You Have The Right To Not Read This Blog Post.

You do not have the right to prevent this image from circulating:

FRANCE-ATTACKS-CHARLIE-HEBDO-MEDIA-FRONTPAGE
(I debated for a while putting a stronger warning at the top of this post, to avoid hurting religious sensibilities. But you know what, I’m not feeling overly tender towards religious sensibilities right now. They need to grow the hell up and learn how to live in the real world, which does not cater exclusively to their strange whims about ‘prophets’ and magical invisible sky-daddies).

The media reprinting this cover? Naughty naughty, they’re ‘encouraging the circle of violence’.

The Muslim groups protesting the publication of this image? Oh, they’re just exercising their right to free speech! It’s not like anyone’s going to take them seriously and firebomb news outlets or brutally massacre journalists, right? “Muslim leaders lined up to condemn Charle Hebdo for its decision to put a cartoon of the prophet on the cover and warned that it risked fuelling sectarian tensions.” … Yeah, you know what else fuels sectarian tensions? Shooting people for not agreeing with you.

Free speech does give them the right to protest, as it gives media the right to publish the images in the first place. But how can we blame one side for encouraging violence and not the other?

Should those journalists not have been drinking so late at night, wearing such short skirts, drawing so provocatively? Were they, in fact, Asking For It?

This accommodationism is gross. I don’t believe we should hold groups of people to lower humanitarian standards just because of the colour of their skin or because they believe in fairies.

So many people have been murdered for their unwillingness to treat religious beliefs as sacred and unquestionable.

The least we can do is carry on in their footsteps.

Advertisements

The danger of ‘offending people’

I’ve been thinking a bit about what it means to ‘offend’ someone, particularly if that someone is a friend of yours whose beliefs you happen to strongly disagree with. I am not one to shy away from a heated argument (har har, understatement) on an issue that I care passionately about. But I do sometimes have this nagging worry that my anger will frighten off people that I consider to be good friends, and good people, who happen to have some unfortunate beliefs.

But the more I think about it, the more I believe this needs to be put in perspective.

The Bible says that unbelievers will burn in Hell for eternity.

… Wait, rewind, what?

Burn.

In HELL.

For ETERNITY.

Suddenly, calling someone a poopyhead doesn’t seem like such an offensive crime. I have friends who worship a God who would condemn me to ever-lasting suffering. Not just believe in Him, but worship him as some kind of superior moral being.

(Of course, most of my friends are the ‘cut and paste the good bits and leave out the vast majority of the rest’ sort of Christians, which makes them much nicer people but perhaps less theologically cohesive. I do still hold them responsible for the contents of the Holy Book that they choose to follow, though.)

While my friends hold those beliefs, I’m sorry, but I’m just going to stop fucking worrying about ‘offending’ them. If people don’t think the very idea of hell is the most offensive thing possible, then surely nothing that I can say will bother them, anyway.

Red pill or blue pill.

Here’s another dichotomy that I’m waiting for someone to dispute.

One is either:

a) An atheist

or

b) Does not fully understand evolution or the scientific method (or selectively chooses not to apply their understanding of these things).

I really don’t see an option c) here. Yes, I do realise that that comes across as smug, but I’m being genuine. If one understands how life can arise through natural means, and that the world looks exactly as we would expect it to look if its existence was purely natural, then one would apply Occam’s Razor and poof, the need for any kind of supernatural deity disappears. The only reason I can see for holding a religious belief is that one has not had an adequate scientific education. (Note: I’m not trying to sound all blame-y, here. I think science education desperately needs a re-vamp, even in countries where evolution is taught as part of the curriculum).

I’m sure most intelligent religious people are those who do understand how evolution works and have (consciously or unconsciously) made the decision not to follow that understanding to its logical conclusion. I have no idea why they would make that decision, though. Hmm.

 

These thoughts brought to you by a commenter on another blog who wrote:

“If your reasoning faculties are the result of mere chance + time, and not order, how can they be relied on?”

1) Evolution through natural selection is not the same thing as “mere chance”. I mean, seriously? Try reading a book at some point. An introductory high school biology text book would do. Yeesh.

2) Reasoning faculties can be relied upon precisely because they are the result of evolution. If they were not reliable and not useful, then humans would not have evolved to have them. How does this basic logic just… sail over peoples’ heads?

