My interest was piqued yesterday by a Twitter exchange between bioethicist Leslie Cannold and sceptic, Ken Dally (aka Cowcakes).

Leslie Cannold:  Vic Doctors who will let u or a woman u love die rather than follow law & offer life-saving abortion http://t.co/9NeIqfrl

Cowcakes: @LeslieCannold: So many declarations of not being religious it makes one think they protest too much. http://t.co/YFkP0bRV

The website they refer to is  Liberty of Conscience in Medicine – A Declaration; effectively a petition asserting the right of doctors to refuse to offer certain treatments (e.g. abortion, euthanasia)  even if they are legal.

Now, I’m happy to concede there are compelling arguments both for and against this proposition (do you really want a rabidly anti-abortion doctor performing your abortion?), but this is not the issue that particularly concerns me about the Liberty of Conscience in Medicine declaration.

Rather, it is the matter alluded to in Ken Dally’s tweet:

“So many declarations of not being religious it makes one think they protest too much.” 

I’ve been doing quite a bit of research on the anti-euthanasia lobby lately and I’ve been surprised to find that many organisations that declare themselves to be ‘secular’ or ‘non religious’ are clearly ‘playing possum’.  It seems to me a rather ‘un-Christian’ thing to do, really.

Take the Discovery Institute, for example. Although it often describes itself as a secular organization, its activities, sponsors and target audience are explicitly Christian. Americans United for Separation of Church and State believes, “the group’s real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers.”

The judge in the 2005 “Dover Trial”, agreed, noting that a close examination of the Discovery Institute’s infamous “Wedge Document” revealed the Institute’s religious (as opposed to scientific) goals.

So, I wondered, could the Liberty of Conscience declaration be another of these religious ‘sleeper’ organisations?  I decided to find out.

The FAQ section of the Liberty in Conscience website specifically states that the declaration is not connected with religion or religious beliefs:

“There is no religious or faith component to the declaration of conscience in medicine.”

The ‘sponsoring organisation’ ,  Medicine with Morality  is “also not religious”.

So who is behind this secular push for doctors to be able to refuse those treatments which are so often the concern of the religiously motivated?  The FAQ’s provide the answer:

“Lachlan Dunjey, a GP in Perth Western Australia since 1968, known to be passionate about such things – passionate about medicine, passionate about the future of medicine and wanting to protect the “traditional” doctor/patient relationship from the things that are threatening it.”

Strangely, it doesn’t mention that Lachlan Dunjey was Western Australia’s Christian Democratic Party candidate for the senate in 2004, along with co-signatory Dr Norman Gage.   At a safe distance from his ‘secular’ websites, Dunjey describes himself as ‘a church musician of 40+ years, as a doctor, and as a church elder’ and signs off as: Lachlan Dunjey,  Morley Baptist Church, West Australia. In fact, Dr Dunjey is not just an ordinary Baptist church-goer, he is a former president of the Baptist Churches of Western Australia.  But, of course, in his capacity as an anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia campaigner, he is entirely non-religious!

My suspicions aroused, I wondered whether, as implied in the FAQs,  the doctors who signed off on Dunjey’s ‘secular’ declaration were similarly ‘non-religious’.  With a few hours to spare I decided to do some judicious googling of the signatories.

It didn’t take long to find that signatory, Dr Michael Shanahan has served as both president and secretary of the Catholic Doctors Association of Western Australia. Similarly, Dr Terrence Kent is a former president of the Catholic Medical Guild of St Luke and Dr Elvis Seman appears to be a member.

So what’s this Guild of St Luke all about?  Dr Lucia Migliore explains:

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

No doubt.

Another signatory, Dr Jovina Graham, was involved in planning iWitness, a religious retreat designed to ‘recapture the spirit’ of Catholic World Youth Day. The focus of iWitness was “on enriching the participants’ spiritual lives through a deepened relationship with Our Lord.”

As I kept researching the Catholic connections just kept on coming.  Signatory, Dr Mary Walsh, is married to Catholic “knight” and bio-ethicist, Nicholas Tonti Fillipini. Dr Phillip Elias is assistant dean at the Opus Dei affiliated Warrane College at the University of New South Wales, while Dr Albert Matti is involved with the Melkite Catholic Eparchy in South Australia.

Liberty of Conscience supporter, Dr Alan Donoghue lays out his beliefs in The Dominion Post , intoning that the Catholic Church condones neither sex before marriage, nor divorce.  And, of course, you must raise your children as Catholics!

Dr Graeme Cumming, who is oft seen commenting on Bill Muehlenberg’s blog, was a Family First candidate for the Queensland seat of Fisher in the 2007 federal election.

“Christians”, says Dr Cumming, “do have and must take up the responsibility (not the “right”) to proclaim God’s law”.  Yes, Dr Cumming, but it would be nice if you’d specify when you’re speaking from a religious, rather than a scientific perspective.

Dr Lucas (Luke) McLindon also seems to be a Muehlenberg fan, pointing out in one comment that, “As a committed Catholic, at the end of the day, my loyalties must lie with Scripture first and foremost …”  I’m sorry, Dr McLindon, but as a patient I’d rather hope your loyalty was first and foremost to me.

But, if the Liberty of Conscience declaration isn’t quite as ‘secular’ as the FAQs suggest, it is certainly ecumenical.  Dr Thalia Shuttleworth is a facilitator at the Sydney Life Church and, apparently, participates in ‘miracle’ healing sessions.(I wonder if that’s covered by Medicare?)

Dr Robert Pollnitz is the chairman of the Lutheran Church of Australia Commission on Social & Bioethcial Questions – not too sure how he would feel about ‘miracles and wonders’.

Dr Rosemary Wong, says her mission as an executive member of the Church of Christ’s Counsel@CrossCulture  “is to bring Christ’s healing to the wounded in our families and communities, so that they may become the persons God has created them to be”.  Pity if you really just wanted a few stitches.

