Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

From the Financial Times:

"European countries are paying the price for their "miscalculations" on Islam, which have come back to haunt them in the crisis over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, according to the most influential leader of France's Muslim community, the biggest on the continent.

Dalil Boubakeur says Europe's mistakes include supporting extremist Islamic groups in Iran and Afghanistan during the cold war; encouraging multicultural systems that let radical Islamic groups flourish; and fostering a "hypocritical secularity" that allows discrimination against Muslims.

"There is no formula for co-existence between Islam and Europe," says Mr Boubakeur. "All idyllic, unrealistic visions of laissez-faire permissiveness are no good. All overly authoritarian visions are no good either. Islam in the west is a real political problem."

Speaking to the Financial Times in his cramped office behind the intricately decorated marble, tile and plaster walls of the Paris mosque, where he took over as rector from his father in 1992, he says Europe faces a tough choice.

"Where do we want to go? To multiculturalism, separating Muslims from westerners?

"I say no. Neither should we reduce Muslims through a forced integration to be just like westerners. That is impossible."

The UK, in particular, has made a "serious error" in "encouraging and accepting" multiculturalism. "The London bombings last year were a brutal wake-up call," he claims."

Rather pessimistic, n'est ce pas?

Roger writes “A couple of years ago I wrote in a WD forum that the most useless citizen that a country could have is a true Christian. A true Christian would not plan for tomorrow , would have no savings, would own no property, because it was all given away, and would not consume material goods.”

What would you call an Australian citizen who did all the above and did not claim to be a Christian? I suppose they could also be classified as “useless”, though one would expect all citizens are consumers in one way or another. We all have to eat and we all (most) have to have a roof over our heads.

I do agree that Christian beliefs and Christian behaviour are quite often contradictory and to be honest I do find it hard to find a fair dinkum “Christian”; do they exist?

Your post brought to mind a conversion I had just last night with son number 2 and my wife. My son was talking about status symbols, keeping up with the Joneses, envy and pride. I mentioned to him that I was not generally like that, and he replied; “Yeh, I know that, but you’re not normal” My wife cracked up and while laughing reminded us that my mother also said same about me. I was flattered, as my Mum meant it in a loving and understanding way, so did my son.

Yours truly is not a Christian. However, by your definition I could well be classified as “useless” but I would rather be labelled as “not normal”.

Being “not normal” is freedom; sadly many Christians seek their security in money and possessions (many to end up slaves) and simply do not understand that Jesus was trying to teach them all about freedom. Freedom from fear, the freedom to be honest and trustworthy. Maybe they should try it sometimes, you don’t even have to believe in God, or Jesus for that matter.

Some of the most financially dishonest people I have met call themselves Christians, some even go to church every Sunday only to rape and pillage on Monday.

As far as Australian values go then why not discuss English values, Chinese values, Indian values, African values or Aboriginal values. Australians do not have a monopoly on nouns, but those dammed nouns can be quite a problem when we try to define them.

Of course, our pollies can also have a field day and fuck with our minds using these nouns for whatever their purpose. Don’t be fooled, just love your neighbour, laugh a lot and fear not.

I think the biggest problem with talking about “values” is defining them. Many of them only apply broadly to Australians until you get to the fine print. At that point people diverge sharply.

For example, John Howard and I can both say we believe in giving people a “fair go”, to use a particularly nebulous Australian “value”. But what does that mean? I might think it’s particularly unfair for an employer to be able to force a new employee onto an individual contract, denying him or her access to a collective enterprise bargaining agreement. Howard, clearly, does not. Do we both still believe in a fair go?

Howard says Australians value human rights. Again, what does that mean? I might think it’s shameful that Australia locks up asylum seekers for years at a time, essentially for not having a visa, before accepting them as refugees. A fairly solid argument can be made that we infringe human rights by doing so. Phillip Ruddock, like many Australians, thinks it’s perfectly acceptable policy, even for children. Yet Ruddock, like me, claims to care about human rights (and you know he does care because he wears an Amnesty International badge!).

Howard would claim that Australians, like him, value democracy. Sounds fine, but I would argue that Howard has wilfully debased democracy in Australia through his contempt for Government accountability and transparency.

And what the hell is “mateship”? Did Australians invent the notion that a person might try to protect, and do good things for, the people they care about? I suspect, then, that even suicide bombers believe in “mateship”.

It’s all a matter of definition, isn’t it?

Surely all this ambiguity is a strong argument for a Bill of Rights, which would define to some extent whatever we think our fundamental values are. Sure, there’s still room for a lot of ambiguity, but without it what do we have as a reference? John Howard’s press conferences? The Bible?

I think Tony Phillips hit the nail on the head when he said the key question is: who is defining Australian values? If John Howard is defining Australian values, then I’m happy to call myself un-Australian.

