In a short but virulent Senate submission on same-sex marriage, the covert Christian group, Doctors for the Family, argues against same-sex marriage. Their objections can be reduced to two key points.

• Children fare better when brought up by their two biological parents.
• The ‘normalisation’ of homosexuality poses a risk to community health.

In support of the first contention, the submission cites Professor Patrick Parkinson’s “For Kid’s Sake” report and a scholarly article by Wendy Manning and Kathleen Lamb, “Adolescent well-being in co-habiting, married, and single-parent families”.  Defending the submission today on Radio National, Dunjey also cited the opinion of the American College of Pediatricians that same-sex parenting is detrimental to children and society.

Let us deal, first, with Professor Parkinson’s report.  Commissioned by the Australian Christian Lobby, “For Kid’s Sake” was released late last year. Immediately, Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey, Beyond Blue’s Jeff Kennett and Catholic commentator, Angela Shanahan rushed to use  ‘evidence’ from the report in their tirades against same-sex marriage.

There was but one problem – the report says nothing about same-sex parenting.

Parkinson, clearly irritated by this misrepresentation of his work, pointed out that his report does not engage in any criticism about same-sex relationships of any kind.  In fact, the report recommends that government sponsored parent and marriage counselling be extended to gay couples.

Parkinson further confirmed that  reference to the high risk of child abuse from men living in family situations in which they share no biological relationship to the children, refers to the heterosexual male partners of women not homosexual couples.

In an article in the National Times, Parkinson clearly makes the point that the key risk factors for children are family breakdown, financial stress, domestic violence and sexual abuse from defacto [heterosexual] male partners living in the family home. He makes no mention whatsoever of same-sex marriage as a risk factor for children.

The crux of Parkinson’s argument is that children do best in stable, peaceful family environments with two married parents. The ‘problem’ with children living apart from one or more of their biological parents is that this is often associated with family breakdown, instability, economic pressures and strangers moving into the household.  This is not in the least bit equivalent to a same-sex couple in a committed relationship deciding to have a child.

The problem, as anyone who reads Parkinson’s report or similar studies will find, is not the lack of a ‘biological’ link between parent and child, but the circumstances which both precede and follow the breakdown of a heterosexual relationship.

As Rodney Croome has pointed out, those who are genuinely concerned about the welfare of children should consider Parkinson’s report an endorsement for same-sex marriage.  Parkinson clearly states that marriage is good for children. Marriage tends to create stability and economic security. He says  “the likelihood that a non-marital relationship with children will break down is many times higher than for marriages”. Given that homosexual couples already have children – and will continue to do so whether Doctors for the Family like it or not – it seems that the very best thing that can be done to ensure their welfare is to encourage same-sex parents to marry.

Parkinson has made it clear that his report should not be used as an attack on same-sex marriage. Is it not dishonest in the extreme for Doctors for the Family to suggest otherwise?

It’s ironic that, in their feigned  ‘concern’ for the children of gay partnerships, Doctors for the Family cite studies which raise concerns about the fidelity within and the longevity of same-sex relationships; yet, according to Parkinson – their own source –  the best way to address this is to encourage couples to marry; not make it impossible for them to do so!

Let me just hammer home the point  here; Parkinson’s “For Kid’s Sake” is about heterosexual parenting – he says so, himself. It says nothing about homosexual parenting (other than that gay couples and parents should be supported in the same way as heterosexuals). Using a reference to the report to support an argument against same-sex marriage is both unethical and intellectually dishonest.

The same can be said of Doctors for the Family’s reference to Manning and Lamb’s paper from the Journal of Marriage and Family. Doctors for the Family gives us half a sentence from this article in support of their argument against same-sex marriage:

“Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better…”  

But what does the article really say about same-sex parenting? Thanks to the State Library of Queensland’s database search and JStor I was able to access an online copy.

Manning and Lamb’s study focuses on a comparison between the children of heterosexual, married, biological parents living together and children in married (heterosexual) step-families and single mother families.  There is no mention whatsoever of homosexual parents.

Manning and Lamb found that children living in two-biological-parent families generally fare better, but, importantly, they concluded that  “most of these differences are explained by socioeconomic circumstances”.

Like Parkinson, Manning and Lamb identify a number of ‘risk factors’ for children. These include economic status, family stability, and the quality of parenting. Curiously, they find that the increasing social acceptability of [heterosexual] cohabitation has made for easier parenting and that ‘legal and social recognition’ of parental relationships is important for the stability and well-being of children.

Like Parkinson’s, Manning’s and Lamb’s findings appear to support the notion that children of same-sex parents will fare better if a) same-sex parenting becomes socially acceptable and b) same-sex couples are permitted to marry.  Yet, these are the very things to which Doctors for the Family are opposed.  One has to ask if their concern is genuinely with the children of these partnerships, or whether their opposition is based purely on their ideological bias.

There are two things to be said of Doctors for the Family’s use of Manning and Lamb’s research.

First, it is clearly a case of cynical and dishonest quote-mining. Like Parkinson’s study, Manning and Lamb say nothing abut same-sex parents; they did not include same-sex parents in their research.

Second, Manning and Lamb’s conclusion is not as simplistic as Doctors for the Family suggest with their half-sentence quotation. Being raised by two biological parents is not the determining factor for a child’s welfare; rather, it is the tendency for [heterosexual] step-parent families and single-mother families to be financially stressed.

I’m aware of no evidence which suggests that same-sex parents are subject to the same economic stressors as single parent or step-families. In fact, given the high cost of having a child via IVF or surrogacy, and the fact that the children of same-sex parents are more likely to be planned, it seems reasonable to assume that same-sex parents would generally be in a better financial position to raise children than many heterosexual couples.

And now, to Dr Dunjey’s use of ‘evidence’ from the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) on Radio National this morning.  It sounds convincing, doesn’t it? The average reader – or perhaps the average politician – may be misled into believing that this is the peak body of pediatricians in the USA. That would be wrong – but you didn’t hear this clarification from Dr Dunjey.

The peak body of American pediatricians is the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The American College of Pediatricians is a break-away group, founded by religious conservatives in 2002 as a protest against the AAP’s support for adoption by gay couples.

Yes, that’s right, America’s mainstream group of 60,000 credible pediatricians support same-sex marriage. It is only a small, break-away group, driven by religious ideology, who oppose it. There’s is not the consensus view as Dr Dunjey dishonestly suggests – it is the minority view.

Let me repeat that. ACPeds’ religiously motivated view is contrary to  the position of the 60,000 pediatricians represented by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other mainstream medical and child welfare authorities, including the National Association of Social Workers. Indeed, as Dr Kerryn Phelps pointed out on Radio National this morning, the mainstream medical, psychological and scientific consensus is that “sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.^”

There’s an old saying which I like very much:  When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. In this respect, Dr Dunjey should really have considered the shady reputation of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) before aligning with them.

Like it’s ideological counterpart, NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), ACPeds is notorious for mischaracterising and misrepresenting the work of legitimate researchers to advance their own agenda.

For example, in 2010, Dr Gary Remafedi from the University of Minnesota was shocked to find ACPeds citing his research to argue that schools should provide no support for gay students as they were likely to ‘grow out of it’.

“Most adolescents who experience same-sex attraction…no longer experience such attractions at age 25,” said ACPeds, quoting a 1992 study by Remafedi.

Except that’s not what Remafedi’s study said at all!:

“[Remafedi’s] work showed that kids who are confused about their sexuality eventually sort it out—meaning many of them accept being gay.

“What was so troubling was that these were fellow doctors, fellow pediatricians,” Remafedi says. “They knew better, and they have the same ethical responsibilities to their patients that I do, but they deliberately distorted my research for malicious purposes.”

“It’s obvious that they didn’t even read my research,” Remafedi says.” [Emphasis added.]

I might say the same of Doctors for the Family cherry-picking a quote from Manning’s and Lamb’s paper – a study not even remotely associated with homosexuality. Did they even bother to read it?

Remafedi is not the only researcher whose work has been “cherry-picked, manipulated, and misstated” by ACPeds.