 

Alright. Next post will be about something less frustrating, I promise.

High School Chaplaincies

Recently there was a classic post in the Sydney Morning Herald attempting to defend the role of religious Chaplains in secular schools. The author bio at the end of the article should probably have been at the beginning, since it immediately explains the author’s unsurprising bias:

Tim Mander is the chief executive of Scripture Union Queensland, Australia’s largest employer of school chaplains in  government schools.

I guess when people get their medical advice from cigarette companies and have their opinions on climate change shaped by oil companies, one more written piece of blatant bias shouldn’t really surprise me. Of course those whose businesses revolve around Chaplains are going to be in support of their positions in schools – they’d be out of a job if they weren’t.

Tim Mander makes the common mistake of assuming that atheists and secularists have pitted themselves against religious teaching in schools simply because they don’t understand the issue. What he fails to comprehend is the concept that people might understand the issue completely and still disagree with him.

I’ve been mulling over this article and thought that it might be worth going through it and tearing it apart line-by-line, since it contains some real doozies – the kind of ‘arguments’ that crop up over and over, and which make no more sense on repetition than they did in the first place.

Let’s begin at the beginning:

It’s surprising that this relatively benign decision —  to allow school  communities the option to receive federal funding for a chaplain – is so  controversial, considering chaplaincy has existed within many spheres of  Australian society for years.

1a) Basically untrue: The government funding religion in secular schools is not a benign decision. (Although, one may truthfully say it is relatively benign when compared to, say, slaughtering small puppy dogs, I suppose.)

1b) Argument from tradition: Racism has existed throughout many spheres of human society for years, as well. Does this make it a good idea and a policy worth keeping?

During recent disasters, such as bushfires, floods and cyclones, chaplains were  well accepted as providers of an important role in the multi-faceted community  response.  Chaplains have also proved valuable in more than just disaster  response. For example, the “Salvos” embody the pastoral care and spiritual  support that typifies the role, and have been a much loved part of the  Australian landscape for decades.

2) Irrelevant: Are these the same “Salvos” that discriminate against people in need on the basis of their sexuality (or do they only do that in America)?  Either way, what’s the relevance of this paragraph? Chaplains helping out after disasters and Christian charity work have nothing to do with exposing impressionable children to religious dogma.

Similarly, chaplaincy in schools is not new, having started in some states more  than 50 years ago, and chaplains have long been in the emergency services,  hospitals, the defence forces, and even professional sporting teams.

3) Argument from tradition: see above

The High Court Challenge threatens funding for more than 2500 chaplains across  Australia, and whether the current concerns spring from ideology or from a lack  of information, understanding the National School Chaplaincy Program is  important.

4a) Well, if you call a concern for the separation of Church and State “ideology”…

4b) We already understand the Program. It is the Program that is the problem, not the public’s understanding of it.

Importantly, having a school chaplain is voluntary. In the first instance, a  school community will decide whether it wants a chaplaincy service, and then  they agree on the faith background of the prospective chaplain. The reason that  the majority of school chaplains come from the Christian faith is because the  school community has made that collective choice.

5) Argument from popularity: otherwise refuted as, “just because everyone thinks it’s a good idea doesn’t mean it’s actually a good idea” (refer to racism and the argument from tradition, above). I bet that those schools didn’t ask the permission of every single parent before installing a Christian Chaplain. Manders acts like everyone is on board with the idea, which is weird – clearly everyone is not on board, or he wouldn’t be writing an article about it and there wouldn’t be a High Court challenge on the matter.

Nevertheless, no matter what the faith of the chaplain, they provide comfort and  support to all students and staff, regardless of their religious affiliation or  beliefs. People often make the mistake of equating religious education classes  with chaplaincy, however, the two are separate and distinct in role, function  and personnel.

6a) Blatant lie: If you were a teenager struggling with your sexuality, or having a crisis of faith and considering atheism, would you be stupid enough to go and see your school’s religious Chaplain? Do you really think they would offer you ‘comfort’ and ‘support’? A more useful way of supporting students and staff would be to put the money towards qualified counsellors and psychologists.