Dr Graham Toohill, an Anglican from Gippsland, is a ‘vocational deacon’, apparently ‘chosen by God’ for a lifetime of service. Dr Toohill “offers time each week to the parish in pastoral care and outreach.”

Dr Robert Claxton is a Sydney Anglican who worked as a medical missionary in Uganda.  He is a board member of African Enterprise a Christian Mission ministry committed to evangelising the cities of Africa (apparently whether they like it or not).

Another signatory with missionary credentials is Dr Richard Shawyer  a ‘church planter’ who served as a Bible teaching missionary in Senegal with Worldwide Evangelisation for Christ. Similarly committed to mission work is Dr Rebecca Zachariah who worked with Lutheran Aid to Medicine in Bangladesh.

As my eyes grew dim and the night grew cold, I read that signatory, Dr Jeremy Beckett, is “avidly involved in student ministry with Christian medical and dental students in Perth” and, like Dr Margaret Payne , he works with the Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship of Australia. Jeremy’s speciality is the “interface between Christian faith and clinical practice”. His aim; to minister the love of Christ to broken people. Ah yes, the broken – so delightfully vulnerable.

Dr Beckett probably knows Dr Sally Tsang. Also a member of the CMDFA, Dr Tsang runs Hospital Link which helps to “connect you to fellow believers for refreshing fellowship and prayer right where the mission field (and stress) is!”  I wonder how many patients at Dr Tsang’s hospital realise they’ve been admitted to a ‘mission field’?

Another CMDFA signatory is Dr Natasha Yates. In her student days, Dr Yates acted as the medical student bible study leader at ANU.

And where was declaration signatory, Dr Tyler Schofield on Sunday, 9 October 2011? I found him asking the congregation of the Alice Springs Baptist Church to turn to their Bibles for a reading from Revelations.  Perhaps he should confer with Dr Nell Muirden who’s been involved writing Bible Studies for the Assembly of Confessing Congregations – a group of Uniting Church dissenters. Or maybe a chat with Dr Andrew Bradbeer who I found busily memorising the first chapter of the Book of Genesis.

Dr Bradbeer might find he has a lot in common with Dr Mathew Piercy who has written for Creation Ministries on the subject  “Life is a gift from God”.  Isn’t this turning out to be a lovely little coterie of like-minded doctors?

And, as the night turned to morning, and my googling fingers continued their work, more and more came to light. Dr Gabriel James aims to “serve God” by facilitating the 40 Days for Life vigil at Westmead Hospital – all welcome providing they “conduct themselves in a Christ-like manner”.

If that all sounds too ‘kumbaya’ for you, try signatory Dr Arthur Hartwig for a little ‘old school’ religion. In the fundamentalist Christian Saltshakers magazine, Dr Hartwig complains that “Sin has been sanitised, euphemised, relativised, trivialised, corporatised, minimised, even decriminalised.”  Ah, bring back those good old days when we stoned homosexuals, eh, Dr Hartwig?

Dr. Theresa Ong has a Grad Dip in Christian Counselling. Dr Nathan Grills has written about the ‘faith effect’ in treating HIV/AIDs and ….   well, I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

In all I found nearly 70 of the doctors who signed the Liberty of Conscience declaration had clear links to Christian organisations.  Of course, not everyone has their religious credentials plastered on the internet for all to see – I was never going to ‘unmask’ everyone.  But, even though it might be argued I didn’t find Christian credentials for nearly half the signatories, I challenge those who have no religious affiliation or belief to step forward and declare themselves.  I don’t think I’ll be deafened by the response!

Now, I’m not a Christian. I’m avowedly and publicly an atheist. But, I have a very strong ethical code and an incredible aversion to lying and deception.  If an organisation tells me they’re ‘not religious’ I expect when I look at its members I will find a pretty good sprinkling of them who are ‘not religious’.  I would also expect that religious dogma is not the driving force and influence underpinning the mission (pun intended) of the group in question.

I may not agree with them, but I have no objection to Christians stating their arguments in the public square.  I do object, however, when their religious bias is not declared.  No politician is going to spend the hours I spent last night googling the credentials of these doctors on a site which explicitly states it has ‘no religious or faith component’. And politicians should know whether the views being put to them are coloured by a hidden religious agenda.

The water of the Liberty of Conscience in Medicine declaration is so muddied with religious belief you could walk on it. And, it seems, there is such an intermingling of these avowedly Christian and avowedly secular ‘pro-life’ and lobbying organisations they even get muddled themselves!  Take this telling exchange from the Review of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 [document file]:

Dr Chris FRENCH — Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to address you regarding our concerns. We have Doctors in Conscience here but the actual proposal was from the Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria, so I will speak on behalf of Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria in this submission. That was Eamonn’s original proposal.

… The Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria gives its total and complete support for the measures to strengthen and clarify human rights. This is a major purpose of this association, linked as it is with a long tradition of preferential care for the disadvantaged of Catholic‑inspired organisations. The association and I personally give full and total support to the sentiments expressed in the preamble of the charter.

The CHAIR — Dr French, I do not mean to interrupt you but the committee was of the understanding that you were representing Doctors in Conscience.

Dr FRENCH — Yes, I must say it did occur to me as I was walking in the front door that the address to Eamonn was Doctors in Conscience. I had understood that this was the Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria. Do you have that in front of you?

The CHAIR — The submission we have is from Dr Eamonn Mathieson.

Ms CAMPBELL — Who is speaking to Eamonn Mathieson’s submission?

Dr FRENCH — I was going to speak to Eamonn’s submission. May I to see your copy?

Ms CAMPBELL — Because Doctors in Conscience is definitely not a Catholic organisation.

Dr FRENCH — Yes, indeed. That’s fine — —

Ms CAMPBELL — It has Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and non‑religious people involved in it, and that was who we invited.

Dr FRENCH— Okay. In that case — —

Ms CAMPBELL — So we need someone who can speak on Doctors in Conscience.