In 2010, Francis S Collins, a Christian, and one of America’s most respected scientists, issued the following statement:

“It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality.  The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.” [Emphasis added.]

The paucity of Dunjey’s ‘evidence’ against same-sex marriage is only magnified when he resorts to using the discredited American College of Pediatrics in support of his argument!

Again, let me pause to make my point. By misrepresenting the work of Dr Patrick Parkinson and Manning and Lamb, in an apparent attempt to mislead the Australian Senate, Dr Dunjey and his Doctors for the Family follow in the fine tradition of the American College of Pediatricians – a similarly covert group of religious zealots. No wonder Dunjey appears to be so familiar with their work!

And now, let’s turn to the second point raised in Doctors for the Family’s easily debunked piece of political propaganda.

Quoting from an article from America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Infectious Disease News, the Doctors for the Family submission suggests that ‘normalising’ homosexuality is likely to lead to increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/Aids and syphilis.

Yes, they’re stretching.

According to the vast majority of medical experts, homosexuality is not ‘a choice’. It follows, then, that recognising homosexuality as part of the normal spectrum of human sexuality will not lead to more people ‘choosing’ to become homosexual. It’s an argument built on an entirely false and unproven premise. But don’t just take my word for it!

In 1994, The American Psychological Association, which represents over 132,000 mental health professionals, released a “Statement on Homosexuality” which says, in part:

“Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture.

Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accoutrements.” [Emphasis added.]

Similarly, the Australian Psychological Society’s website insists that homosexuality is neither a ‘choice’ nor a mental disorder.

In Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation (2005),  Glenn Wilson, a reader in personality at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist at the University of East London state unequivocally that ‘the existing body of academic research leaves absolutely no room for parental or societal influence on this intimate trait’. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, social acceptance of homosexuality will have no effect whatsoever on the number of homosexuals.

Regardless of Dr Dunjey’s ill-informed and ideologically inspired idiocy, this is the consensus opinion of legitimate researchers and experts.

While Doctors for the Family cynically try to incite homophobia by referring to the high rates of HIV and syphilis in homosexuals who participate in male to male sex, they fail to cite the reason provided in the report from which they quote.  Dr Kevin Fenton, director of the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention explains:

“It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts.”

The problem he identifies is a lack of education and support. Given their very real concern about sexual health, are Doctors for the Family advocating sexual health programs for gay teens in Australian schools?

No? I wonder why not.

Promiscuity (whether heterosexual or gay) is obviously a factor which leads to the spread of STDs.  While it is obviously no guarantee, studies seem to suggest that marriage leads to greater relationship stability and fidelity. So, surely anyone who is genuinely concerned about stemming the spread of STDs in the homosexual community would be vigorously  promoting same-sex marriage!

Doctors for the Family have failed every academic protocol in promoting their fatally flawed submission to the Australian Senate. They have misrepresented the work of credible researchers, they have cherry-picked quotes to support their argument. They have failed to consider or disclose that the papers they cite are not relevant to their case and/or do not support their contentions. In a cynical attempt to convince Radio National listeners that the consensus of medical opinion is against same-sex marriage, Doctors for the Family convenor, Dr Lachlan Dunjey misleadingly quoted the opinion of the extremist right-wing American College of Pediatrics; while completely failing to mention the contrary majority view of the peak representative group, the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Further, as I showed in my previous post, Dunjey and his compatriots comprehensively failed to disclose the religious motives which underpin their opposition to same-sex marriage.  Dunjey, in particular, is culpable as he has a history of setting up Christian lobby groups, composed of fundamentalists and evangelists, while deceptively denying any religious agenda.

Trying to mislead the Australian Senate is a serious ethical matter. So is misrepresenting academic research and dissembling (if not outright lying) on national radio. Add to this the hypocrisy of exploiting the public’s trust in doctors in order to misrepresent a fundamentalist religious prejudice as a matter of scientific consensus. It’s a classic case of a tradition which is becoming all to routine in fundamentalist circles – lying for Jesus. I spoke about this at length in my recent address to Dying with Dignity (NSW).

The Australian Senate would be well advised to disregard this shameful piece of holy hogwash and make a note that, in future, any organisation headed by Dr Dunjey should be treated with extreme distrust.

Dr Dunjey, and those who are foolish or dishonest enough to add their names to his petitions, are a disgrace to academia, to the medical profession and to Christianity. They really should be ashamed.

Chrys Stevenson

The internet is all a-twitter tonight with news that 150 Australian doctors, operating under the moniker Doctors for the Family  [Senate submission 229], oppose same-sex marriage on the basis that it would be detrimental, both to children and community health.

It all sounds so credible when this kind of nonsense comes from doctors; so credible and, regrettably, so familiar.

The fact is, I’ve exposed this lot of mendacious medicos before and there’s a certain sense of deja vu at having to front up and do it all again.

These people may have medical degrees but they are not speaking as scientists or medics; they are religious bigots using their professional credentials as a smokescreen for their despicable, discriminatory dogma.

So, here we go again.

Dr Lachlan Dunjey is the leader of the pack. Dunjey has priors. According to Dunjey, his anti-abortion ‘Liberty of Conscience in Medicine’ website and associated group, ‘Medicine with Morality’ have  “no religious or faith component”.

Bullshit.

As I showed in a previous blog post, “In Good Conscience?” the list of signatories at Liberty of Conscience in Medicine is chock-a-block with religious fundamentalists and evangelists.

Dunjey fails to disclose on both his Liberty of Conscience in Medicine website and his Doctors for the Family senate submission that he was Western Australia’s Christian Democratic Party candidate for the senate in 2004, along with his co-signatory, Dr Norman Gage. When not pretending to be ‘non-religious’ Dunjey describes himself as ‘a church musician of 40+ years’  and a ‘church elder’ at Morley Baptist Church, Western Australia.

Dunjey is also the former president of the Baptist Churches of Western Australia.

Strange, he considers none of this relevant as he rails against abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.

Dr Kuruvilla George has also been in the news for appending his signature to this pestilent piece of pusillanimous propaganda. Dr George is Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist and (for now) a member of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

After completing his medical training, Kuruvilla George worked in India as a missionary.

Dr George is known for arguing that psychiatrists should discuss their own spiritual beliefs with their patients.  To me, that seems dangerously close to exploiting a position of influence to evangelise emotionally vulnerable patients.

Psychologist, Dr John Mathai similarly argues for a ‘Biblio-centred model of therapy’. Yes, really. Psychiatric therapy based on scripture.

Dr Mathai’s ‘Christian perspective’ leads him to tout the benefits of ‘revelational therapy’.

“‘Revelational Therapy’, he says, “applies to the revelational gifts – the gifts of knowledge, wisdom and discernment as described in one of the books of the Bible, 1 Corinthians chapter 12. These are spiritual gifts that are imparted by the Holy Spirit as the need arises.”

But, of course, it is science, not the Holy Spirit which tells Dr Mathai that homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens.  Who could doubt it?

Another signatory to the Doctors for the Family submission is Dr Teem-Wing (TW) Yip, a member of Kwatja-Etatha Lutheran Church in Central Australia. Helpfully, Dr Yip assists Pastor Basil Schild in the congregation’s ministry with Aboriginal people.

I wonder if Dr Yip knows her co-signatory, Dr Robert Pollnitz. Curiously enough, he’s the chairman of the Lutheran Church of Australia’s Commission on Social & Bioethical Questions and another signatory on Dr Dunjey’s senate submission against same-sex marriage. Quelle suprise!

Signatory, Dr Murray James-Wallace,  appears to be under the thrall of the notorious Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries. You remember, Pastor Danny – he’s the guy who said the Black Saturday bushfires were God’s retribution for Victoria’s pro-choice abortion laws.

In a ‘confession’ that will horrify everyone but the religiously deluded, Dr James-Wallace writes of an incident which occurred while he was travelling with Nalliah in Israel.  As they left their hotel one morning,  a woman travelling with them exhibited all the symptoms of a heart attack.