6b) Not entirely true: While there is a slight difference between chaplaincy and religious education, including either one in an educational institution gives religion the illusion of validity. By funding religious Chaplains, the government is lending weight to a religious world view. Imagine if schools paid people who believed in fairies and unicorns to provide ‘support’ for students, purely on the basis of their belief in said imaginary beings. I’m a big fan of fairies and unicorns and all things sparkly, but even I think the notion is ridiculous. Why is religion treated any differently? On what basis are these people qualified to provide guidance to kids?

A key piece of misinformation muddying the issue is the false assertion that  chaplains are there to proselytise. The inability, or unwillingness, to  differentiate between imposition of religious beliefs, and serving spiritual  needs, is fundamental to this confusion.

7) Even more blatant lie: This is the most moronic section in the whole article. Tim Mander’s ability to blithely ignore evidence is impressive and disturbing. That the school Chaplains are there to proselytise is not a false assertion: it is a fact supported by extensive evidence from the Chaplaincy program itself. (For example, see this news article regarding comments made by the head of Access Ministries, Evonne Paddison).

It doesn’t matter how many times Manders and others like him squawk “not-proselytising!” Denying reality does not change it. There is no ‘inability’ or ‘unwillingness’ on the part of secularists, and there is certainly no confusion. The agenda of Chaplains is very, very clear. To pretend otherwise is misleading. Perhaps someone needs to remind these people that lying is a sin.

A chaplain serves the community in a “first-response capacity” by providing pastoral care, spiritual support and referral pathways to access specialist crisis support.

They are able to do this as they are approachable, having a neutral, rather than disciplinary role.

8 ) Again, put yourself in the shoes of a student struggling with their sexuality and imagine just how ‘approachable’ a Christian Chaplain would be. Side note: I don’t care how open-minded and warmfuzzy some denominations are; they all go by the Bible, and the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. I have no idea how these people can possibly consider themselves to be ‘neutral’ when they have an agenda wider than the Nullabor.

A misrepresentation that often fuels suspicion or angst is the cost of the program. Rarely does it get pointed out that the annual funding for each school in the program is $20,000.

9) That’s $20,000 worth of Church-State-Separation-Fail.

The care of school communities is of critical importance, and unfortunately, the issue of whether chaplains are capable and qualified is awash with misunderstanding. It’s important for the community’s peace of mind to know that all chaplains employed by member organisations of the National School Chaplaincy Association (which employs 85 per cent of chaplains in government schools) have minimum training requirements, and they receive ongoing professional development.

10) Weirdly enough, “minimum training requirements” and “ongoing professional development” from institutions that believe in a magic man in the sky and the moral authority of the voices in their heads? Not reassuring to the saner folk among us. Not helping our “peace of mind”.

Importantly, qualified educational professionals overwhelmingly endorse the program. In a 2009 national survey it was found that 98 per cent of responding principals who had a chaplain in their school wanted government funding for school chaplaincy to continue.

11) … Look, pardon the French, but is this guy fucking stupid? Does he really think that principals who have already chosen to employ chaplains in their schools wouldn’t want government funding for it? Also, he’s conflating “qualified educational professionals” with “principals who had a chaplain in their school”, and I’m afraid I just can’t see the logical link between those two groups.

Whatever the outcome, one thing is sure: chaplains promote wellbeing in our community [No, they don’t], and we must find a way to keep them in schools. [Citation needed, buddy.]

Well, there’s the end of that exercise in simplistic literary criticism. If you’d like to read something to get the bad taste out of your mouth, I recommend Peter Fitzsimons’ response to an offended religious letter-writer. Onya, Fitz – my respect for you has duly increased.

Australian Census 2011

Or, “Why ‘Jedi Knight’ is no longer the best option for an answer to the religion section of the census.” (Sorry guys, I know that’s going to come as a disappointment).

Not religious now? Mark ‘no religion’ and take religion out of politics.

I think it’s bizarre that some people seem to truly believe that Australian politics are not unduly influenced by religion. It continues to baffle me that the majority of Australians support gay marriage, and yet neither major political party wants to touch the issue (and they’re usually so good at popularist pandering! You’d think this would be an easy choice for them). It’s strange that  religion is so ingrained in our culture that having unqualified religious chaplains (funded by the government) in public schools is seen to be ‘normal’.

Sometimes I feel like I am a minor character in a science-fiction novel and the Earth is a strange and alien planet that I am visiting for the very first time.

That’s my thought for today.