Great Scott! Morrison's at it again...

Would dehumanising the dehumanisers be a useful practice? Cos I really want to point out just how far of a failed human being that Scott Morrison is. I want to say that if I bumped into him in person I'd likely vomit at his feet involuntarily from being in the presence of the stench filled meatbag. But the cliches our parents imprinted us with that 'two wrongs don't make a right' squeezes it's way through the seething anger in my mind and I have to check myself. This man has thoughts and feelings, he has a family, maybe a dog or a cat or a hamster called little johnny. He has dreams and desires. He has needs. Like the need's of safety, of belonging, of being seen, of contributing and being productive, even of being loved. He has a right to that - but apparently not all people are created equal.

Today it was revealed that Scott Morrison has issued a directive to his party and to those in the field that work with asylum seekers that they are to be referred to as illegal arrivals from now on and that no longer will asylum seekers being moved to or kept in detention centres be referred to as clients, they are transferees and detainees. 

Scott Morrison's leaked directive from the Sydney Morning Herald 

As is pointed out in the article by a psychiatrist it is important what language we use and this directive from Scott Morrison dehumanises these people. I would go so far as to say that it is a deliberate act on his part to do so and is reprehensible. Why would any decent human being want other human beings dehumanised? Well, it serves his political purpose that we as the voting public come to see these people as less than human so we will not care what happens to them. There was even a report recently that one detention centre was referring to it's clients by numbers rather than names and that included children.

What happens to a person who is being systematically dehumanised? Psychiatrists say that dehumanisation ignores the person's individuality, their ability to be creative and make choices and ignores them as being part of a network of people who care for eachother – a community. A person denied their individuality and sense of belonging to a community often reults in them no longer showing compassion and other normal moral responses which can then lead them on a road to becoming violent or accepting violence upon themselves. Are we trying to mentally injure people towards responding with violence so we can dehumanise them even more?

And Scott Morrison is not only wanting to dehumanise asylum seekers but he wants everything that we do to them to be done in secret. He doesn't want the government to have to tell the public when asylum seekers are arriving on our shores, he doesn't want to tell us what happens to them after they do and he doesn't want to tell us of problems arising in the camps. 

Scott Morrison on secrecy from The Guardian Australia 

He doesn't want to tell us because he says it fuels the people smugglers and asylum seekers with information they can use to their advantage. Yet whilst in opposition he was the man announcing from the rooftops through his righteous spittle every day to anyone who would listen whenever an asylum seeker issue raised its head.

So I can't trust the hypocritical bugger because every decision he makes with these people's lives in his hands seems to be to exploit the issue for political gain. Today's news just imprints in concrete for me like little doggie footprints that this is his pattern. If truth is beauty then the works of Scott Morrison are filthy rags.

I don't want to be alarmist and I hate slippery slope arguments but dehumanising others puts in place an atmosphere where further human rights abuses can take place.

I wont make the absurdist leap to Hitler or Nazi's that others do when the idealism of a group conflicts with their own (The Daily Telegraph for one) but I do want to stress that the UNHCR was set up in the first place after what Hitler did to the Jews because the world decided that never again would we let people be so dehumanised and turned away from borders when fleeing persecution and death. Rightly we ratified that treaty. Have we forgotten what happened in the past? Have we forgotten what we agreed to do?

Our last report card from the UN gave us an F for our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. As the richest nation in the world per capita we should be deeply ashamed. But this is what happens when we dehumanise others and become insular and selfish...it just breeds more selfishness and insular thinking till we can't see the forest for the trees. What did we fight for all those years ago? freedom for just the entitled or freedom and human rights for all? Lest we forget. 

I am a Christian but I never thought I'd be rocked and swayed by the way a Catholic Pope dealt with the same issues on the same day in another part of the world. It was a fantastic speech and I urge you to read it The Pope in Lampedusa on the globalisation of indifference To summarise it though he felt he needed to hold a Mass on Lampedusa, a small island in Italy that a boatload of refugees was attempting to reach because it has an immigrant reception centre (note the difference in terminology) but the boat was lost at sea and over 300 asylum seekers perished. 

The Pope spoke out about the globalisation of indifference to the plight of these people that has been spread in part by those that wish to dehumanise them. He said (and whether you believe in the story or not it is still a powerful metaphor) that at the dawn of humanity God asks Cain regarding Abel “Where is your brother? The voice of his blood cries even to me.” And he goes on to say that this question is being asked of all of us even now. “Where is your brother?”