Dr James-Wallace takes up the story:

“We are on the outskirts of Tiberius, I explain that clinically she requires a hospital. She could have had a heart attack, asystole or otherarrythmia, hypoglycaemia or a stroke or seizure. Danny says this is spiritual and has generational links to Freemasonry. John receives a word that this is an attack from Satan to end her life in Israel and that if she can get to Jordan the Lord will heal her.

I have 2 choices, professionally to pull rank and as the only qualified medical practitioner ‘order’ the bus to a hospital in Tiberius. Having witnessed the miraculous recovery of the lady from death to life in that she responded to a verbal command. I explained that this lady is very sick, she ought to go to hospital but ‘I place myself under the authority of the pastor and the Lord Jesus Christ.’

Yes, folks. You heard it right. Instead of honouring his medical training and getting this woman to a hospital, he defers to Pastor Danny Nalliah.

But, of course, we are meant to believe that Dr James-Wallace’s opposition to same-sex marriage is based entirely on scientific evidence – and has nothing whatsoever to do with his religious fundamentalism.

Bullshit!

Writing in Sight Magazine (a website covering local and global news from a Christian perspective), Senate submission signatory, Dr Yoke Mei Neoh, tells of being called to a double medical emergency on board a cruise ship.

“Of all times, it had to be now, God, is there a lesson here for me?” she wonders as she struggles to cope.

I remember signatory Dr Lucas (Luke) McLindon from my post on Liberty of Conscience in Medicine. It is rather alarming, but sadly not surprising, to hear that, “As a committed Catholic, at the end of the day” Dr McLindon’s “loyalties must lie with Scripture first and foremost …”

So, when it comes to science or religious propaganda which rules, Dr McLindon? No need to answer. I think we all get the picture.

Dr Elvis Seman is a member of the Catholic Medical Guild of St Luke. Dr Lucia Migliore explains their creed:

“As Catholic doctors, we should be foremost inviting Christ into our work, which completely changes the nature of what you are doing.” 

It certainly seems to change the nature of interpreting the medical and sociological research on homosexuality!

Catholic, Dr Joseph Santamaria is one of the signatories to the Canberra Declaration, a conservative Christian document inspired by the theocratic Manhattan Declaration.

Dr John Muirden is on the bioethics committee of the Uniting Church.

Dr Tanuja Martin and her husband Wayne were called as missionaries to Nepal because, “People are dying daily in countries without ever having had the opportunity to hear the gospel.”

(Some of us might think good nutrition and proper medical care were greater priorities.)

As with my post on Dr Dunjey’s Liberty of Conscience in Medicine I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point.

The submission from Doctors for the Family is no more than religious propaganda masquerading as medical knowledge.

I am delighted to see that the Australian Medical Association has rejected the specious claims made in the Doctors for the Family submission.  They are certainly far more qualified to do so than me.

The simple fact is, that the claims made in this deceptive piece of poorly disguised religious propaganda simply don’t hold up under academic scrutiny.

Of course, this group of homophobic medicos has as much right as anyone to state their views in a Senate submission – even if those views are fundamentally false. My objection is that, just like Medicine with Morality and Liberty in Conscience in Medicine, Doctors for the Family fails to disclose the religious agenda behind its propaganda.

If their Senate submission bore the name Christian Doctors for the Family, that, at least would be an honest representation.

I can’t help thinking that Dunjey’s proclivity for setting up Christian lobby groups which deny any link to religion reeks of Peter’s denial of Jesus.

Medicine with Morality, Liberty of Conscience in Medicine and now Doctors for the Family – three times they have denied Him.

It’s not a good look, Dr Dunjey. Not only are you and your cronies deceiving the Senate and the Australian people with your lack of transparency, your denialism fundamentally dishonours the tenets of the religion you purport to follow.

Chrys Stevenson

See also:  

Who are Doctors for the Family? – The Conscience Vote blog

The Doctors for the Family Senate Submission, Translated – Mike Stuchbery

Drs 4 Family “disingenuous” about their religious beliefs says critic – Dr Jennifer Wilson, No Place for Sheep

Ersatz science does not help inform debate about social policy – Dr Michael Vagg, The Conversation

Herald Sun falsely implies that “doctors” think gay marriage a “risk to kids” – Jeremy Sear, Pure Poison on Crikey

When I briefly reviewed Australian comedian Catherine Deveny’s gig at the Global Atheist Convention, I suggested that her story about confronting Cardinal George Pell at the Sydney Opera House in 2010 was getting a bit old, and that she should ‘let it go’ and look for some new material. It seems she took me at my word! I’ve just heard that one of Dev’s recent tweets has upset George so much he threatened her with a defamation suit – a threat which he has, today, withdrawn.

Nevertheless, there is all too much of this bullying-by-defamation going on and, although the threat has now been withdrawn, Deveny was moved to apologise to Pell (when, in my opinion, no apology was warranted) and no doubt she spent some very anxious hours worrying about her financial future and her chances of battling an organisation as cashed up as the Holy Church of Rome.

So here’s the story. It appears that, having recently made an absolute bumbling fool of himself on national television, George was less than impressed when Dev tweeted a photo which did little else but  illustrate a gaffe of his own making.

In case you’ve been living in a cave in Siberia for the last couple of months, let me explain.

George foolishly signed up to a one-on-one debate with Richard Dawkins on ABC’s Q and A. Now, if I had been the media consultant to the Catholic church of Australia when that invite came in, the corridors would still be reverberating with the sound of me screaming “NOOOOOOOO!  DON’T DO IT GEORGE!!!!!!”

But, clerical hubris being what it is, George turned up in all his silly regalia and predictably, Dawkins annihilated him.  Jetlagged Dawkins, in fact, achieved it effortlessly with one hand effectively tied behind his back. Dawkins soon twigged to the fact that if he just shut up, George would hang himself with his own cincture – which is exactly what happened.  You can see the whole thing here:

Or you can just watch here to see the particular section of George’s inarticulate stumbling that tickled Dev’s funnybone:

Recalling a time when he was preparing some young English boys for holy communion, George made an unfortunately long pause after the word ‘boys’. The audience tittered and laughed at the obvious implication and even Dawkins couldn’t hide a broad grin.  It was, quite frankly, comedy gold.

It’s not surprising that Deveny seized on it and tweeted a photo of Pell captioned with his hanging half-sentence, “When in England, we were preparing some young English boys”.

Pell alleged that the image and caption was defamatory because it suggests that he is associated with the sexual abuse of young boys.

Well, imagine that!  In this day and age, how bizarre that someone might look at the image of a leader of the Catholic church and – with or without a droll caption – reach the conclusion that, in some way, they are associated with the sexual abuse scandals which riddle that vile institution.

And, if this is the case – as it most certainly is – who is at fault for that association? Certainly not Deveny!

If the Catholic church and its leaders were squeaky clean on the issue of sexual abuse of children, there would have been no titters and laughs from the Q and A audience as Pell spoke of his dealings with young English boys – and Deveny would have had nothing to tweet about.  The association made by the audience, by Dawkins, by the twitter-sphere and by Deveny is entirely due to the actions of the church itself. It’s no use pinning the blame on the messenger!

As a Cardinal, George Pell accepts the many benefits that flow from being a ‘prince’ of the church. One would think that, celibate or not, he would not be so lacking in testicular fortitude as to go into a major funk when some of the church’s sins came back to bite him on the bum.

Like it or not, George, your church has been and still is riddled with child rapists. You are a leader of that church. Members of your church have covered up multiple instances of child rape and protected the perpetrators rather than the victims. When brought to account, members of your church have lied, dissembled, prevaricated and been generally uncooperative. You are a leader of the church and you must shoulder some responsibility for its sins. It is  not only inevitable, but just, that you should be associated with the rapes perpetrated by the clergy within it.

If you only wanted to bask in the glory of being a Cardinal, George, you shouldn’t have taken the job.

This is not to say that George Pell has personally abused children. Not at all. And I don’t believe Deveny’s captioned photo suggests that either.