Dr FRENCH — I can briefly speak on behalf of them. I am a member of that group and I have been working to this particular document so I am prepared. I can speak on behalf of it.

Ms CAMPBELL — But you are also a member of Catholic doctors of Victoria?

Dr FRENCH — Yes, I am, as it happens. So I can speak on behalf of Doctors in Conscience. I am a member of both organisations and I have actually prepared my proposal based on this document that has been given to you.

The CHAIR — On the submission of Doctors in Conscience?

Dr FRENCH — Yes.

The CHAIR — Okay. And the opening remarks you were making are consistent with the submission of Doctors in Conscience?

Dr FRENCH — Yes.

Oh dear!  It’s so hard when you simply can’t remember whether to wear your Catholic camauro or your secular slouch hat when fronting up to these inquiries!

If Christians want to have their voices respected in the public square it’s time to stop these ridiculous games of religious hide ‘n seek.  If your views are based on your religious convictions, at least have the honesty and courage to say so.  If you can support your religious convictions with reasonable secular argument based on evidence and good science, by all means do so.  But, for Christ’s sake (literally) have the decency to make it clear that even if every bit of evidence supported the opposite view, you would still oppose the proposition purely on religious grounds.  After all, you wouldn’t want us to think that Christians cynically conceal their dogmatic beliefs in secular clothing and try to pass them off as ‘science’.  That wouldn’t be acting in good conscience at all, would it?

Chrys Stevenson

One of the highlights of Monday nights is watching ABC’s Q and A panel show ‘with my friends’. ‘With’ of course, is a relative term. They’re not ‘with’ me in the living room – but tweeting along on Twitter or commenting on the proceedings on Facebook.

On Monday, 19 September, an elderly man in the Q and A audience raised the subject of euthanasia. What followed was an extraordinary recital of urban legends, conjecture, misinformation and common gossip about what would happen (and what, allegedly, has happened) when voluntary euthanasia (VE) is legalised.

After the show, my friend Dr David Leaf contacted me on Facebook.  As a highly experienced, primary care doctor who deals with life and death issues every day, and as a board member of Dying with Dignity NSW, David was furious.  Frankly, I was rather ‘hot under the collar’ myself.  These allegations had been aired and not one person had refuted them.  They were now floating out there in television land as ‘facts about voluntary euthanasia’; ‘facts’ we both knew were patently false.

The conversation quickly turned to what should ‘we’ do about it?

(That’s what I love about my friends. They’re not the sort who say ‘someone should do something about that’, they’re the sort who say, ‘what can we do about it?’)

So, David and I decided to write an article correcting the claims made about VE on Q and A.  Generously, Scott Stephens from the ABC’s  Religion and Ethics portal agreed to publish it.

It’s been published tonight and David and I, now all fired up and excited about our new writing partnership, are already planning our next article.

Here’s an extract from “Activist ‘dead wrong’ on euthanasia”:

“In a recent episode of ABC’s Q and A, disability rights activist, John Moxon, paints a frightening picture of societies in which voluntary euthanasia (VE) is legal.

Speaking from the audience, Moxon, a quadriplegic, warns that the VE legislation currently before the South Australian parliament:

“… will enable a doctor to kill somebody, on the judgement of the doctor alone, that the person’s life is not worth living.”

After the show, Moxon’s anti-euthanasia group, ProLiving, posted the following comment on their website:

“ProLiving supporter John Moxon gave a good account of a disability perspective on the issue of euthanasia in the ABC program Q & A on 19^th September.”

This is alarming. If the ‘disability perspective’ on VE is based on the kind of information disseminated by Mr Moxon on Q and A, people with disabilities are being grossly misinformed. ”  [Read more]

Chrys Stevenson

A blogger called Don Allan has decided to ‘take aim’ at same-sex marriage.  I could have posted a comment on his blog, but this is likely to be long and I doubt he’d publish it anyway.

I thought it would be informative if Allan’s objections to same-sex marriage were reframed as a (circa 1960s) argument against inter-racial marriage.  Let’s see how his argument stacks up in this context.

To clarify, I have used Allan’s anti same-sex marriage argument, but replaced ‘homophobic’ with ‘racist’, ‘same sex’ with ‘inter-racial’ etc.  To be fair to Allan, who was arguing against same-sex marriage – not mixed race marriage – I have  indicated my changes to his text in red:

“Without knowing anything about me some people call me racist because I oppose inter-racial marriage. … I am blind to people’s colour, ethnicity, and sexual make up. So as the name callers now have this information I invite them to create a new name for me.

But ….  before they start creating a new name, let [me] advise them that I am agnostic and my opposition to inter-racial  marriage is based on historical evidence that, even in pre Judeo Christian societies, marriages were seen as special contracts between people of the same race, that age and circumstance permitting, could create racially pure children. Because of their importance, society called them marriage contracts, a title still observed, even in the world’s least sophisticated societies. And so racially pure children are born.

However, children’ s real racial make up [does not become an issue] until later when sexual attraction[comes into play]. The result: humanity becomes a complicated mix of races. This mixture of races often causes complications in society for the individuals concerned and their families.

One such complication is that some, but not all, people of colour, claim they are being denied their human rights because American law says people of different races cannot marry.

I can only say I have never thought of “Marriage” as a human right although it has become a “rite.” Marriage for me has always been a contract that millenniums ago, came to be recognised as the title created by society for people of the same race joined in unions that would be responsible for racial regeneration.

Speaking as an individual, I believe all human beings are equal, but different – and not just racially. But believing all people are equal canot hide either the differences or the scientific fact that no laws can ever make non–whites genetically the same as white people. By the same token, it was society that created the title marriage, not a God of religion.

Sadly at times, the difference between the different races leads to discrimination that must be eradicated for the benefit of society.  To do this I believe that education programmes that help teach people to be blind to the colour, ethnicity and sexual make up, should start as early in childhood as possible.