The Pope went on to pray at the conclusion "we ask forgiveness for the indifference towards so many brothers and sisters, we ask for forgiveness for those who are pleased with themselves, who are closed in their own well-being in a way that leads to the anaesthesia of the heart, we ask you, Father, for forgiveness for those who with their decisions at the global level have created situations that lead to these tragedies. Forgive us, Lord!

I would've thought that any response akin to 'Am I my brother's keeper?' should be for the Christian at least answered with a resounding YES! Yet it seems like many Christians want to wash their hands of the problem like a Judean Prefect. It doesn't mark them as evil but for the Christian it is not what God calls you to do. I'm encouraged that this new Pope is not one of those Christians.

When we dehumanise others, others ultimately will begin to dehumanise us. It is like there is a natural law at work, like a law of social physics. I once heard a quote from a historian (I cannot find the source unforunately) “Nations rise and fall depending on how they reflect the Kingdom of God” (I am sorry if I am delving too much into God stuff, for the non believer you may read God or the Kingdom of God as the Kindom of the values that we share in justice, mercy and compassion).

That quote has the ring of truth to me – a seed of truth rooted in the earth and growing to a towering tree with branches that reach out and shade all that reside under it. Call it karma or call it Isaiah 60:12 “For the nation that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste” And I don't see that as an interventionist God reaching in and exacting revenge. I see that through the perspective of that if you live by the sword, so you die by the sword. The social law at work – if your nation is defined by greed in that greed gives it it's power then greed is what will kill it one bleeding cut at a time. Hate begets hate, greed begets greed, sefishness begets selfishness, violence begets violence and dehumanisation will lead to more and more dehumanisation. The reaping of the environment will see the environment turn on us. I'm not personifying the environment for example and this isn't some weirdo new age idea, this is basically the science of cause and effect. For every action there is a consequence be it a social action or a physical one.

The sins of the father are visited upon the son is not a curse, it is a consequence. When you beat or neglect your son that will leave scars that carry over into the next generation. When we dehumanise others on any basis be it wealth, race, religion, culture or sexuality then we are all poorer as a result going forward. We need to acknowledge what we have done and do all that is in our power to treat others how we would wish to be treated if we want a better world and a better future.

Because genorosity begets generosity and love begets love. It is in our interest to have the others interest at heart. Should we not, by turning our backs on others in need we will find that they have turned their backs on us in our need.

So to my brother Scott Morrison I ask 'where are you? And what are you doing?' Are you attending another wedding on the public purse and escaping scrutiny for it though your party has brought down others in parliament for similar infringements? Are you reliving your private boy's school days in Abbott's boy's club of a cabinate and looking down with contempt on the kids from the public school around the corner? Are you continuing to send heavily pregnant women and children to offshore detention centres where whole generations will be dehumanised before they've had a chance to form an identity? Are you telling asylum seekers they should join an ordely queue (that the UNHCR says is 117 years long at current resttlement rates-how patient are you?)

Will you please make a decision that pulls the brakes on this spiral into dehumanisation and systematically begin to humanise people for the benefit of all. Will you please afford people the same human rights that you feel entitled to. Or when asked 'where is your brother?' will you just smugly shrug and say 'you'll need to fight tooth and nail for a freedom of information clause to get my answer'?

Misrepresenting

The definition of the word 'indoctrinated' on google is given as: to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

In the wake of Monday night's QandA with Kevin Rudd and the whole episode of the question about Gay Marriage I have since seen many Christians attacking Mr Rudd for misrepresenting the Bible. I have found their misrepresentation of Mr Rudd very frustrating. They have focused solely on his summary of a Bible verse stating that 'slavery is a natural condition.' Arguably he may have been a bit off the mark in making this summary but you could make a myriad more by using the book of Leviticus. What was clear to me was that it was not a summary that he was ascribing to believing in. He was pointing out how just taking verses out of the Bible to say what you want them to say is a weak and dangerous thing to do to base your beliefs on.

He actually went on to explain what he does believe and how he forms those beliefs yet in the articles critising him they always fail to mention (even one word) of his summary of the New Testament as having a message of universal love. He explained how he goes about wrestling with his beliefs over time, using critical thinking, using science, using the greater context of the Bible as opposed to singular verses and using his Christian concience. Is it wrong of him to do that as a Christian? I would say that it is imperative that every Christian walks this road.