But, perhaps it should be noted that Pell has been accused of sexually abusing a 12 year old boy at a Catholic youth camp in 1961.  Ultimately, no action was taken due to insufficient evidence and the questionable character of his accuser. It does seem feasible, though, that a man who alleges that he was raped as a child by someone he trusted might well, as a result, have turned to a life of crime. Wouldn’t it be ironic, if this were true, if this was exactly what ruined his credibility and may well (if his allegations had any basis in fact) have denied him justice!

Ultimately, the QC who headed the inquiry concluded:

“I accept as correct the submissions of Mr Tovey [for the complainant] that the complainant, when giving evidence of molesting, gave the impression that he was speaking honestly from an actual recollection. However, the respondent, also, gave me the impression that he was speaking the truth. … In the end, and notwithstanding that impression of the complainant, bearing in mind the forensic difficulties of the defence occasioned by the very long delay, some valid criticism of the complainant’s credibility, the lack of corroborative evidence and the sworn denial of the respondent, I find I am not ‘satisfied that the complaint has been established …”

Father Ridsdale (with his features obscured by dark glasses and a cap) walked to the Melbourne Magistrates Court with his support person, Bishop Pell (wearing clerical garb) – Source: Broken Rites.

But this allegation is not the only direct association between Pell and child rape. In 1993 when Father Gerald Ridsdale was brought before the Melbourne Magistrates Court, charged with 30 incidents of indecent assault, involving nine boys  aged between 12 and 16 he was supported by (then) Bishop Pell.

Interesting, isn’t it, that neither Pell, nor any other member of his church, turned up to support the victims of Ridsdale’s assaults – only the perpetrator (who pleaded guilty).

In 2010, Pell again came under scrutiny for his ham-fisted handling of complaints against Father Terence Goodall for ‘sexualising his pastoral relationships’ with a 10 year old altar boy and a religious instruction teacher, Anthony Jones, who had come to him for guidance.

Remarkably, although an independent investigator found both cases established, Pell reversed the investigator’s finding in respect to Jones, rejected his allegations of sexual abuse and implied that the sexualised ‘relationship’ was consensual (despite Goodall having admitted otherwise). Pell later apologised that his letter to Jones was  ‘poorly drafted’ – an apology rejected by Jones as ‘not genuine’.

Let’s put aside, for a moment, the worldwide scandal of institutionalised child rape within the Catholic church – of which Cardinal Pell is a leader. Instead, let’s focus only on the small part of the globe with which he is most intimately associated – the Archdiocese of Melbourne.

Here are just some of the cases against Catholic priests on Pell’s home turf:

• Michael Charles Glennon: former diocesan priest, sentenced to at least 15 years in jail for sexually abusing four Aboriginal boys between 1984 and 1991.

• Gerry Francis Ridsdale: convicted in 1994, he pled guilty on 46 sexual offenses.

• Wilfred James Baker: sentenced to four years in prison (parole after 2 years) for crimes involving eight boys.

• David Daniel: sentenced to six years jail, with parole after 4.5 years, for molesting four boys, a girl and an adult male.

• Rex Elmer: sentenced in 1998 to five years jail (with parole after 3 years 4 months) for molesting 12 boys at St Vincent’s orphanage in South Melbourne.

• Paul Pavlou: convicted on 29 June 2009 of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 and of being knowingly in possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to an 18 month jail sentence suspended for 24 months and to a two-year community based order. He was registered on the Sex Offenders Register for 15 years. These offences occurred in 2005-2006 while he was the priest at Healesville in the Archdiocese of Melbourne.

• John Ayres SDB: The Salesian Order is alleged to have had an Australian victim sign a secrecy agreement and paid him compensation in 2000 in regard to allegations about Ayer’s actions.

• Francis Klep SDB: convicted of indecent assault in 1994, and charged with an additional five counts. He moved to Samoa, but in 2004 the Samoan government made moves to deport him from the country after becoming aware of the previous conviction and charges.

It should surprise no-one then, least of all Pell, that, in the collective imagination of the Australian public,  his name is inextricably connected with the issue of child rape. Pell leads a church in which this is an on-going problem, he is the Archbishop of a diocese in which child rape and sexual abuse has been prevalent, he has personally supported a child rapist who plead guilty and was subsequently convicted, he has been criticised for his handling of sex abuse cases within the church and he has, himself, been accused (but not convicted) of sexual abuse in a case in which the accuser’s testimony ‘gave the impression’, at least, that he was speaking honestly.

And now, here is the important point.

I have met Catherine Deveny. I follow her on Facebook and on Twitter. While I can’t claim a personal friendship with Dev, some of her friends are my friends. We frequent the same circles. And yet, until today, I was completely ignorant of her offending tweet about George Pell. Yep, somehow I missed it.

The only reason it came to my attention was because Pell decided to make an issue of it.  This afternoon, his threat to sue Deveny for defamation did reach my inbox.

Because, and only because, of this threat did I decide to dig into old George’s past associations with sexual abuse cases. If he hadn’t threatened to sue Deveny, I wouldn’t have bothered and I wouldn’t have known that he was once accused of being a sexual abuser himself.

Futher, I wouldn’t have bothered writing this blog post which brings issues he would probably rather put behind him back into the public spotlight.

You see, George, even threatening defamation sets the Streisand effect into action. Deveny didn’t call you a paedophile and I’m absolutely sure that no-one would have read her tweet that way. What we read in it is that, as a Cardinal, you are the personification of a church which is intimately and scandalously embroiled in the institutional abuse of children in its care over decades (or, more correctly, centuries).  You made the gaffe that exposed you to public ridicule. Your church’s failings (and some of your own) have put you into the position where the mention of ‘preparing boys’ inevitably comes with sexual connotations. That is your fault and the fault of your church – it is no fault of Deveny or anyone else.

I am glad that you have decided not to pursue legal action against Catherine Deveny, although I suspect it’s  probably because you were told you didn’t have a case, rather than Christian compassion. What I am not glad about is that these kind of bullying tactics function to try to silence bloggers, comedians, writers, even victims who fear that speaking out against the Catholic church may ruin them financially.

I support the right of any person to defend themselves in a genuine case of defamation. But when defamation threats are used to bully and silence, I feel compelled to speak out.

Perhaps next time (and there will be a next time), George, you might just consider taking some personal responsibility for the tarnished reputation of your church, its leadership and its clergy before thuggishly threatening to shoot the messenger.

Chrys Stevenson

* It is worth noting that Catherine Deveny was not the originator of the ‘meme’ to which Pell took offence, nor was she the only person to retweet it. In fact, it has just been brought to my attention that there is a record of this meme being retweeted under my name, although I did not initiate any such tweet. Amber Jamieson’s Crikey article “Devamation: George Pell pursues legal action over a Deveny tweet” provides a good account of the whole misguided mess.

For another perspective, see Gregory Storer’s “Free Speech, Catherine Deveny and George Pell” – “I can’t help but draw a comparison between the hatred and bigotry that is thrown out by the church with regards to gay people… Religions such as christianity have perpetrated the myth that if you’re gay you’re a pedophile … Do you have any idea how offensive I find such remarks?” – Gregory Storer.

See also: “Pell vs Morality” by Hilton T – aka The Outspoken Wookie

“Hilarious letter (by Phil Degenhardt) to George Pell’s Lawyers” – classic!

A story on the Ellen DeGeneres show today showed a variety of heterosexual couples getting married in Las Vegas.

One couple said their vows in front of a comedian – newly-ordained by paying $39 to some company he found by googling. Apparently, in some states of America, this is entirely legal.  Same-sex marriage, however, is not.

Another couple,  sitting in the back seat of a convertible, were married by an Elvis impersonator as they passed through a ‘drive through’ – “Do you want fries with that?”

Apparently this does not demean marriage. Same-sex marriage between long-term committed partners, however, does.

The world watched mesmerised as famous-for-being-famous Kim Kardashian went through a sham,  made-for-tv wedding and divorced 72 days later.  Within the space of a year, I hear, she’s now thinking of marrying rapper Kanye West. All perfectly legal and socially acceptable.

Poorly matched heterosexual couples routinely enter into ill-advised marriages and, it seems, that’s perfectly okay.  Even divorced couples can remarry in most churches these days, so if at first you don’t succeed – try, try try again.