And also as a means of reducing discrimination, inter-racial couples wishing to contract with each other should rejoice and celebrate their difference with couples of the same race, rather than both groups engage in hostilities that are anything but a tribute to humanity …

[I have omitted the last couple of paragraphs because I could make no sense of them but you can read them here.]

I have used the following quote before, but it bears repeating when we get this kind of ‘I am not a racist’/ ‘I am not homophobic BUT …’ argument.  It, too, comes from the 1960s when African Americans were fighting for civil rights in the same way homosexuals are fighting for equality today.  Consider this cloying statement signed by eighty ministers from Arkanas explaining  the Church’s opposition to integration:

“This statement is not made with any enmity or hatred in our hearts for the Negro race. We have an abiding love for all people . . . [But] [w]e believe that the best interests of all races are served by segregation …We resent the implication by certain liberal ministers that it is un-Christian to oppose integration. We believe that integration is contrary to the will of God … is based on a false theory of the ‘universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.’ We believe that integration is not only un-Christian, but that it violates all sound sociological principles and is not supported by Scripture or by biological facts.”

Does anyone truly believe, despite their earnest protestations to the contrary, those ministers were not hateful, narrow-minded, racist bigots??  Why, then, should we believe anything better of those who use exactly the same kinds of arguments to oppose same-sex marriage?

Allan’s argument simply makes no sense.  There are many traditional practices that have changed over time as we have become better, more inclusive societies.  There is no need for tradition to tie us to unjust laws once we have realised they do not serve the greater good or unnecessarily harm minorities.

Similarly, marriage has never been confined only to those who can have children – so it is disingenous to argue that homosexuals should not be able to marry because they cannot reproduce.  Does Allan also suggest that someone who is infertile should only be allowed a ‘civil union’ and not a marriage?

Finally, Allan’s insistence that he is ‘blind’ to people’s colour, ethnicity or sexual ‘make up’ rings hollow when he uses the old segregationist canard, ‘equal but different’.  Remember, that and ‘tradition’ are the same arguments the Catholic church uses to explain away their discrimination against ordaining women.  Even most Catholic women don’t buy it as anything other than sexist, misogynistic crap.

Sorry Don, you may not like the epithet, but you have failed to convince me you aren’t  just another homophobe hiding behind a rather large pile of paper-thin arguments.

Chrys Stevenson

For my brilliant friend Shelley Stocken who wrote me a poem about genitals.  How else to repay her but to write one back about titillating euphemisms.  This one’s for you Shelley.

Titillating Euphemisms

I’m going into business

And I know that you’ll be shocked,

But I’m going to start a Titillating Euphemism shop.

Folks will bring me in their tired old todgers, dicks and cocks

And I’ll send ‘em out the door with throbbing manhoods in their jocks.

If you’re sick of that old fanny, tuppy, beaver, box or cunny

I’ve a palpitating portal you can take home to your honey.

If your boobs are tired and sagging and your nipples face the floor

I can whip you up two golden orbs with rosebud tips galore.

But I have a little problem with this business plan cum hobby –

And it’s, “Will my ads pass muster with the Aussie Christian Lobby?”

Will Ms Francis see my billboard and will I be berated

Cos the ‘tit’ in Titillating isn’t technically ‘G-rated’?

Will she ring her friends at Adshel and demand it’s taken down?

Will my business go arse-up before it’s started?

Or will commonsense and sanity, perhaps, at last prevail

And will Adshel tell Ms Francis to get f…. arted?

Chrys Stevenson

Reference:  Fresh Controversy over Bus Stop Condom Ads

Melbourne born, British based, gay rights activist, Peter Tatchell has called for urgent lobbying of the Commonwealth Secretary General, urging him to include LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual/Transgender) rights at the forthcoming CHOGM conference to be held in Perth from 28-30 October 2011.

Tatchell’s message reads as follows:

URGENT ACTION:
Please lobby the Secretary General of the Commonwealth association of nations, Kamalesh Sharma, urging him to use his influence to ensure that LGBT human rights are discussed by the Commonwealth heads of government when they meet in Perth, Australia, 28-30 October.

Commonwealth leaders have never previously discussed the widespread victimisation of LGBT people by Commonwealth member states.

You can email the Secretary General here:  secretary-general@commonwealth.int

You can also write to him via the postal address in my letter below.

Feel free to take ideas and excerpts from my letter to use in your own submission.

Please be polite and thank Mr Sharma for his recent statements where he said that victimisation on the grounds of sexual orientation is incompatible with Commonwealth values.

These are the four LGBT issues we want on the official agenda at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). We want them agreed and adopted by all Commonwealth nations:

1. Decriminalisation of homosexuality
2. Laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity
3. The enforcement of legislation against threats and violence, to protect LGBT people from hate crimes
4. Consultation and dialogue with LGBT organisations

The Commonwealth heads of government have always refused to address the widespread violation of LGBT human rights. We want this to be the breakthrough summit.

I [PeterTatchell] wrote an article in May in The Guardian newspaper, which strongly criticised the Secretary General and the Commonwealth for their failure to speak out against homophobic and transphobic persecution in member countries.

Within 10 days, Kamalesh Sharma became the first Commonwealth Secretary General to make an explicit and unequivocal public statement criticising homophobia and homophobic discrimination.

Following further lobbying, at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting in Sydney in July, Mr Sharma reiterated that sexual orientation victimisation is incompatible with Commonwealth values.

We now need to build on these successes by ensuring that LGBT human rights are on the agenda of the heads of government when they meet in Perth at the end of this month. Time is short. Please lobby the Secretary General at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Lobbying the Secretary General direct will add to the magnificent work being done by many other LGBT groups and HIV and human rights organisations. They, too, are pushing for change within the Commonwealth. Our collective efforts in recent months give us the best prospect ever of getting LGBT human rights on the official CHOGM agenda.

The Commonwealth is an association of 54 nations, mostly former British colonies and mostly in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. More than 40 of its member states still criminalise homosexuality, with penalties including flogging and life imprisonment.