It seems some Christians give no validity to the rest of his statements regarding the New Testament simply because he said something critical of the Bible. Those people that hold the Bible up as the arbiter of all wisdom are dangerous. Interpretations can be wrong, verses can be twisted to say near anything. If you accept everything as black and white then you miss the nuance of colour and diversity (thank you Cecily Rosol for turning the grey areas into colour for me). The Bible is important to the Christian but it is not to be worshipped lest you make an idol of it, and besides; the Christian story goes on with every new day, it hasn't ceased moving.

The verses most couples use at their marriage from 1 Cor 13:1-13 speak to what love is and from verse 11 (with the danger of using a verse from the Bible) it says “When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.” It goes on to say that all that I know is partial and incomplete and further - that three things will last forever-faith, hope and love-and the greatest of these is love. Was Rudd wrong in stating the message of the Gospel to be one of love? Was he wrong to doubt his earlier beliefs around homosexuality and reconsider?

William Hughes an expert on critical thinking said “If we are not prepared to think for ourselves, and to make the effort to learn how to do this well, we will always be in danger of becoming slaves to the ideas and values of others due to our own ignorance.” I applaud Rudd's faith and logic in arriving to his conclusion on Gay Marriage. And as uncomfortable as it was to see the Pastor who asked the question having questions thrown back at him and the audience turn on him it appeared that in the moment he had nothing much more to stand on than indoctrinated beliefs.

Indoctrinated beliefs are dangerous and not just in the realm of Christianity and other religions. Indoctrination is a controlling mechanism – the google definition of 'indoctrinated' goes on to give an example of its use: “broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses” and by golly haven't we seen that in widespread use over the last few weeks by a Murdoch controlled press that want people to accept its view of the world and its choice of Prime Minister in Tony Abbott. And Christian media is doing the same now with their attack on Rudd, trying to persuade people to vote on their agenda. 

The right's views on asylum seekers and mining and a carbon price and just how badly our AAA credit rated economy is going has seen the public debate around this election as a race to fan the flames of fear in people and then come running in dressed up for the photographers in firefighting gear. Peter Hitchens, brother of prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, followed a different path as an atheist that came to faith. He said “Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” I think that applies here.

So don't attack Rudd for thinking for himself, turn the heat up on those that don't. I'm finding it my responsibilty to no longer stand idly by when a bloke at a BBQ starts spouting that climate change is crap – that is ignorance – as if he knows more than 98% of the world's top climate scientists. Or when someone accuses asylum seekers of clogging the roads despite the fact that they can't afford cars.

If you want to attack Rudd on his Christian values then ask him why his asylum seeker policy is what it is now or why he has put off increasing aid to the worlds poor, those may deal breakers for you but to turn off him because he espouses loving thy neighbour as a tenet of his faith is just hearing what you want to hear.

Jesus was not about controlling people, he was about freeing people, often from themselves. Christianity is not a cage, the New Testament repeatedly says that we have a new covenant and repeatedly Christians pull out the Old that should have been put to bed around 2000 years ago and frankly I'm sick of it. The Gospels record Jesus saying “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.”

The indoctrinators from what I see around me do not want you to use your heart or your mind or to love your neighbour, just to pay lip service and maybe they'll give you what you want, regardless of what we need.

Profiteering from people smuggling

Kevin Rudd announced today that any asylum seekers arriving in Australia without a visa will be sent to Papua New Guinea for assessment and resettlement from abc news. This is a huge coup for Kevin and Labor and will likely go a long way to preventing the people smuggling business going on in the waters to the north of our nation. This is good news for a political party and a prime minister wanting to be re-elected in the coming months. So, who now is it that will be profiteering from people smuggling? Kevin perhaps? the ALP?

Am I being too cynical?

I don't like us abdicating our responsibility to refugees and sending them elsewhere and I don't like us disempowering vulnerable people and telling them where we think they should live. But I also actually don't mind the whole concept as an attempt to prevent further drownings from happening at sea but it has to coincide with other announcements. The further financial assistance to PNG, that's fine. The proposed increase to our intake of immigrants, that's fine too. What concerns me, no, what leaves me feeling ashamed and angry is who we have turned our back on.