It seems that as long as the couple walking up the aisle – or passing through the drive-through – are one of each sex, the ‘dignity’ of marriage is preserved.

And, really, even if we might think some of these unions are a bit ‘strange’, ill-advised or just plain nutty – who would be so churlish as to directly sneer at any of these couples on the happiest day of their lives (so far)?  We might quietly raise an eyebrow, or have a private titter, but most of us are not so crass as to try to ruin someone’s wedding by being intentionally mean to them.

I once MC’d at a wedding I knew was destined for disaster. The bride was a friend. She was happy and excited, so I kept my own counsel.

Years later, she rang to tell me it had been all been a huge mistake.

“But you knew that, didn’t you?” she said.

“Yup.” I answered.

“Why didn’t you say something?”

“Would it have made any difference?”

“No.”

“There ya go.”

As it happens, she’s stuck it out – but it was not the life she wanted for herself and she lives a life of quiet desperation. How much value does that marriage really have? A trapped wife and a husband who, whether he knows it or not, doesn’t make her happy?

Today, I heard the happy news that Alex Greenwich, head of Australian Marriage Equality, is in Argentina preparing to wed his long-term partner, Victor Hoeld. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Australia, hence the need to travel to the opposite side of the world.

Alex and Victor must be so happy and excited, just like any couple in the days preceeding their wedding.

Of course there are those who think their marriage is ill-advised – not because they know them – but because they happen to be two people of the same sex. They will raise their eyebrows and titter amongst themselves – and that’s perfectly okay, they don’t have to agree to the nuptials any more than I have to agree that Kim Kardashian marrying Kanye West is a brilliant idea.

But being privately vituperative just wasn’t enough for the Australian Christian Lobby’s Lyle Shelton. With his organisation already forced to admit they are ‘comprehensively losing’ the marriage equality debate, he decided to ‘seize the day’ and take the opportunity to score some cheap political points.

Shelton tweeted today:

“Alex Greenwich not at Senate Inquiry because today he is in Argentina getting ‘married’ — coincidental or emotional leverage?”

Even in far-off Argentina on private business, it seems, Alex Greenwich is not free of the sneering, carping, petty, hateful, bigoted voice of the Australian Christian Lobby.

The fact that the ACL is reduced to this kind of gutter politics speaks volumes.

Yes, they are comprehensively losing the same-sex marriage debate because the vast majority of Australians are fair-minded and compassionate. Some Aussies might think two blokes ‘doing it’ is a bit ‘icky’ or that two sheilas ‘getting it on’ is OK to fantasise about, but a bit much in ‘real life’ – but, generally, Australians just want to mind their own business and have others stay out of theirs. Same-sex marriage doesn’t effect anyone else.  Study after study shows the children of same-sex parents are perfectly safe and not in the least disadvantaged.  There is simply no reason to oppose it other than anachronistic wowserism and religious bigotry; the two things for which the ACL so proudly stands.

Lost for arguments, and their argument lost, the Australian Christian Lobby now slink furtively on the fringes of polite society, slinging nasty barbs at gays and Muslims and anyone else who doesn’t conform to their narrow idea of morality.

“Nyah, nyah – your wedding’s just a political stunt!”

“Loser! It’s not a real marriage!  See, I’ve put ‘married’ in inverted commas! Take that!”

 It reeks of the ACL’s Jim Wallace’s 2011 ANZAC Day tweet in which he managed to insult just about everyone in Australia by suggesting that the ANZACS didn’t fight for gays or Muslims.

In a way, I’m delighted to see the Australian Christian Lobby reduced to this. No longer a respected religious lobby group, they are at last widely recognized as a privately funded boys’ club of religious extremists. Politicians who might once have entertained them are now refusing to meet with them. Their views, exposed as being exactly contrary to the majority of the Australian population, are as rancid as last week’s dog food.  So, with their political capital in tatters, what do they do? They stand on the sidelines hurling epithets. Classy!

Justice Michael Kirby recently wrote that despite his position as a High Court Justice he has always felt like a second class citizen because the law will not allow him to marry his long-term partner, Johan van Vloten.

“A loving relationship of tenderness, of gentleness and affection, and fidelity and support is a beautiful thing and anyone who would disrespect it is not a kind person,” he said.

He’s right.  Lyle Shelton, Jim Wallace and their cronies at the Australian Christian Lobby are not ‘kind people’. They are bigoted bullies of the worst sort.

Really, what kind of person taunts someone on twitter about their forthcoming nuptials?

How would Alex’s marriage or a marriage between Michael Kirby and his partner of over four decades ‘demean’ marriage? How can love ever be demeaning?

Surely the job of demeaning marriage has already been comprehensively achieved by heterosexuals?

And, if we’re talking about trashy, how demeaning is it to take to Twitter to try to undermine someone else’s wedding?

Chrys Stevenson

See also:  Rodney Croome, Eclipsing the Religious Right, Online Opinion 4/5/12

“The hundreds of thousands of Australians who have engaged with the marriage equality campaign, and now feel part of a movement for positive change, will keep an eye on who supports equality and who doesn’t, right up until they mark their ballot papers.

This is probably why Australian Christian Lobby spokesperson, Jim Wallace, is so angry.

Suddenly, the conservative Christian constituency which federal politicians have kowtowed to at every opportunity and which Wallace purports to speak for has been eclipsed.

Seeing what is afoot, Wallace has dissed the result of the marriage equality inquiries as “simplistic polling” that “cheapens” democracy, even though he crowed about how “the people have spoken” when a 2009 marriage equality inquiry received more submissions from his side.

He has attacked advocates for being deceitful, and has manufactured marriage equality bogeys out of thin air, even though he regularly complains about the low quality of the marriage equality debate.

No wonder a number of religious leaders have distanced themselves from him.

The current marriage equality inquiries have shifted the debate on that issue, confirming its place at the centre of Australian politics and identity.

Just as importantly, the inquiries have seen a shift in the balance of power in our political system away from the religious right toward the sensible, pragmatic centre.”

What was it that Jesus said? Oh yes, it was, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

And of course there was this:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

“… judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment,” says James 2:12-13

And to those who think themselves such paragons of virtue that they can put themselves in place of God by setting themselves up as judge, jury and executioner, Paul says in Romans 2:1:

“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.”

Not since arch-bigot Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby supported the expulsion of ‘openly gay’ children from religious schools have I been so disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy of Christians who purport to follow a religion of love, mercy and forgiveness but, instead, practice one of narrow-minded, judgmental, bloody-minded persecution.

At Caloundra [un]Christian College, a kindergarten teacher,  Jess Davidson, has been sacked because she is pregnant and not married to the father of her unborn child. Ummm, excuse me, but isn’t Christianity built upon the story of a woman who became pregnant to someone other than her husband?

Apparently Ms Davidson is subject to the school’s “Lifestyle Agreement”  which allows the school to salaciously inquire into the private lives of its employees and dismiss them if they do not meet the ‘Christian values’ expected by the school.

Now, of course, no secular employer would be able to sack a woman for being pregnant and unmarried. There would be widespread public outrage. Such discrimination is rightly considered illegal in our community and prohibited by anti-discrimination laws. But religious institutions and schools are exempt.  Why? You tell me!

Why, if our community judges something to be so outrageously wrong that there is legislation to prohibit it, do we allow a section of our society to continue the persecution simply because they are ‘religious’?

As one of the parents who is supporting Ms Davidson said, her personal life “should not be an issue as long as she is performing her duties and being a good employee”.

The fact is that, legally, the school is within its rights. But this is an anomaly in our legal system that every Australian should be protesting against.

Consider also that this school is almost certainly receiving taxpayer funds. Should schools that don’t follow the same employment regulations as every other Australian company receive government funding?  Are YOU happy to be funding this kind of blatant discrimination?

Then, of course, there is the issue of the hypocrisy of the school in relation to the supposed tenets of its faith.

As one wit observed in a comment on the local paper’s website:

“I trust the school is urgently reviewing their school uniforms. As Cotton/polyester blends are in breach of the bible teachings (Leviticus), they must be burned, and the Uniform Committee sacked if they approved such outrageous behaviour. 