Further information:

peter@petertatchellfoundation.org
www.petertatchellfoundation.org

Here is a copy of Peter Tatchell’s letter to the Commonwealth Secretary General:

Secretary General
Commonwealth Secretariat
Marlborough House
Pall Mall
London SW1Y 5HX

Dear Kamalesh Sharma,

Re CHOGM in Perth in October – LGBT equality and human rights

First, let me thank you very much for your speech at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting in July, where you stated that “vilification and targeting on grounds of sexual orientation are at odds with the values of the Commonwealth”.

This was, of course, only the latest of a number of positive statements that you have made in affirmation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) human rights.

We greatly appreciate you showing leadership on this issue.

We note that we have not heard any negative responses from member state governments to your humanitarian outreach to the LGBT citizens of the Commonwealth family of nations. We hope this will give you the confidence to continue and strengthen your public commitment to LGBT human rights.

Second, we were very grateful to be granted a meeting in August with the Commonwealth Deputy Secretary General, Mmasekgoa Masire-Mwamba, at Marlborough House. It was a constructive dialogue and we trust that it has secured new understanding between us, and will lead to further constructive engagement.

We hope the common ground we found at this meeting – concerning the need to tackle homophobia and transphobia – will embolden you to act in private and public to defend LGBT human rights, particularly right now in Uganda, where the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is likely to be revived, and in Cameroon, where the on-going arrest, jailing and mistreatment of men on charges of homosexuality is a matter of grave concern.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative has details of the repression in Cameroon. I would urge you to news release a statement appealing to the government of Cameroon to halt its persecution of LGBT people; with specific reference to the fact that such persecution is incompatible with Commonwealth values and international humanitarian law.

Third, I write to you regarding this year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Perth, Australia.

I am working with a number of LGBT, human rights and Commonwealth ngos, including the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

We are collectively urging that LGBT human rights be put on the agenda of CHOGM in October. We hope that you can assist us in this respect.

CHOGM has never even discussed – let alone declared its support for – LGBT equality and human rights. It is long overdue that CHOGM addressed this humanitarian issue, which it has neglected for far too long. We hope that this year’s CHOGM will end these decades of silence and inaction.

For CHOGM to discuss LGBT human rights would be consistent with the human rights values endorsed by the Commonwealth in its 1979 Lusaka Declaration, 1991 Harare Declaration and 2009 Port of Spain Affirmation of Commonwealth Values. Article 5 of this affirmation commits Commonwealth member states to the “protection and promotion” of equality and human rights “without discrimination on any grounds.” Any grounds obviously includes the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

These are the four issues we would like to see on the CHOGM agenda and that we believe all Commonwealth member states should agree to enact:

1.       Decriminalisation of homosexuality

2.       Laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

3.       The enforcement of legislation against threats and violence, to protect LGBT people from hate crimes

4.       Consultation and dialogue with LGBT organisations

 Your personal support and influence would be a big help to ensure that these important humanitarian issues are placed on the CHOGM agenda.

As you know, more than 40 Commonwealth countries currently criminalise homosexuality, mostly as a result of laws that were imposed by Britain during the colonial era and which were not repealed when these nations won their independence.

The penalties for homosexuality include 25 years jail in Trinidad and Tobago and 20 years plus flogging in Malaysia. Several Commonwealth countries stipulate life imprisonment: Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Pakistan, Uganda, Bangladesh and Guyana.

These forty-plus Commonwealth member states account for more than half of the world’s countries that still criminalise same-sex relations.

There are, or have been, homophobic witch-hunts in several Commonwealth countries: Nigeria, Cameroon, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Ghana.

A group of us have been working with the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Human Rights Unit and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. They are supportive; believing that CHOGM should affirm that the Commonwealth’s commitment to equality and human rights applies to all Commonwealth citizens, including LGBT people. We hope you will concur and use your office to ensure that this happens.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

Sincere appreciation,

Peter Tatchell 
Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation 
London, UK

Peter Tatchell Foundation (PTF)

Email: peter@petertatchellfoundation.org

Web: www.petertatchellfoundation.org

Follow the PTF on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/PT_Foundation
Join the PTF on Facebook: www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35320687969

Subscribe (for free) to PTF campaign e-bulletins: www.petertatchellfoundation.org/subscribe.html
For information about the PTF: www.petertatchellfoundation.org

Several years ago, we had some landscaping work done in our backyard. It cost us way more than we’d budgeted and the landscaper left the yard in a shocking mess.  We were financially stretched, overtired, overstressed and the yard we had wanted ‘improved’ looked like a bomb had hit it. The job was still unfinished, and I was at my wit’s end.

Soon after, we dropped in on some friends of ours.  They offered us morning tea and asked how the ‘work’ was going.  I promptly (and embarrassingly) burst into tears.

The next day, they arrived with a car and trailer loaded with a mower and garden tools.  They said, “Just here to fix the yard.”

I said, “Oh, really? Oh, th-th-thanks!  Just a minute, I’ll go and get my shoes on  ….”

“No, you are not to help. We’re going to do it.  You just stay where you are.”

And these two (not young) people pitched in, did a day’s work and transformed our construction site debacle to a beautiful garden.

Our friends are devout Christians – Seventh Day Adventists.  They know I’m an atheist, they loved my Dad and knew he was an atheist, too. Not once, in all the years we have known them have they ever tried to press their faith on us.  I know they would say their motivation to help us came from their religious convictions.  But, I think even more highly of them than that – I believe they are simply good people and would have done the same thing regardless of whether they were religious or not.

Nevertheless, this was Christianity in action. Two people living out the conviction of their faith to love their neighbours. In this case, we were the fortunate neighbours, but it could have been anyone else.  The point is, their Christianity is used positively – to help, not to hinder; to ease pain, not to cause it.

I am not anti-Christian. How could I be? Members of my own family and some of those I love most are Christians.