What if you are fleeing a country, a country that wont say 'sure, here's your visa'? How does a person who has had to flee their country without being able to get a visa reasonably apply for asylum in Australia? Our policy as it is now says that you cannot come here and we will ship you off to somewhere else. Can they apply somewhere? And if they can, will they be allowed to resettle sometime in their lifetime? If there was a place refugees could go to, even without a visa, that would see them assessed and resettled within a very reasonable ammount of time then I would consider perhaps supporting our new deal with PNG. As it is there is no such place, no wonder people get so desperate as to risk their lives. I am not happy.

Where is the Kevin Rudd that pleaded with the government when he was ousted as PM that they should continue to be compassionate towards refugees and not sell out their humanity to satisfy the selfish bigotry of way too many fellow Australians (I might be indulging a bit in what he actually said). This political football of vulnerable people who are hardly capable of invading us to take over, hence are not a border control issue has just gone on and on in absurdity for too long. And now Kevin Rudd and Bob Carr can add their names to the list of those who should have restless nights.

I prefer what Julian Burnside had to say the other day, he had facts, he had truth and he had the guts to say it as it is from the age. And I wonder where our leaders are that will take on xenophobic Australia and will deliver us a new vision worth belonging to?

What is really ruining the institution of Marriage?

It's happening in different places all over the world now, you wake up one morning and log in to your computer to find that somewhere it has happened again. It's not just irksome, you fume and bubble over with rage and ball your fists muttering 'when will this nightmare end'? This cheapening of the sanctimony of marriage is an insult. It is a slap in the face to all those who have made a life long public commitment to eachother. This insidious group has been infiltrating our society and flying under the radar for too long now, it's time we confronted their vileness. You all know what I'm talking about...yes...facebook marriages! 

It used to be that two teenagers would just 'go out' with eachother, or in more standardised American terms they would 'date' or 'go steady'. Nowadays they have the option to call their “relationship” a marriage. Surely this will end in misery. I mean they don't even get any pre marriage counselling so it should be no surprise when the teens most probably have to go through a protracted divorce when their gaze inevitably turns elsewhere. And then they have the gall to marry someone else in the following week, just with the push of a button before they go to sleep that night, then they wake up the next morning as if their life hasn't altered dramatically at all. 

It is not just the teens who are bringing the sky falling onto their own heads, our whole society will suffocate under the weight of all those dark clouds. Do they seriously think that their marriage doesn't affect us all? You used to have to be of a particular age - It is redefining the laws that hold our society together. These marriages are happening without the blessing of churches, without the blessing of parents and they are being confirmed not by the government but by a global social networking site that exists in a virtual space. How do you even fight this epidemic that is spreading into our homes through the tentacles that cover our land like a web? 

My marriage will never be the same, your marriage will never be the same. We can however turn around before we start down the slippery slope of facebook marriages to pets or family members and before they provide a loving home to those lost facebook sprites. Pull the plug on facebook marriages before it's too late! 

 

emotion in motion

How is it that emotionally derived opinions are sufficient even in the face of facts and logic that would suggest otherwise?

We see issues creating divisiveness where an emotional wave will roll over the bedrock of truth in arriving to a perceived majority consensus. These issues of climate change, asylum seeker policy, gay marriage, mining, the economy and now a fractured multiculturalism are at the forefront of public and political debate during this dark chapter.

Never mind that more than 90% and up to 97% of reputable climate scientists agree that the planet is warming due to human activity. origin of graphic from skeptical science

with 2 being unsure and 1 saying no.

One half of the people would rather listen to Tony Abbott or Alan Jones, neither who have any expertise in this field and dispute the findings as if scientists had some secret global agenda.

Tony also questioned the quality of our economists when they said a carbon tax or emission trading scheme was a responsible and efficient way for this nation to respond and move forward towards a greener economy.

From The Australian - Opposition leader defies economists on Carbon Tax 

Is he an economist as well as a climate scientist? No, so why do people listen to him? Not for facts and logic that's for sure so it must be that he appeals to the base emotions of many. And those many believe they know better, why?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5ia5qZrU21qify48o1_500.jpg

Just because we don't want a carbon tax (not that the public pays it - we are compensated for the rise in cost of living that the top polluters pass down to us from the impact of a carbon tax on them). 

I'm more concerned with the other cost they are passing down, the commodity of fear. With no rational foot to stand on they use their clout to sow seeds of doubt and pull at the heartstrings of fear. It's Un-Australian. They're taking our jobs. We can't afford it in this GFC (despite not being in recession and one of the richest countries per capita in the world).