I also trust all sport on Saturdays will now be ceased (Exodus), and any children caught playing it expelled.

All staff are of course banned from shaving under the bible, which includes women as well as men, so it should be easy to spot their staff members in a crowd (Leviticus).

I am glad the school lets all female staff have a week or so off every month, as they would not condone women with periods mixing with anyone else (Leviticus).

And I hope the tuckshop convenor is also sacked if any of the sausage rolls that are sold had pork in them (Leviticus).”

Of course, as we know, the school will only reply that under the ‘New Covenant’, they are not subject to all the laws of the Old Testament – although that doesn’t seem to stop them referring to Leviticus when homosexuals are in their sights!

Another commenter shrewdly observed that male teachers at the CCC may well be breathing a sigh of relief that their sexual indiscretions are not so visible. I wonder how many of them will be offering to resign for having committed the same sin?

Judging by the comments on the Sunshine Coast Daily article, public opinion is firmly against the school. In a way, this kind of thing helps the cause of secularism by highlighting just how unjust, inequitable and out of touch religion is with the values of the majority of Australians. As Paul Keating may have phrased it, those who run organisations like the Australian Christian Lobby and the Caloundra Christian College are ‘unrepresentative swill’. They are an affront to Australian values and they are an affront to the central tenets of their own religion.

If religion is dying in the West, we have people like the administrators of the Caloundra Christian College to thank for it. These bigots and hypocrites do far more to kill their own religion than we atheists ever can.

If there was ever a cause which should have liberal Christians protesting against the actions of their extremist cousins, this is it. But, I doubt we’ll hear a peep from them.

But while we might revel in religion exposing, once again, its dark underbelly, we cannot forget the human cost of these religious zealots’ angry extremism.

A Facebook page has been set up to support Jess Davidson.  I’d like to ask my readers to ‘Like’ the page and spread this story amongst your own networks. Let us show Jess Davidson that her school may have rejected her, but the majority of right-thinking Australians have not.

Chrys Stevenson

Please ‘like’: I support Miss Jess

Update – Thursday, 3 May 2012:  The “I support Miss Jess” page has been removed from Facebook. I suspect this may have been a request from Ms Davidson’s legal representatives in anticipation of a law suit against the school. I am seeking more information and will post here if I receive any.

In the meantime, if you still wish to voice your displeasure at this decision you can contact Mark Hodges the Principal of Caloundra Christian College at markh@calcc.qld.edu.au .  Please be polite in your correspondence.

If you’re local to the Sunshine Coast region, non-religious (and not into ‘new age’ woo, homophobia, racism or sexism) and you’re outraged by this story, you might like to consider joining the Sunshine Coast Atheists.  Email:  sunshinecoastatheists@gmail.com

The (New) Four Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalypse

And then came the moment we had all been waiting for – the Four Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalypse, minus Christopher Hitchens but including his worthy successor, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Photo by courtesy of: Michael Barnett - http://mikeybear.wordpress.com/

Ironically, it was explained that Ali was supposed to have been on the panel which evolved into the Four Horsemen DVD, but was unable to attend. So, it is only fitting that she should now move into the chair so sadly vacated by Hitch.

Daniel Dennett began the discussion by questioning Ali about her charge that it is Christians rather than atheists who are doing the most to oppose Muslim fundamentalism.

Perhaps part of the problem, Dennett suggested is that liberal Muslims don’t want to ally with atheists.

Also, he said, “We have to stop being afraid of being thought racist or Islamaphobic.”

What is more racist? Ignoring the plight of women or children under Islam because they are Muslims, or opposing it because they are human beings?

Dennett insisted that we need to speak out against harmful cultural practices like genital mutilation.

“If the genitals of little white girls were being cut off there would be outrage!” Dennett reminded us. “Is it not racist, not to oppose this practice because the targets are Muslim girls?”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali agreed.

“By doing nothing, you are worse than racist, you are complicit!”

Dennett expressed concern about the attitudes engendered by  ‘hypermulticulturalism’ and ‘postmodernism’; not all religious, traditional or cultural practices should be tolerated. The mutilation of children or the abuse and oppression of women  is not culturally subjective.

Offering his take on why liberals are reluctant to take on Islamic fundamentalists, Richard Dawkins added dryly, “The threat of having your head cut off is something of a deterrent.”

He repeated his mantra to Islamic extremists:

“I fear your barbarism, but don’t for one moment confuse it with respect. I don’t respect you, I despise you.”

Dawkins noted that it would be easier to stand up against Islam if there was some kind of solidarity in the West. He told the story of Peter Mayer, the Chairman of Penguin publishing.

Mayer bravely published Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. In the outcry that followed:

“[Mayer] received many death threats, including one scrawled in blood. An anonymous telephone call told Mayer that “not only would they kill me but they would take my daughter and smash her head against a concrete wall.” Cohen takes up the story:

Far from rallying to defend an innocent girl and her innocent father, the parents of her classmates demanded that the school expel her. What would happen, they asked, if the Iranian assassins went to the school and got the wrong girl? And Mayer thought, “You think my daughter is the right girl?”

 [From: “It’s Part of their Culture”: Reading Nick Cohen in the light of the Jaipur Affair by Richard Dawkins]

“Yes!” agreed Daniel Dennett, “How about sharing the risk?”

Dennett recalled that after the publication of The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie was pretty much ‘left cut off by himself’.

Dawkins noted that, at the Reason Rally, it was suggested we should “withhold respect from those who believe in transsubstantiation.”

But Dawkins did not entirely agree.  He thinks the stock reply to those who give credence to such ideas should be:

“I respect you too much to believe that you could possibly hold such ridiculous beliefs!”

“We should challenge Catholics who purport to believe in transubstantiation to defend the idea or admit that they are not really Roman Catholics at all,” said Dawkins.

Dennett wryly observed, “There is no gentle way to tell someone they’ve devoted their life to a folly.”

But Harris was quick to correct him, “Wasted their life! It’s time wasted!”

Dennett believes that many church leaders don’t believe what they’re preaching. They speak on two levels, he said.

They preach the gospel in order “to placate the old folks, but in such a way as to let the younk folks know you don’t really need it.”

This prompted Dawkins to recall some typical Aussie humour.

“When someone asked why there were always so many old people in church,” he said, “an Aussie dryly suggested, “Craming for the final?”

Dawkins admitted that he was not enthusiastic about allying with Christians, although he could see the political value of doing that.

Dennett noted that, “Many people view their pastor as a reliable source of information.”

Accordingly, he suggested, we need to target the pastors and the leaders who encourage the pastors to tell these preposterous stories.

These are the ‘villains’, said Dennett; their congregations are more victims than villains.

Dawkins mused about the value of attacking ‘the mild strain of the virus’.

At this point, just as a stage technician was adjusting Sam Harris’ microphone and earpiece, Ayaan Hirsi let loose with a tremendous sneeze, nearly blowing out Harris’ ear-drum!

It was a lovely moment which made these four luminaries appear so much more human!*

“Bless you!” grinned Daniel Dennett.

Recovering his composure, Harris said, “We want people to think scientifically.”

Still, said Dennett reassuringly, “Religion is losing ground everywhere. Their leaders are getting frantic.”

“But,” he wondered, “what happens when all is left are the fanatics?”

What happens when we lose the “buffer zone” of the moderates?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali remarked that the fragility of belief was exemplified in advice being given to Muslims in the USA:

“Don’t become police [i.e. join the police force] – you are in danger of becoming impressed by that system of law.”

Dennett noted that the information revolution has wrought a radical change in the “selective environment in which religions live”.

“They will have to evolve rapidly or go extinct,” he said.

Ali raised another question, “Why do middle class, highly educated [Western] women convert to Islam?”

Harris conjectured that it was “To cut through the superficiality of life.”

Harris went on to suggest how we might counter religion.

“Theologians are not lazy,” he warned. “They are burning a lot of fuel trying to make sense of their doctrines.”

“Islam,” he said, “is a huge collective to which the individual much commit completely.”