While I don’t accept that loving your neighbour, treating others as you wish to be treated, feeding the poor and providing hospitality to those in need are exclusively ‘Christian’ values, I do genuinely appreciate it when I see Christians putting these values into action.

In fact, wherever Christians are making a positive contribution to the world, I am happy to applaud it.  If they are genuinely helping people, seeing to their real needs, and doing so with no expectation of obtaining converts but simply to live as they believe Christ did, then who am I to argue?  The fact that I think this is a human, rather than a Christian impulse is immaterial.  Good is good and as long as the result is happier, healthier people in a more loving, tolerant world, I’m good with that.

So, no, I’m not ‘anti-Christian’.  What I am against, however, is the kind of ‘corporate’ Christianity that does ‘good’ with an agenda.  The agenda may be to convert, to impose Christian views on those who don’t share them, to swell congregations (and church profits), or to gain political power and influence.  Doing good with ulterior motives is pretty poor behaviour, in my view.

This is the kind of politically pragmatic Christianity that decides not to oppose civil rights for homosexuals so they can later crow that they’re not ‘anti-gay’ in opposing same-sex marriage – “Just look how magnanimous we were in giving them the same civil rights as other citizens.”

That’s not doing good – that’s engaging a cynical, political strategy.

I am also ‘anti’ Christianity that does real harm.  When Christians tell people in third-world countries that condoms cause AIDS, or they tell frightened women with unwanted pregnancies that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer – then I get cranky.

When Christians weigh the shocking human cost of not granting full equality and acceptance to gay, lesbian, transgender and transsexual citizens against their religious dogma – and choose in favour of their dogma – I don’t just get cranky, steam starts coming out of my ears.

And when Christians are not content with ruling their own lives, but begin to intrude on mine and the lives of those I love – I rise to take action.

By all means choose not to end your life prematurely if your religious convictions dictate this. But do not impose a long, lingering, painful, undignified death on me and mine, because you have some religious conviction about the ‘sanctity’ of life.

Do you want your children to have a Christian education? By all means send them to a religious school or enrol them in Sunday school or a Christian youth group.  Have the damned pastor over to morning tea every Saturday if that will help.  But don’t put your chaplains into secular public state schools with a view to ‘discipling’ the children of ‘unchurched’ parents.  That is crossing the line.

My late brother was a Christian.  When he was very ill and disabled and staying at our place, he expressed a wish to go to our local church.  I rang them up, talked to the pastor, found out when and where the service was held and (with some difficulty) delivered my rather ‘wobbly’ brother to the door.  Then I sought out someone who could keep an eye on him during the service and morning tea.  Later, I came back and picked him up.  He was astounded that I would do this for him when I was so ‘anti-Christian’.

Why would I stop someone going to church if that’s what they want to do?  Why would I discourage or inhibit that in any way?  My aim is not to tell people what to believe.  I have little interest in that.

Let me tell you what I’m ‘for’.  I am ‘for’ love, happiness, equality, justice, tolerance, laughter, caring, hospitality, hugs, honesty, sharing, supporting, helping, compassion, empathy, selflessness and leaving the world a better place than you found it – oh, and chocolate, I’m definitely in favour of chocolate.  That’s what I’m ‘for’.  And if Christians want to draw on their faith to help them work towards similar goals – they’ll find a staunch ally in me.

But, when they come with hidden agendas, self-interest and dogma to the fore. When they come not to help, but to convert, impose or ‘occupy’. When their actions cause hurt, pain, anguish or death – then they will find me fighting against them with every resource I can bring to bear.

Chrys Stevenson

On this week’s QandA  (September 19), Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby invoked the ‘some of my best friends are gay’ defence. Many, including my friend Mitch Sullivan, were skeptical about Wallace’s claim.  For example, Mitch tweeted:

“Can I get a show of hands? Fellow gays that are friends with homophobes? Apparently, there are a lot of you.”

But on one of my  journeys through cyberspace, I discovered that Jim does, indeed, have at least one gay ‘friend’ .  He mentioned this relationship at the the 2011 Australian National Apostolic Church Conference. The organisers helpfully recorded it and posted it online.

Those who watched Q and A may recall that in answering Josh Thomas’s question, Wallace said he understood same-sex attraction was not something that could be changed.  And yet, just a few months ago, Wallace is recorded saying exactly the opposite.

In the following transcript of Wallace’s presentation at the conference, he makes it very clear how he deals with a young gay person who has just come out.

“I’m dealing with a young fellow who’s only in the last couple of weeks has gone and told his parents  he’s gay.  It has destroyed his family. It has destroyed this fellow’s relationship with Christ.  And it’s because this 39 year old seduced a young 18 year old at university in his first year …”

Later in his speech, Wallace elaborates on this relationship:

“… let me tell you that only in the last week I’ve had a conversation with a young fellow I’m mentoring you know, who’s  ‘cause I’ve encouraged him. I know that the only way that people can be brought out of homosexuality is through Christ, it’s not by my argument, you know.  If you read the books of people who’ve talked about coming out [he means becoming ex-gay], you know, it’s only ever people have said to them, people have tried to argue with them – you can’t – because for a start, the people who’ve called them into it have all the arguments and counter arguments they fill their heads with and so you’ll never beat those down.  The only thing that will bring them out of it is a closer relationship with Christ – as Christ reveals to them, you know,  that it’s sin.”

It’s all so simple. Having Jim and Jesus as your friends you can’t go wrong.  Just repent your sins and swear to keep your bum to the wall for the rest of your life and “Poof!” you’re straight! (Pun intended.)

According to Jim, a straight, Christian 18 year old entered into a consensual sexual relationship with an older man he met a university.  As a result,  the teenager ‘became’ gay.  And now that pesky ‘gay switch’ has been flicked on, he’s in an awful predicament – it’s stuck – and only Jesus can turn it off.  But, all is not lost – other gay people have become ‘un-gay’.  All those non-peer reviewed articles and misrepresented studies from NARTH say so! All it takes is for Jesus to reveal to them that they are sinners.  It’s a curious conviction, given that Jim admitted last night Jesus had nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of homosexuality. (If only Jim would follow Jesus’ lead!)