Advocates for climate change can and do use fear to drive their cause as well and I hate it when they do that because then we end up downriver from the bridge to change in a quagmire of emotion, slinging mud at eachother.

And what of the asylum seeker debate? Our two major parties seem to have settled for offshore processing and long stays within detention centres as a detterant to refugees seeking asylum in Australia. They claim with emotion (much of it genuine) that this is to prevent the tragedy of refugees drowning at sea. The detterant has been shown to be somewhat effective but only when we treat refugees so abhorrently as to cause such mental anguish that we see numerous suicide attempts in detention and people sewing their mouths shut. And on all indications they say they are going to keep coming. 

Tony Abbott (leading the way again) refers to these people as illegal immigrants which is factually incorrect, and he uses it in such a way as to be imflammatory. He also had the gall to refer to them as un-christian for entering through the back door despite Jesus himself being a refugee and the principles of christianity calling on followers to love thy neighbour and care for the poor and downtrodden. They are often referred to as queue jumpers even though it has been widely acknowledged that there is no queue for them to join. How do you apply for asylum when in some war torn countries like Afghanistan it is normal for our embassy to move place from day to day to avoid becoming a target for insurgents. So what are the facts?

There are really only two ways to stop drownings at sea - gain a reputation for treating asylum seekers so abhorrently that no one will want to come, or create a queue that asylum seekers would see as worthwile joining. I'm for the latter option because our identity as a fair, just and compassionate nation is easily worth the extra people that we will have to accomodate. And if you welcome people with open arms then they're more likely to be grateful and want to contribute than to feel seperate and resentfully and barely tolerated.

Our emotions are primitive. We can be tribal with them and just last week we saw a tribal mentality riding on a wave of emotion lash out with ugly repercussions. Does this mean that I'm suggesting that our human emotions are bad and we should dispense with them and all become Spock-like characters?  ...Problem solved - let's party!!!...

Our emotions are important and part of what makes us human but I don't want to see emotions riding roughshod over rationality. Or our emotions being manipulated so easily for that matter. What happened to the inbuilt Australian bullshit detector? Emotions without logic can lead to crimes of passion and punching holes in walls. Logic without emotion is generally referred to as being psychopathic. Either on its own can be very destructive.

Wisdom comes from when our emotional and logical bearings are brought together to form opinion or to make a decision. Nelson Mandela said 'a good head and a good heart is always a formidable combination.' Shouldn't that be something worth striving for?

We need to ask ourselves why we stand where we do on certain issues. Is it emotion, fear or love that drives us? Are we deceiving ourselves? Are we leaning on our own understanding? Are we only listening to what we want to hear?

A letter to the ACL

This may get me in trouble...some people might not like this...but it's how I feel.

In response to reading this article ACL says coalition also to blame for greens rise I decided to write an angry man letter. I have written letters to them before, specifically about their treatment of homosexuality.

Dear ACL, just read an article where you blame the coalition as well as labor for the rise of the greens. You also warn against this citing the greens as a dangerous and radical left wing group. As a Christian I have been disgusted with the ACL countless times, I find you despicable. I would love to have a reasonable discussion on reason with you but find you so lacking and caught up in law like a Pharisee that you fail to see the radical Jesus as he is. The greens rise when justice, mercy and compassion go lacking from the other parties. I know the greens can come across as anti-christian but on their values they are the most Kingdom hearted party in Australia that I can see. Maybe they're not anti-christian, maybe they're just anti a fundamentalist right wing hate group. So while you claim to speak on behalf of all christians (you do not speak for me) I will continue to use my influence to denounce you.

When I say I have been disgusted with them countless times...this graph details the ACL's distorted view of what they consider important in the world for Christians and why they rile me up to the point of writing them an angry letter.

Element Camp Liffey 2012

defrosting - sort of a metaphor of what is to follow

Was recently without access to the internet or mobile phones whilst helping to run a winter camp in a secluded little valley in Liffey Tasmania for high school students. 'Element Camp' is forty people staying in the simplest of cabins, playing games, going on walks when the sun shines and sitting around the large woodfire heater on couches trying to stay warm. It's that sitting around that I love the most where you look into each others eyes and with no tv or other distractions you talk and you listen and you think.

The height of technology on Element Camp

The distractions are discarded due to remoteness and a barricade of steep hills on all sides that keep out all the information that comes to us on invisible waves. Sure, if you find the right spot and wave your phone in the air for half an hour some information may leak through but generally you're cut off. Far from one that despises technology, I love what it can bring to our lives but every year I help run this camp I'm thankful for our location and the days of respite from the modern world.