The way to attack it is to push individualism and through ridicule.

“We need to develop a competing narrative that creates a cognitive dissonance,” he said.

Dawkins noted the paradox that, “Religions prosper by making life hard for their followers.”

He suggested that religion should be subjected to the same kind of education campaign used against drunk driving.  Drunk driving was once acceptable, it is only through the recognition of the harm it does and extensive public education that its incidence is being reduced and its practice has become publicly unacceptable. It was an excellent analogy, I thought.

(For theists who may read this with ‘conspiracy theories’ in mind, there was no suggestion that the practice of faith should be made illegal – only that those who practice it should be treated with the same kind of disdain as those who drink and drive. It is the change in public attitudes, not legislation which was Dawkins’ point.)

But Dennett remains concerned about the ‘vacuum’ that might be created by eradicating belief. We can already see it being filled by, “… new age babble and conspiracy theories.”

We need to address the problem of “infectious stupidity” he said.

This reminded Dawkins of a quote by GK Chesterton:

“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in anything.”

So, as the Global Atheist Convention 2012 comes to a close, and we all return to our everyday lives,  how do we move on from here?  The view from the ‘Four Horseman’ was clear:

Keep in contact  – and keep on celebrating reason together.

There was a standing ovation and tremendous applause as the new Four Horsemen stood, joined hands, and bowed to the audience.

Photo by courtesy of Michael Barnett: http://mikeybear.wordpress.com/

One could not help but feel that a new chapter in the fight for reason and secularism had just begun.

Chrys Stevenson

* For more on the ‘human face’ of the Four Horsemen, see Kylie Sturgess’ “I kind of got kidnapped by Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the Global Atheist Convention”.

This is the last of my write-ups on the presentations given during the 2012 Global Atheist Convention.  I plan to follow up in a day or two with a post summarising the main themes and highlights together with a book list, given that there were so many interesting books recommended during the event.

In the meantime, for an excellent video summary of the Convention, I highly recommend Andrew Skegg’s, “The Global Atheist Convention” (featuring me!):

Subscribe

I hope you have enjoyed this series of posts.  If so, you might consider subscribing to my blog – see the top of the right hand side-bar.

DO SOMETHING!

If you have been inspired and want to DO SOMETHING NOW,  might I encourage you to make a contribution to Ron Williams’ legal costs for his High Court Challenge against the National School Chaplaincy Program. The verdict is due soon, and Ron really should not be left out of pocket for so bravely defending the cause of secular education in this country. Any donation, small or large will be greatly appreciated.

For information on how do to donate go to:  High Court Challenge

—————–

Michael Barnett is the photographer who provided the images for this post. He is a passionate campaigner for gay rights and yes, he’s one half of the couple in that famous kiss during the convention. You can read his blog here:  Mikey Bear.

Sadly, I won’t have time to blog tomorrow so I’m providing a ‘bonus’ blog to followers of this GAC series today.

Lunch – Sunday

After PZ Myers spoke on Sunday we adjourned for lunch. I was too busy grabbing food and catching up with friends like Jonathan Meddings, Warren Bonett and Kirsty Bruce from Embiggen Books, Marie Fisher from the Queensland Humanists and Bruce Everett to notice the commotion going on outside.

Sadly, I also proved that, as a ‘celebrity author’ I need a great deal more practice!  One lovely reader of The Australian Book of Atheism bounded up to me with a copy of the book for me to sign. He caught me just as I spilled the contents of a rice paper roll all down my front. I’m sure that never happens to JK Rowling!

The incident compounded my ineptitude of the previous evening when the delightful Nick Andrew (aka @elronxenu) with whom I’d dined so happily on Thursday night, brought his copy of TABOA for me to sign. While chatting to Nick, I was interrupted by another convention-goer called Martin and, muddle-headed wombat that I am, carelessly signed Nick’s book, “To Martin, thanks for a great night out! Chrys Stevenson.”

Poor Nick’s face turned white.

“But my name’s not Martin!” he exclaimed.

“Oh dear!”

I would have bought him a new book but he already had signatures from other authors. I felt awful and about 2″ high.

So, abject apologies to Nick for ruining your book and, I promise, if I ever write or contribute to another one – I’ll send you a free copy!

Islamic Protest

As I was distracted by my minor (perhaps I should say ‘miniscule’) celebrity inside the Convention Centre, far more interesting things were going on outside where a group of fundamentalist Islamic protestors had gathered.

Carrying signs predicting that atheists and, in particular, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christopher Hitchens were destined to burn in hell, they presented the manic face of Islam and succeeded only in showing what an embarrassment they are to the majority of educated, moderate, tolerant and peace-loving Muslim-Australians.

Of course, as PZ predicted, give sheep a microphone and all you get is amplified bleating. Also as predicted, they only succeeded in calling out the wolves. Atheists flocked outside and easily outnumbered them.

“Where are the women?” chanted the atheists – followed by a rousing chorus of “Always look on the bright side of life!” and then the simple, but effective chant, “Bull-shit! Bull-shit!”

“I’m lucky I’m in Australia! I”m lucky I’m in Australia and not in your country!” said one observer to the protestors.

It’s funny, looking at the video the Islamic zealots appear small and ridiculous – like the cartoonish caricatures of humanity they are. Symbolising all that is worst about religion and human nature they are dwarfed by the noisy but good natured and peaceful reaction from those they wish to condemn to eternal hellfire. I guess, as Josh Thomas suggests, threatening an atheist with hell is about as effective as a hippy threatening to punch you in the aura.

And then, for me, the moment that symbolises the difference between religious zealots who stand for divisiveness, intolerance and hate, and those they condemn. Two men who I am proud to call my friends stepped out of the crowd – Michael Barnett and Gregory Storer. Their answer to the vitriol of the Islamic fundamentalists was simply to stand before them and kiss.

Photo by Pete Darwin of The Caudal Lure blog: http://thecaudallure.com/

(See also:  Michael Barnett’s own account of the incident, and the YouTube photo collage of the events leading up to ‘the kiss’.)

To me, the juxtaposition of hate and love was a powerful symbol of the whole atheist convention – indeed, our whole ethos.

In that one gesture, Michael and Gregory comprehensively said, “Look! We are kissing. Where is the harm? What is the problem? Who does it hurt? It’s love – isn’t that what life should be about?  Shouldn’t you be happy and loving and tender, not angry and intolerant? Who serves humanity best? Us or you? Who gives most dignity to the human condition? Which of us elevates humanity and who brings us down to the lowest common denominator? Who exemplifies what is best in us and what is worst?”

It was a lovely moment that gained international publicity.  When I had dinner with Michael and Gregory on the Tuesday after the Convention they were still reeling, and on quite a high, from the overwhelmingly positive reaction to their spontaneous gesture.

I might add, in response to some silly rumours that appear to have been circulating – yes, Michael and Gregory are gay, and yes, they are a couple.  It was not a ‘stunt’ for the cameras. It was a gut reaction to the kind of vilification and hate that gay people face all through their lives. And what a wonderful gut reaction it was!

I was just sorry I missed it!

Christopher Hitchens Tribute

Back in the auditorium, the next session was a tribute to the late, great Christopher Hitchens. There has been some criticism that Hitchens was ‘deified’ at the Convention. I don’t believe that’s true. We were simply honouring a man of incredible intellect whose words were not only influential in forming the ‘atheist movement’ but also in changing so many individual lives.

When Hitch became ill with oesophagul cancer, one of my friends, Tracee Doherty, from the tiny outback Queensland town of Moree wrote him a letter, thanking him for changing her life.  In the glamorous world which Hitchens inhabited she was a no-one from nowhere, and yet he wrote back personally in a touching note in which he thanked her for her letter and mentioned how touched he was by these kinds of unexpected tributes.