In times of big government the fanatical approach to separation of church and state is wont to become a business in itself. We have plenty of people who scream of the injustices perpetrated by governments and their members who fail to satisfactorily divorce governing from their personal beliefs.

I am inclined to believe that there are common values and beliefs that are common to all societies. Some of these are moral beliefs and values that can be considered religious. Some might even be bold enough to consider these values and beliefs as the truth. Whenever religious and state issues come in conflict I would likely prejudge that government was the overbearing, oppressive force that was growing unchecked. The trouble is that in Australia many of us have never seen any different and too readily accept government interference in too many things.

If John Howard's "Australian values", are those which he has brought into his leadership and his government policy, then there is approximately half of the nation (non coalition supporters) that are very unAustralian.

Howard does not speak for me as an Australian, nor can I, as an atheist, relate to the sickening "Christian Australian" that is becoming so prevalent in our Parliament nowadays. In fact, the values espoused by Howard and Co. seem to be more American fundamentalist Christian than Australian.

The "third view" is very much in the tradition of activist theologians like Martin Luther King, and commentators like Elie Wiesel, whose religious faith informs what he sees as his duty to bear witness.

I actually have no problem with politicians whose religious faith informs their values. As long as they're not trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.

If a politician like Tony Abbott thinks abortion is wrong, OK, I respect that. If he really thinks it ought to be illegal, for whatever reason, then let's see him openly and explicitly try to make it illegal. It wouldn't work, as his little stunt with RU-486 showed.

It's silly for Howard and Costello to go on about "Australian values". Even if we all agreed what those values are, they can't be legislated (though they can inform and underpin legislation). As a dual US-Australian citizen, even I felt put off by Costello's remarks about multiple passport holders. I can only imagine how offended Australian Muslims must feel to be singled out as they have been. That was stupid, unnecessary, and uncalled-for.

As far as Sheikh Muhammad's rantings are concerned, rape is already illegal, and excuses like "she was wearing tight jeans" or "the Sheik made me do it" don't hold up in court. Politicians have a right (maybe even a duty) to denounce the kind of nonsense Sheikh Muhammad spews, but not to tar all Muslims with the same brush (even subtly).

"You could have asked me sooner, even though I have made some personal revelations in other forums recently."

Roger, the reason I refrained from asking is that your motives should not be relevant. I want to do you the courtesy of engaging your arguments on their merit, rather than trying to perform a Freudian analysis of them.

Thanks to all for making comments. I wrote as a theorist on politics and religion, trying to stand back, but I am a Christian so some of my comments will have reflected that.

For example, I am not at all sure that a devout Shi'ite Muslim would go with my option 3 as the most consistent expression of faith. I understand that Islam must move into the centre of the polis in order to have obeyed the prophet's words.

I tried to state early in the article that the Prime Minister's comments were "off the cuff", and therefore may not fairly be interpreted as carrying too much weight. However, they do reveal a problem for religious believers living in a secular state. There will be times when civil disobedience may be required in order to maintain integrity.

If ever a time comes when it is legislated that it is necessary to euthanase the terminally ill or retarded over, say age 90, Christians for one will have to break the law in order to honour their God. Or if it ever becomes illegal to hold a public religious meeting, as it was in mid-twentieth century China, then Christians (and I assume plenty of other religious believers) will be filling the gaols. Others may be able to think of more immediate examples of the power struggle between religion and the state.

www.case.edu.au

However, all of our musings are based on assumptions that are so intertwined within the things that you say, from your faith, or others may say, including myself, from either faith or study, that I am more interested in having those assumptions laid bare so that we can see what each other's motivations and rationales are, instead of talking across one another.

Strangely enough, I've been moving in the opposite direction on forums like this. I've been trying to take people's words at face value, rather than trying to analyse their "real" motives. I feel the latter is disrespectful.

For example, I've been sorely tempted to say "Roger, you're just bitter because of your bad experience with the church." But does that progress the debate at all? Instead, I've tried to engage only with the points you raise. Play the ball and not the man, and all that.

Regarding Greg's piece, I thought he was pretty open about his purpose and his own position. If you follow the supplied link back to New College, you can read more about Greg and the organisation he directs, CASE.

The Kenneth Myer Lecture 2005 entitled The seeds of change: serendipity and social movements was delivered by Tim Costello and broadcast on Radio National’s Big Ideas program.

This lecture is the best I have heard on values, belief and politics. It is a pity we have Peter rather than Tim as potentially our next PM. Tim seems to be a man with real vision.

A few of the comments seem to have circled around Islam's relationship with Greg's 3 "options".