So, Jim ‘some-of-my-best-friends-are-gay’ Wallace has a solution for this young man, struggling with his sexual idenity:

“… I’ve really encouraged this young bloke to go to a church.”

You’d think that would solve the problem, wouldn’t you?  But no!  There’s a catch! Wallace explains:

“Now going to church and wanting to get more into the church more and more  he’s run up against a roadblock with  the church because there’s a limit to which the church can have him engaged in leadership within the church – and I understand that.  Now, he’s not a practicing homosexual, you know, but there’s a limit nonetheless for them. So it’s a really really difficult issue.”

Let’ recap. As this young man’s friend and mentor, Jim has:

• Told him being gay is a sin.
• Encouraged him to be celibate until he can change – or otherwise remain celibate for life.
• Told him to go to church.
•  Told him Jesus can make him straight, if he accepts what a terrible sin he has committed.

And, to his credit, the poor kid, with his family freaking out about his sexuality, has tried to do the ‘right thing’. He’s thrown himself enthusiastically onto the path of  redemption and change Wallace has laid out for him. He’s become celibate – a huge ask – and he’s seeking more responsibility within the church.  But is that enough for the church to encourage him? Not on your nelly.  He may as well have a target on his head with the word “Poof” written in large pink letters.

But let’s be fair. Jim is not unsympathetic to his young gay friend.  No!  He simply compares him to a porn addict or a kleptomaniac … yes, really.

“But what I’d say to you is this. That whatever the struggle, it’s no different really than someone who might be struggling with pornography – and for them it’s a real struggle you know, they just can’t go to the TV without opening it up. 

It might be that they’re struggling with something else, you know.  Some people are kleptomaniacs and must have a real struggle when they see something they really want and want to grab it.  All of these things are sin because of the fallen nature state of our world, you know? 

And I just think – and I understand the dilemma – I just think despite the difficulty of being able to get across to the world that we love the sinner, even though we hate the sin, we just have to stay true to that. Because as soon as we compromise it on this, how do we hold it on everything else, you know?

So I think it’s really really important that – as hard as it is, you know – that we hold to it, but we’re compassionate, you know, that we’re loving.”

Sure Jim, the loving thing to do is to completely ignore all the expert expert professional advice on how to deal with a teenager grappling with their sexuality and tell this kid he just has to change for Jesus. Ignore the shockingly high rate of gay teen suicide and  tell this troubled young man that God will accept him if only he’ll learn to love girls – or at least stay celibate for life. Send him on a guilt trip over all the angst he’s caused to his family and Jesus.  And then put him into a church that treats him like a second class citizen.  Great work, friend!

Jim, of course, is wilfully oblivious to the expert opinion of the American Psychological Association, which represents over 132,000 mental health professionals.  In 1994, the APA issued an unequivocal statement on homosexuality:

“The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals. 

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. … Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accoutrements.” 

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 assert categorically that the research leaves ‘absolutely no room for parental or societal influence’ on sexual identity. Wilson and Rahman insist that children cannot be seduced or otherwise led into homosexuality regardless of how overbearing the mother or absent the father – ‘no amount of poor parenting can waylay a child born to walk the path of heterosexuality’.  According to these mental health experts:

“… the biological origin of sexual orientation means that discriminating against gays and lesbians is as justifiable as discriminating on the basis of eye colour or ethnicity”.

The fact is, Jim’s ‘friendship’ with this young man could, at worst, drive him to self-harm or suicide and, at best, cause untold psychological trauma and long-term damage.

A brochure published in 1999, and endorsed by nearly half a million of America’s mental health experts, counsellors, paediatricians and experts in related fields said, in part:

“… efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure … a number of medical, health, and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach.”

But, in an recklessly arrogant display of religious hubris, Wallace completely rejects this and decides to ‘fix’ this boy himself (with the help of Jesus, of course).

Kim Brett, a former leader with ex-gay ministries Living Waters and Liberty Inc, has witnessed, first hand, what trying to change someone’s sexual orientation does to them:

“… For a long time I had been witnessing peoples’ (and my own) growing frustration that no matter how repentant, prayerful and committed we all were to living a life as an ex-gay Christian, the changes we all sought and were taught possible never really materialised for most … Depression, anxiety, loneliness and inner turmoil were our constant companions because as seen through the eyes of many churches, our ‘failure’ to change equated with somehow not having enough faith, not being a ‘true’ Christian or having a demonic influence.”  (Soulforce, 2007)

Is this why Wallace’s young friend is not considered suitable for leadership in the church?  Is it because they fear his homosexuality is caused by demons?

In his speech, Wallace (paraphrasing Charles Colson’s The Faith) explains that great Christian movements are not motivated by some idea of a social gospel. They are motivated by a commitment to fight ‘systemic evil’.

Adrian Price tells what it’s like to follow a ex-gay plan like Jim’s:

“I was seventeen and I was very screwed up and was attempting suicide because I was confused. I am only alive now because I am rather inept at killing myself. I have tried but I am not very good at it. I know others who have harmed themselves and in the states there are numerous cases of people coming out of the program and committing suicide. I’ve been pretty much in psychiatric counselling for last five years because of this. I’ve had numerous suicide attempts because of this. Some people I know have gotten away more lightly. The more determined you were, the more you got hurt. I wanted to make this work, I was celibate for eight years, I did everything I was told.”

I don’t know who Wallace is mentoring, but I hope he might read this. Dear young man, Wallace is not your friend.  He does not have your best interests at heart – although I accept he thinks he does.  Wallace has no expertise in human sexuality and yet he is trying to coerce you into ‘choosing’ your sexuality – something which medical experts say simply cannot be done. In short, he is asking the impossible of you.  He is setting you up to fail.

