Barnaby Joyce, National Party Senator-elect, Pro-Life News, ‘Spring edition’ (Dec.), 2004, 1:

The number one issue in this country is abortion, front and centre, because if you kill your children then you will have little hope of looking after your visitors, reconciling with indigenous members in the community or delivering on any other relevant issue.

[Strong contender for non sequitur of the year.]

Bill Muehlenberg, National Vice-President of the Australian Family Association, News Weekly, 18 Dec. 2004, 20:

The safe-sex myth (just use a condom etc.) is not only physically harmful - as most contraceptives are far from foolproof - but the risks of a broken promise, a broken relationship, and a broken heart cannot be protected by the condom culture.

[So chastity protects us from broken hearts? Another entry for the non sequitur award.]

(more…)

Filed in: Their Own Mouths

The tsunami disaster continues to dominate world news as the death toll increases daily. Two articles in the Australian media yesterday took up the theme I raised in my last post, i.e. how do believers reconcile a disaster of this magnitude with their faith in a benevolent God?

The Age - Is God to blame for this?
“It is a pertinent and challenging question for all those who believe in an interventionist higher being, an omnipotent God. What did the many thousands of victims throughout Asia and Africa do to deserve their fate? And what sort of God would sanction such apparently meaningless devastation?”

Sydney Morning Herald - Waves of destruction wash away belief in God’s benevolence
“How, then, did a God as powerful and benevolent as this allow such a thing to happen? If he is benevolent then he cannot also be omnipotent, for a God who has both these attributes would have wanted to, cared to and been able to prevent such a catastrophe.”

Both of these articles are worth reading, although neither is able to answer the fundamental questions raised.

Filed in: Atheism

A massive earthquake on Boxing Day generated tsunamis which killed thousands throughout Asia, while millions lost their homes. Let’s hope that those affected can re-group, with help from the rest of the world.

Natural disasters like this must create a dilemma for those who believe in a benevolent God. Pastors will wring their hands and say “we cannot explain God’s will”. Thousands of believers of all faiths will pray to their God for help, but thence comes the dilemma. If a supernatural God can answer prayer and therefore control worldly events, why does He allow such disasters to occur? Surely these events cannot be divine retribution for unspecified sins, as some victims have said in the past few days? These are questions as old as belief itself, questions that religious leaders are no closer to adequately answering.

Filed in: General

Christmas Day. What are we to make of this festivity? The churches exhort us to consider the “real meaning of Christmas”, the “reason for the season” etc. But Western society left the nativity behind many years ago. We know that the celebration of Christ’s birth wasn’t invented until 336AD, and that the day itself was in fact a pagan feast for hundreds of years prior to that (natalis solis invicti - the Roman “birth of the unconquered sun”). Most of the symbols of Christmas (gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; Yule logs and various foods from Teutonic feasts) have their origins in pagan traditions. So let us ignore the ponderous exhortations from pulpits: let those who wish to celebrate the birth of a god-child do so, and let others show goodwill towards all men in their own way.

Filed in: Atheism

Today, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) handed down its decision on the long-running religious vilification case Islamic Council of Victoria v. Catch The Fire Ministries Inc. The case concerned a seminar, newsletter and website article promoted by Catch The Fire Ministries Inc., a Christian fundamentalist group affiliated with the Assembly of God. The case was brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria on a representative basis under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The judge found that all of these presentations breached the Act by “inciting hatred against and serious contempt for people who are Muslims” and has reserved sentencing.

I have mixed views about this case. On the one hand, freedom of speech is a cherished and fragile “right” in Australia and the Victorian legislation can have the effect of stifling religious commentary and criticism. On the other hand, inciting hatred towards those of another faith is not something that should be encouraged. Much of the history of the last two thousand years is littered with bloodshed justified by religious zealotry. We should learn from that history and promote tolerance of all religious beliefs, while remaining free to constructively criticise any particular belief system. The tricky part is to do that without deliberately or inadvertently inciting hatred.

Filed in: Censorship, Islam