If it sounds like the camp is a relaxing time you'd be right and you'd be wrong. As a leader I feel the pressure of wanting everyone to have a positive experience stressful. Trying to keep us all on task and trying to not let the task get in the way of people. Element is special to me because while we have days and nights chock full of games and activities they are interspersed with times that we gather together and get a glimpse into what makes us tick. We hear the stories that shape us, the passions, the struggles and we challenge the picture we have of ourselves to be a picture that reflects our better nature.

all tangled up

It is stressful trying to herd cats, the cats being people that you want to get to a place where they feel safe to share and open to listening. In that place where lights can go on and where someone can walk away with something of value. That sort of stress while exhausting can also be refreshing and replenishing, the good sore of working muscles you didn't know you had.

And we need to build all the core strength we can, not just physically but mentally, emotionally, socially and spiritually. When you hear some of the stories and come to see life through another's eyes you realise that the modern world, expectations, media, families and friends – everything, makes the world and finding your place in it somewhat daunting.

First time junior leader with the permission of her friend who was still in medical care told a story of how that friend contacted her recently to confide that she was about to take her own life. This friend did not want our junior leader to tell anyone which left her, a young person, with a major moral dilemna. Fortunately she chose to contact authorities who arrived in time to remove the noose and stem the bleeding. That friend was not able to come on camp but wanted her story shared and it floored me that someone who wasn't even present was able to have such a presence and to touch the lives of everyone there. Not bad for a lonely, in pain and insecure young person.

We have such power and such potential.

A lot of mine is wasted like the muscles that fall into atrophy through lack of exercise. I try to 'keep it real' in my everyday life but I can wear a mask from time to time so that it looks like I'm confident, or I'm cool or I'm in touch with what matters. Thank you Element Camp! nothing like realising that your stinky socks are just adding to that aroma in the cabin to figure you're nothing special. And yet the focus of the camp was about just how special we all are but not that the universe revolves around us solely, we are all special, together.

I always feel more like my real self on camp where there is nowhere to hide. I don't always like everything that comes out on show but it feels more honest. Since camp I keep telling myself that I'm recuperating and that might have been true for a day or two. Yet when the rest of your holidays bleed together into one long season of a soccer computer game you start to miss the stress. You miss it because some stress is good for you. 

Started back at my position in school today and through sitting down and writing this, well I'm starting to feel like me again. Thankful for others to share the journey with and that they help to keep me on the adventure. May what I get from Element sustain me till next year...

To the know it all's in the comment's section

Do you really want to know if God exists or not? If the answer is yes, shouldn't you be searching for the answer to that question instead of assuming you already know it?

Are those that choose atheism without a journey that leads them there, at the height of human arrogance?

Are those mired in fundamentalist doctrine that don't read anything but a bible - if that - and spit out like a broken record all they think that has been laid out on that vinyl guilty of the same?

There is no physical tangible proof of God's existence, there is no worthy scientific explanation for a theory of everything. No one holds all the cards.

Seek and you shall find. Read, listen, look, ponder, do, think, try new experiences. I don't know what you'll find but I would hope that you'll find some humility and some appreciation for the variety of belief and absence of it. Better that than to be one of the judgemental hate filled ignorant.

Faith doesn't have to be blind and lack of it doesn't have to be without depth. Question everything and go with the answers that resonate as truth to you - and then continue your quest and your questioning. One more question... was this too arrogant and judgemental of me?

The Needless War

Does God exist? We've just had another tired old debate on the issue on Q&A between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell. A debate that pits the one who does not believe against the one who does as if these are the only two possible positions a person can ascribe to. And with that ascribing comes scorn for the other and a full belief in the starkness of one worldview over the other. Why does it have to be so black and white?

In the breadth of human understanding is there not a place of grey, of doubt, of humility? Most people have their belief and a debate like this just pits one against the other in a futile struggle (how do you prove that God does or does not exist?) that brings out the trolls and the worst in people. It is destructive, not constructive, it is divisive and is typical of societies (media and politics especially) want to form a circle around the proponents and yell 'fight, fight, fight.' With a fight comes entertainment and with a fight comes a fallout where in the case of politics for example parties can pick up the pieces of those that are divided to go with their worldview.