 Whatever the case, it is increasingly obvious that it reinforces the observation that Christianity and Islam are palpably different, and not (as some secularists frequently imply) essentially the same, be it in 'access to God' or psychological delusion. If one is true, the other cannot be, or, if they are both wrong, they are very different in their error.

So the question is, is a genuine religious pluralism - that includes atheism (which is also a belief) - actually possible? And if so, which belief system is the more attractive?

Thanks for this, Craig S.

I question whether, in using the word "transcend", the PM meant that Australians owed their primary/highest loyalties to "common values", thus requiring a relegation of religious commitment to a lesser place. Many people of faith would disagree with that, but it is possible he just meant that our common values allow us to overcome religious differences and enable us to live together.

I am one who believes my highest, or perhaps deepest, loyalties are to God, but I believe in a God who values people equally and who also values individual autonomy. My faith tells me that I should genuinely respect others with their beliefs and in their own circumstances, and I value our democracy and religious tolerance because of that.

I believe (and I'm sorry if WD is getting sick of "I believe" statements from me) ... I believe I have a duty to try to influence the "state" in that, as well as doing what I can to live peaceably, justly and sustainably, I must promote peace, justice and sustainability around me. I agree that sometimes that means "speaking truth to power". But I think Christians must also remember that it is a servant king we serve ourselves and, in following Him, we must also be humble. Other people's freedom is God-given, in my view, so I have the right to express my views to others and even attempt to persuade them but ultimately I should never interfere with their freedom. Where there are views which conflict, we must let democratic processes take their course and live under the rules chosen by the majority. We can work to change laws we think are unjust but that will have to be by convincing the majority not "wresting control". Which is probably what View 3 is espousing. Just be sure it is done humbly and respectfully.

Howard: "our common values as Australians transcend any other allegiances or commitments" ???!!

Well, the importance of the dog whistle is more important that actually making sense. What would it mean if we were to treat the above as an actual claim? Does he mean we somehow owe our highest duty to Australian values, whatever the hell they are. Or, more importantly, to whatever somebody says they are? And who is that somebody, that's the real political question.

Does he mean we owe our highest allegiance to our national identity and/or the Australian state? He's in for a shock in that case, I don't know any adult immature or stupid enough to sign up to that one.

So we are left with the dog whistle - "be sure and know I won't be letting any of these Muslims get out of line. They have to knuckle under to our values. (and you know who we are and its not them)"

We have, of course, seen this kind of thing before in our history, most notably with Roman Catholics, whose presumed loyalty to the Pope and to Ireland was seen as a threat to secular law and Australian Protestants' allegiance to Australia and the higher allegiance of King and Empire.

I've no objection to defending aspects of our liberal democracy (Howard actually spends more time destroying it) against theological totalitarians, but spare me the dog whistling and stereotyping from this nasty divisive little man.

That said, Greg's article is a thoughtful piece in many other important ways. While the division between church and state has historically been resolved via settling on "the right to persuade", problems do still arise. When people of strong belief hold office, for example the complexities around Tony Abbott's recent position on abortion, or when people of belief form parties or lobby groups to champion the enforcement of scriptural law by secular law. Unless one lives in a uniformly religious society it is likely that values and beliefs expressed in religious rules will collide with law of the state.

But this is just part of an ongoing problem that liberal democracies and their citizens have to negotiate, striking balances between majority rule and minority rights. In the case of religion debate has increasingly been settled in favour of liberal secularism. Broadly, individuals are free to offend the gods but limited in their offences to other citizens. Thus there is no place for laws on homosexuality or forbidding divorce, or requiring marriage etc. (oops I forgot, Howard has slipped some fundamentalism in here around who has the right to get married)

Abortion remains tricky because the debate on when human life begins remains fraught, with metaphysical soul versus viable body being the main point of contention. Of course, my offending someone's god does arguably offend them, but the argument tends to be, let God not Caeser work out the penalty for that offence.

Roger, I can't help but feel you are arguing for the sake of it. But I'll bite...

"I think your starting premise, that a throwaway statement by Howard is a definitive comment as to the relationship between an individual's beliefs and their duties as a citizen, is questionable."

Greg never said it was a "definitive comment". That is your phrase. All he said was "Here's what the PM said. I don't think many religious people would agree."

"However, as the Prime Minister of Australia, he actually said what is indisputably correct."

Wouldn't that make it a "definitive comment"?

"... the first duty of all citizens is to the state."

Our faith teaches submission to the governing authorities except where this conflicts with the law of God.

"Laws of the land are not promulgated with the proviso that conscientious objections can render them inactive."

That is true. That doesn't exclude conscientious objection, though. I'm sure there are instances where your conscience would find itself in conflict with the "law of the land" as well. These situations are not restricted to Christians. I think very few people would regard the law as right simply because it is the law. In fact, we are agreed that there are "good laws" and "bad laws". We all judge the law of the land according to our ideological presuppositions.