Tracee was not in the GAC audience this time, but Robert Tobin was. Robert went through his own battle with oesophagul cancer in parallel with Hitch – and drew great strength from Hitch’s refusal to give in to the ravages of his disease. Ultimately, Robert survived and Hitch didn’t. A pensioner, Robert was unable to afford the cost of attending the Convention, but with the generosity of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, and a quick whip around my Facebook friends, we quickly raised enough money to bring him to Melbourne. It gave me great joy to see him literally bounding around the auditorium, wearing his funny “St Patrick’s Day” hat and a swag of blasphemous buttons and taking to the microphone to quiz the speakers. A true triumph of the human spirit. Hitch would have been proud.

Hitch was not perfect and he wasn’t always right. He drank too much, he smoked too much. Many of those who laud him for his fight against fundamentalism and the oppression of dictators also disagree with him vehemently on his stance on the Iraq war and his rather quaint, old-fashioned views on women.

As such, he is, perhaps, the perfect human symbol of atheism – an imperfect human being, doing the best he can to change the world for the better – just like the rest of us (although, admittedly, far more effectively!).

Richard Dawkins introduced the tribute to Hitchens.  Although he did not know Hitchens well, Dawkins paid tribute to his skills of rhetoric and oratory. These, said, Dawkins, were Hitchens’ ‘artillery’.

Dawkins noted that contrary to the view there are ‘no atheists in foxholes’, Hitchens sought them out; travelling all over the world to places where people were being abused and oppressed.

“He felt real solidarity with the victims of the tyrannies he abhorred”, said Dawkins.

“Christopher hated dictators and tyrants. His fight was political, not religious.”

Here is the Christopher Hitchens Tribute played at the Convention:

Later on Sunday afternoon I ran into Jane Caro. Jane was anxious to discuss a strange phenomenon that occurred during the Hitchens Tribute.

“All through the convention,” she said, “people have been tweeting during the speeches.”

She was right. Nearly everyone had an iphone, android or Ipad and you could watch the #GAC2012 and #atheistcon streams rolling past as each speaker made his or her presentation.

“But,” said Jane, “during the Tribute to Christopher Hitchens, the twitter streams stopped dead. Nobody tweeted.”

“People doubt that crowds can ‘self-discipline’, they insist that people need ‘rules’ to act decently and respectfully – that we need direction from authority. And yet here, in a hall full of 4,000 atheists, with no direction whatsoever, 4,000 people instinctively stopped tweeting out of respect for a fallen leader.”

It was another powerful statement about the essential morality of human nature which I will think about for a long time.

Chrys Stevenson

PZ Myers

PZ Myers gave my favourite presentation of the convention – comedians included. Like Leslie Cannold, he energised the crowd with his ‘take no prisoners’ style. I defy anyone to sleep through a presentation by PZ!

No polite accommodationism for PZ. The mild-mannered, bewhiskered professor from the tiny town of Morris, Minnesota, ambled onto the stage and called for an assault on heaven and the killing of God.

“In the beginning,” said PZ “was the blood”; people were bound by familial ties.

But, he said, this was limiting, They needed a new way to join together in larger groups.

At length, allegiance to a particular king became the new symbol of identity and the size of social units grew.

Next, came identification with a particular city – for example, “I am an Athenian!”

All of these identifications, he said, are built on the arrogance of pride.

But, cities fall, bloodlines fade and kings die.

And so it was that the Jews invented a new form of group identity – through allegiance to ‘the Word’, they became ‘the people of the Book’.

“Words,” said PZ, “have a persistence that cities cannot have.”

In fact, when Jersualem fell the social cohesion of the Jews was strengthened.

This identification with abstract stories and histories, combined together in a ‘sacred’ book, “made Christianity bullet-proof”.

Words –  stories –  are “ecumenical”. A  common belief can cross borders – ideology is not restrained by geography.

PZ spoke of “the power of an unkillable idea”, referencing the comic book series and 2005 film V for Vendetta.

I’m not a reader of comics and I hadn’t seen this film, but I’ve subsequently learned that the main character ‘V’ is the embodiment of an idea which has persisted at least since Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators plotted to kill the English King and overturn his Protestant government by blowing up the Parliament with gunpowder:

“People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”  (V for Vendetta)

The film opens with a recitation of the verse:

“Remember, remember the fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot.”

Over the centuries, the character of Guy Fawkes has come to symbolise those who challenge the status quo. Notably, the Guy Fawkes mask worn by V in the movie is used as the icon for the protest group Anonymous and has begun to appear in the world-wide ‘Occupy’ grass-roots protest movement.

In writing V for Vendetta, Alan Moore, was, apparently concerned principally to demonstrate the power of ideas.

Moore has said, “You can’t kill an idea; and ideas can change the world.”

Changing the world is “something WE want to do”, said PZ but he disagrees with Moore on one important point.

“You CAN kill an idea,” PZ insists.  Christians have succeeded in doing this in the past, which is why they are so afraid that WE will now succeed in ‘sacking the city [i.e. idea] of God’.

“Christians,” he said, “are reacting to the rise of the new atheists the way the Romans reacted to the arrival of the Visigoths on the horizon!”

He called for “an ecumene of people united under something other than faith”.

How do we kill ideas? “We kill ideas with a better, more powerful idea.”

Religion is man-made, planned, persistent and politically strategic – “Holy books were not ‘magicked into existence in an instance,” PZ reminded us.

But Science is our weapon; our ‘God killer”.

“The Bible stories,” said PZ, “are narrow, bigoted and false”.

The power of Science is that it tells our story, it reflects us; our DNA.

Religion is divisive; Science bridges differences. People can unite in an appreciation of the natural world.

Science, he insists has real power. 

“Science shows how stuff actually works, rather than what we wish worked.”

Scientists deal directly with the subject of their study.

“I’ll have more respect for theologians when they start to question the subject of their study directly,” he said.

“They never use supernatural information,” PZ observed, “… almost as if it didn’t exist.”

Nevertheless, the “demented ghouls of the end times are a significant political lobby in the US”.

Dangerously, they believe that “Israel must be restored in order to be destroyed in the nuclear holocaust which will bring about the ‘second coming’.

“If I actually believed Jesus was coming to destroy the world in 2050,” said PZ (only half-joking), “I’d be stocking up on timber and nails.”

It is true, he said, that liberal Christians do less harm than their fundamentalist cousins.

“But,” he said, dismissing them as ‘cafeteria realists’, “they are still doing harm to foundational principles. They are promoting unreason by saying it’s okay to believe in some things without evidence.”

PZ took on the charge that atheists have nothing in common; that we do not have the unity and strength of purpose required to form a viable social (revolutionary) movement.  He insisted that he was not imposing a definition on atheists as a group, but merely observing that a broad consensus is emerging.  This consensus he believes is based on:

1.  A dedication to seeking out ‘the truth’ through learning and discovery.

2. A commitment to autonomy – a global movement in common cause with those oppressed by racist, paternalistic cultures.

3. The forging of a new kind of community.

PZ acknowledged the role of women in atheism, reminding us that, “Atheist meetings, for a long time, looked a lot like Mormon meetings!”

He also warned that, “Being an atheist doesn’t make you a rationalist.”

He spoke of the connections between atheism, feminism and LGBT rights.

“If you are a human being with real world concerns,” he said, “you should be one of us; truth and justice are our common causes. That’s what makes us part of a community.”

Although we have “good reason to be angry with a society that does stupid things in the name of ‘the Lord’ atheists,” said PZ, “are not ‘grim nihilists'”.

He told us about the Reason Rally held recently in Washington DC.

“Twenty-thousand people on the Mall in DC,” he said, “everyone smiling!”

“If I were a grinch,” he said, “my heart would have grown THREE SIZES” at that sight.

“We’re not grim and sour at all!”

In fact, he reminded us, he’d even participated in a ‘hug off’ with atheist blogger, Martin Pribble, during the convention!

“We need to value working co-operatively,” PZ advised. “It’s how we’ll win in the end.”

He spoke dismissively of the religious (Christian and Islamic) protests attracted by the convention.

“So, that’s what you get when you give a sheep a microphone,” he said, “… amplified bleating.”

“They didn’t realize they were calling out to the wolves.”

“LET’S DO IT!” said PZ, “Let’s form a ‘hunting pack’ and work together. Let’s make them tremble and demolish the City of God.”

Chrys Stevenson