I am not immune to these practices, I have taken sides but I still long to rise above those base tendencies and see people come together respectfully to share in knowledge and wisdom and values. I would like the debate to take on a different tone, one where those that believe are not ridiculed as being deluded fools that believe in an invisible friend. It is insulting to suggest that people of faith have not reasoned and researched and wrestled with concepts and interpretations and against indoctrination and prejudices to be where they are in their faith. Faith is not an unreasonable position or a sign of intellectual inferiority. It could be said that those who rely only on the evidence of their senses and that ignore exploring the evidence that their heart may present to them are not weighing up all the evidence available.

But this could meander once again into the territory of division and hate. We hate what we don't understand. I respect those that truly seek to understand those that are different to them and it's those people that I would like to see leading this public discussion.

People like Alain de Botton who has written a book called 'Religion for Atheists' who in his search for wisdom though being an atheist did not discount the world of faith as having value.

A renowned scientist and self confessed atheist Mr Alan Lightman said “it is possible to be atheist and still value faith, and that it is possible to be religious and still value thought.”

I find myself more prepared to listen to someone who can come with a humble approach as opposed to the shouty, disrespectful and closed minded views that can come from the extreme poles on this discussion.

Peter Rollins is a crazy Irishman that on the Christian side of the fence has demonstrated that he embraces doubt, that he seeks to break down the barriers and reads the great texts of atheism to listen and learn and be transformed by them. 5:10 onwards is the highlight for me.

There are are many more clips, and much longer ones from the likes of Alain and Peter, two of the great thinkers of our time. I chose these cos they're relatively short. Here is another clip of Peter Rollins talking about faith and atheism in a way that makes you think. And whether you agree with him or not, I like being made to think rather than watching two people debate something with tired old arguments.

To sum up I believe that to believe in a God is no more or less absurd in my reckoning than to not to. No one's beliefs deserve ridicule...except those who believe that they have a right to ridicule others. Being sceptical, doubting, these are noble pursuits. And if I was to leave with you anything I'd say 'Get Faith!'. Even if you choose not to believe it, understand why someone else does. If you don't wrestle with it and just dismiss it I think you're in danger of leaving yourself spiritually poor.

But instead of me having the final word here how about some more from one of these great thinkers, a parable from Peter Rollins...

To be an atheist you need God's help 

A Strange Day

Is there something in the air? It was a strange day for me today due to emotions evoked from conversations and news stories etc. So much so that I thought it warranted a blog. 

It was great today to witness the whole school where I work get together and rally around a student who was shaving off his much loved hair for charity. I always find it interesting how much the atmosphere of a place and the people in it changes for the better when someone is doing something for others. There were other stories today but in my line of work most of those are confidential. I can talk about some of the other stuff, like the public headlines that I encountered today in the news.

Our National Treasure, mining magnate Mr Clive Palmer has accused today the CIA of funding the greens in a conspiracy to destroy Australia's coal industry. The CIA? usually when someone thinks the CIA is out to get them we wrap them up in a straightjacket and put them in a padded room. Maybe the mining tax legislation going through took it's toll on him? And how the mining tax was passed was weird because the ex opposition Speaker of the House stepped in to break a voting deadlock,  siding with the government. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen nearly blew it for the government by missing the vote. I'd be inclined to whack him on the backside for that except that another piece of legislation was also passed, one that I'd like to shake his hand for.

Refugees arriving by boat are now to have the same rights as those that arrive by plane in how their application for asylum is processed. There is still a long way to go to stop the deliberate dehumanisation of those arriving by boat as a detterant to others who might come. I get why they do that but it doesn't make it right. The courts have stated over and over that government and opposition strategies for dealing with refugees are illegal. If Australia is so intent on stopping the boats and branding refugees as illegal immigrants then we should remove ourselves from the treaty that says we will honour the human rights of refugees. I for one see no honour in dehumanising and turning away those in need so while there is still a way to go, this legislation is a step in the right direction and I applaud it.

And then all of this was overshadowed by the passing of Jim Stynes. He's the real national treasure here, loved by many because he lived his life with dignity, humility and generosity. Jim was a man with a big heart, big enough to care for others and help young people in need. He was a giver, not a taker and he loved life and will continue to be an inspiration for generations. I actually cried at the news of his passing, maybe cos he reminded me so much of my dad. I find someone we admire passing away can really help to focus us on what is really important in our lives. I wonder how fondly our whinging mining magnates will be remembered in comparison...