Hypothetical. You are a German soldier in 1943. You are assigned to Auschwitz and told to assist with the gassings. According to the "law of the land" you have no choice - you will be shot if you disobey. I'm sure you see my point - it is not just a problem for Christians.

"Much of what you say is traditional Christian apologetics with the unspoken assumption that this is the way of Australian life."

I did not read that in his piece at all. He was asking "how should the church interact with the state" and gave an opinion. From what phrases did you derive the "unspoken assumption"?

"In setting up your three views, you ignore other possible views such as that religious life is a delusion of no relevance to individual or state."

That is just a cheap back-hander. I may as well comment that your anti-religious essay ignored the possibility that you are completely wrong and religion is valid and important.

There is one concept that must transcend religious belief: the separation of church and state, and its necessary corollary, the rule of law. Fundamental human rights turn on this, including freedom of religion and the freedom to reject religion, freedom of conscience, freedom from discrimination, unfettered and universal access to the political and judicial processes, and freedom of speech.

Perhaps it is this that the Prime Minister had in mind when he made his comments.

As Greg Clarke has expressed it, this is a concept that is embraced by his religious beliefs. It is a part of his religious beliefs. Therefore this critically important principle is moot. No issue arises.

But what about those whose religious beliefs do not include the separation of church and state, indeed are hostile to the very idea? Those whose beliefs are that the state is merely an instrument to enforce their religious beliefs? Or should be. Those whose religious beliefs call to them to capture or destroy any state that is aloof from the central tenets of their religion, as they see it, and therefore an unbearable profanity and depravity? To capture and destroy by any means possible. Including violence.

It is at that point that I part company with Greg Clarke's position. It is at that point that his analysis throws up its fatal contradiction.

Criminality is defined by the rule of law and the rule of law must be universal and the product of a system that confines religious belief to the unfettered conscience of the individual. A criminal act is just as criminal whether it is motivated by greed, lust, or religious belief. And that is a value that must transcend any other allegiance or commitment.

There can be no other way.

When Howard said "our common values as Australians transcend any other allegiances or commitments", perhaps he was speaking of values common to all religions, or at least a transcending tolerance of others' opinions and beliefs. Such a notion would also include non-believers and doubters.

It doesn't strike me as un-Christian, say, to think that non-believers have virtues and rights which can be appreciated by everyone regardless of creed. Acknowledging that could be a "common value" transcending any particular doctrinal belief of individual religions.

The idea that this or that religion's adherents are supremely virtuous would lend itself to ignoring the rights of others. And even if this or that religion's adherents were supremely virtuous, it might be better they pretended not to be.

Greg, you volunteer some interesting perspectives.

I think your starting premise, that a throwaway statement by Howard, is a definitive comment as to the relationship between an individual's beliefs and their duties as a citizen, is questionable.

I don't believe that there is such an issue because a direct question to the PM would get the direct answer that he believes that a commitment to actions guided by conscience and faith are notionally supreme, with a whole list of qualifiers attached, replete with uhms and ahs.

The PM is prone to saying whatever suits the audience he is trying to influence. It would surprise me that he gave the philosophical implications of his statement a single thought.

However, as the Prime Minister of Australia, he actually said what is indisputably correct. Australia is a secular state and the first duty of all citizens is to the state. A long tradition of religious freedom has allowed those who wish to live a life inspired by a particular religious belief to make the erroneous legal assumption that there is a higher duty.

Laws of the land are not promulgated with the proviso that conscientious objections can render them inactive. In a court of law, a judge may give much personal credence to the defence of acting in accordance a higher power but, in the end, the same judge is bound to uphold the law of the land not the law of the defendant's personal Law Giver.

Much of what you say is traditional Christian apologetics with the unspoken assumption that this is the way of Australian life. In setting up your three views, you ignore other possible views such as that religious life is a delusion of no relevance to individual or state.

Are Sheik Muhammad's values compatible with Oz? And consider those of his followers. Pamela Bone writing in The Age:

"'Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world," Sheikh Feiz Muhammad told a packed public meeting in the Bankstown Town Hall last month. "Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."

There was pressure on Muslim women to unveil, the sheikh said, and this was because "they want you to be available for their gross, disgusting, filthy abomination! They want you to be a sex symbol!" The woman who wore the hijab was hiding her beauty from the eyes of "lustful, hungry wolves," he said.

Sheikh Feiz Muhammad teaches at the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, NSW. His long, ranting speech, damning and ridiculing Western culture (if you allow your wife to watch the "devil" of daytime television, he advised men, you will come home from work and find she is being "negative" towards you) was greeted with "frequent applause."