that make up the fabric of society without significant criticism.

The new mode of martyrdom is not as bloody as forms of old, but its aim is ultimately the same and its methods no less cruel. We have all noted the nonsense about attempts to outlaw public nativity scenes because they may offend non-Christian religions; or not allowing children to sing Christmas carols in government schools for the same reason. Other faiths aren’t offended, but secularists and atheists are. If we as Christians respect the celebrations of Ramadan, Passover, Diwali, Feast of Vesakh, people of other faiths will in turn respect Christmas and Easter.

What is Religious Freedom?

Australian citizens hold a variety of beliefs about the purpose and meaning of life. In a pluralist society, certain fundamental principles to which everybody can subscribe are vitally important for the common good of all of us. I list those fundamental principles as first, freedom of speech; second, freedom of assembly; and third freedom to hold and express particular religious beliefs.

In the course of history, it can be seen how these three basic freedoms mentioned are curtailed as soon as totalitarian dictatorships or regimes take power. It happened with Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Apartheid South Africa, North Korea, South Vietnam after 1975. The regime headed up by Mugabe in Zimbabwe is another current example.

When legislation curtails the first of these, freedom of speech, it militates against the freedom of the press and stops the media doing its job of communicating information; when legislation prevents the second, freedom of assembly, it stops public rallies being held to express discontent (remember Tiananmen Square), and thirdly when churches and religious faiths are outlawed, dictatorships aim to stop moral and conscientious objection to what a ruling regime is doing.

The reality and powerful influence of religious freedom was demonstrated by Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Catholic Archbishop Denis Hurley in South Africa over apartheid; another example was Christians led by Cardinal Jamie Sin against the Marcos regime in the Philippines, and the long list of martyrs like Fr Jerzy Populusco in Poland, Cardinal  Mindszenty  in Hungary, the Anglican and Catholic Martyrs of Uganda between 1885 and 1887, Oscar Romero in San Salvador (shot dead at the altar 30 years ago today), and Archbishop Francis Xavier van Thuan in Vietnam (13 years in prison and 9 years in solitary confinement and on release banished from his native country), just to mention a few.

The claims you and I make to be free to practise our religion in a democratic society must be respected and permitted to be exercised, unless justice and public order are threatened.

Jesuit lawyer, Fr Frank Brennan, said in a recent lecture, “How can we ever hope to live in a truly democratic society when secularists maintain their demand that people with a religious perspective not be able to claim a right to engage in the public square agitating about laws on issues such as voluntary euthanasia, same-sex unions, abortion and discrimination in employment?  We have just as much right as our secularist fellow citizens to contribute in the public square informed and animated by our world view and religious tradition.

We acknowledge that it would be prudent to put our case in terms comprehensible to those who do not share that world view or religious tradition when we are wanting to win the support and acceptance of others, especially if we be in the minority.   But there is no requirement of public life that we engage only on secularist terms.   And we definitely insist on the protection of our rights including the right to religious freedom even if it not be a right highly prized by the secularists!”  (Fr Frank Brennan SJ AO; 8/2/2010 McCosker Oration)

An essential part of our Christian tradition is committed to promoting human dignity because we are all made in the image and likeness of God.   This ensures that our basic human rights are respected. The freedom to hold and express our religious beliefs is a paramount right. 

The United Nations has made various declarations on the right to freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. In 1948 it published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in 1960 the Convention against discrimination in education, and in 1966 via:  (1) The International Convention on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights; (2) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (3) The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The UN 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Belief, attempts to define certain protections for religious freedom so as to protect individuals and religious groups from undue intrusion by the State or by any other body into the ethos, principles and conduct of religious practice.

While these UN Declarations can only ever be general points of reference for us here in Australia, international law is a very legitimate and important influence. Our Australian Constitution stops the Commonwealth from making any law “to establish any religion”, “to impose any religious observance”, or “to prohibit the free exercise of any religion.” (Section 116 Australian Constitution). Two Commonwealth Statutes relevant to religious freedom are the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act (1986).

The 1984 Sex Discrimination Act (Section 37) exempts institutions such as Ministry Training Institutions, so they may operate in accordance with the tenets and beliefs of the particular faith and permits the conduct of schools in accordance with the religious traditions and tenets of the particular faith.

The 1986 Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Act (Section 3) exempts us on the grounds of the inherent faith requirements for a position of employment or that the employment of a staff person will not injure the religious susceptibilities of adherents to that faith.  So we can legitimately say we don’t want an atheist teaching religious education in a Christian school.

What we are now witnessing are accumulating pressures on our religious freedom in areas such as education, healthcare, family life and social services.   These pressures seek to erode the exemptions already available to us or they narrow the rights of religious bodies to employ appropriate personnel by seeking to define what are called ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ religious activities, so as to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. For example, to say that only the religion teacher has a religious activity in a Christian School is not true. Secular bodies are not competent to determine what does or does not constitute religious practice.

Such constant subtle attempts by the enemies of religion are slowly working against the religious freedom already provided by legislation because they attempt to narrow the interpretation of current legislative provisions.  This can impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Religious beliefs have social relevance for the common good of the whole community. Religion is not a purely private and personal matter.  Christian Churches through their educational institutions, their cultural pursuits, through their social welfare and charitable organisations- Anglicare, CatholicCare, Uniting Care, St Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army, hospitals and nursing homes- put their faith into action after the mandate and example of Jesus Christ and they reach out to anyone of any nationality or religious persuasion in need.

In our own society and indeed worldwide, no organisation, no government or even the united efforts of governments as found in the United Nations, comes close to providing as many human or material resources as religions do to support the world’s most needy and vulnerable. In Australian Society, people of faith are at least seven times more likely to be voluntarily involved in social justice or welfare activities. You would surely think that the beliefs that lead religious people to these overt responses of involvement in solidarity with the poor and vulnerable, could only be regarded as wonderful and positive, something worth protecting. Nevertheless, the mantra describing these beliefs as backward and deluded are growing, and are getting plenty of prominent space in mainstream media.

In contrast, the individualism and materialism that accompanies secularism and atheism does not have as a by product, the widespread outpouring of solidarity with our world’s most marginalised. Pardon the pun, but ........God help the most vulnerable if the atheists were ever to come to dominate in the thinking of our western society.......... I would suggest that the principle of the ‘survival of the fittest’ would truly find its home in such a society.

Reaching out is how we give expression to our religious purposes and beliefs defending and helping the marginalised and the vulnerable and protecting and strengthening the vital institutions of civil society beginning with the family, upholding marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, teaching the truth about the nature of human life from its first beginning to its natural end and protecting human dignity. Justice and the common good are not just Judeo-Christian ideals.   They are of concern to all citizens and are the basis of the well-being of our society.

Attempts to redefine marriage and to change traditional understandings about the sacredness of human life are assaults by powerful secular forces in our society on truths that cannot be abandoned or compromised without seriously weakening our social framework. We are called as Christians to live, profess and develop our faith tradition in a social milieu that is often hostile to any religious perspective on life.

The critics of religion and religious people are increasingly, deliberately and quite incessantly endeavouring to paint a picture of people of faith as backward, superstitious, unlearned, and easily duped. I would suggest to them that they need to embrace authentically their own ‘scientific method’ in this regard, as the weight of evidence shows that people of faith on average are well-educated, intelligent, successful people. In the main they ‘outscore’ their agnostic and atheistic contemporaries in this regard.   So let’s not fall too easily into believing that people of faith are easily deluded, as the weight of both history and contemporary society shows that people of faith have in their ranks many of the greatest minds and intellects that have ever lived.

This pedigree of intellect amongst believers is not dwindling and today counts amongst its numbers, a significant proportion of the world’s leading scientists.   Many of those leading minds, rather than believing that religion and science are opposing forces argue strongly that Religion and Science are nearing ever greater points of intersection as humanity comes to understand more about life and the universe at both its most microscopic and infinite levels.

As Fr Frank Brennan points out, all citizens “need to concede that there are experienced, intelligent people of a religious disposition in our community, just as there are experienced, intelligent people who have no need or the desire for the religious sentiment. That’s (the very point) why religious freedom is so important.” (Fr Frank Brennan SJ, McCosker Oration)

My final point here is that, rather than calling for people of faith to remain silent or remove themselves from the realm of public policy and debate, their opinions and contribution should be eagerly sought. The weight of evidence would suggest that they might just have a little bit of wisdom to contribute to public debate. It is for this reason as much as any other, that upholding and securing religious freedom is so vital for society as a whole, not just for believers.

Source: Bishop Peter W Ingham, via the Australian Prayer Network