You may, or may not be homosexual.  You may be straight but adventurous, bisexual, homosexual or something else altogether. Time will tell.  But it is for you to find out, not for anyone else to determine.

Wallace’s ‘solution’ to your ‘problem’ is to put you into a church which will never accept you for who you really are.  The real ‘solution’ is for you to accept yourself just as you are and work from there.

Please, talk to someone at Gay and Lesbian Counselling Services of Australia – it’s just one phone call.  Consider the possibility that you are OK just the way you are.  Consider also that many committed Christians believe homosexuality is not a sin. Instead, they believe that it’s people like Jim Wallace who are acting contrary to the spirit of Jesus’ message; that it is Wallace who is ‘ungodly’ , not you.

Please take a moment to read about American Christian, the Reverend Mel White.  White went through absolute hell. He lied to himself about his sexuality and conformed to what the church wanted by marrying and having a family.  He struggled (often unsuccessfully) for years to become an ‘ex-gay’ before he finally realised that it simply wasn’t possible. Ultimately, White rejected bigotry, not God.  If that is your choice,  you can do that too. Please think about this before you marry some innocent girl and wreck her life as well as yours.

Former Australian Assemblies of God minister, Anthony Venn Brown has been on a similar journey. He warns:

“The church’s stand against gays and lesbians will eventually be proven to be the greatest heresy of the 20th century.”

I’m an atheist, but I have no interest in asking you to change to suit my beliefs.  There are lots of gay friendly churches in Australia which will allow you to worship without making you feel unworthy. There’s also an online Gay Christian Network where you can meet with other people who are both gay and Christian, and find no conflict between the two.

Straight or gay, Christian or atheist, you cannot live your life as a lie and no true friend would ever ask you to.

Chrys Stevenson

 Source:  Jim Wallace – Australian National Apostolic Church Conference 2011. (recording)

Related:

My friend Mitch pointed out in comments (below) that Jim also spoke publicly about his misguided beliefs on homosexuality in a forum on internet censorship. Again, Jim completely ignores research into pedophilia and homosexuality *and conflates the two to suit his own anti-gay political agenda.

* Extract from link:

” … in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual(Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women” (p. 259).”

My second article for ABC’s Religion and Ethics portal asks whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest the Australian Christian Lobby is at the forefront of the ideological holy war called ‘dominionism’.

This article has been several months in the making.  Dominionism is a complex network of international organisations.  While some of the more extreme groups happily speak openly about their plans to infiltrate goverments and ‘occupy’ nations, most speak in euphemisms easily deciphered by Christian fundamentalists but designed to be less threatening to those not ‘in the know’.

Apparently George W Bush (or at least his speech writer) was a master at this ‘dog whistle’ language, but is now being superseded by GOP candidate, Rick Perry.  Listen out for terms like ‘worldview’, ‘spheres of influence’, ‘change agents’, ‘changing the culture’.  Here’s an article which explains how it works.

When I first began researching dominionism I didn’t even suspect any links between the extremist American organisations involved in the movement and our homegrown Christian lobbyists.  But, over time, it became apparent to me that there were so many links the questions really had to be asked, “Is the Australian Christian Lobby a dominionist organisation?” “Does it purposefully set out to recruit staff from within the dominionist network?” “Are there links between dominionist theology and the publicly stated goals of the ACL?”

The ABC decided to provide a contrary view from Rod Benson, a Baptist theologian.

Read the articles and you decide.

Dominionism is now being taken very seriously in the United States. Take, for example, this article from the New York Times.  Perhaps it’s time we started taking it seriously here in Australia.

Chrys Stevenson

Recommended Reading

Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg

Roads to Dominion by Sara Diamond

I had a phone call from the Sunshine Coast Daily last week.  Would I write a short piece in response to the question, “Is it time for Australians to reconsider the relevance of Christianity?” I gave it a dignified two seconds thought before I said, “Yes!”

The concept was a ‘head to head’ style article, with me answering ‘on behalf of’ the godless and someone else answering for the Christians. And, who represents Christians better than anyone else in this country? The Australian Christian Lobby of course!  Well, not ‘of course’ –  as we know, they represent only a small proportion of actual Christians – but that’s who the Sunshine Coast Daily chose.  And, to be fair, I’m hardly an elected representative for atheists, so I really shouldn’t gripe.

The article will probably go up online later this week, but I know you’re all champing at the bit to read it, so I’ve reproduced it here.  Of course, if you’re in the Sunshine Coast region, do the right thing and pick up a hard copy and you might also consider dropping them a line, or giving them a call to thank them for allowing us atheists to have a say*.  It seems to be a new policy of the paper and one that should be recognised and applauded.

So …

“Is it time for Australians to consider the relevance of Christianity?”

Lyle Shelton – Australian Christian Lobby

While Christianity’s human practitioners have not always done the right thing, there is no doubt the religion itself has been an overwhelmeing influence for good in the past 2000 years.

People of faith, motivated by its central ethos of love for God and love for others, gave rise to the modern hospital system, public education, trade unions, care for the poor and the abolition of slavery – all before any of these were on the agenda of governments.

Christianity was a major force against the tyrrany of kings and was important to the evolution of modern representative democracy and the idea that there should be checks and balances on people who hold power.

Nations with Christian foundations remain the freest and most civil on the planet.

The 20th century’s experiment with state-mandated atheism in Eastern Europe, Russia, China and elsewhere was a bloody catastrophe.

More needs to be taught about the gulags.

It is a credit to nations with a Christian heritage like Australia that Muslims fleeting persecution from extreme forms of Islam in places like Afghanistan and Iran are so keen to re-settle here.

It’s interesting that people from overfly nations such as Malaysia and Indonesia, which practice varying degrees of sharia law, are eager to come to a country whose legal system traces its roots to the bible.

Christianity says we should welcome as many of these vulnerable people as we can.

Yes, there is a contest for the future values of our nation but a free society does not fear this debate.

Sadly there are some who deeply resent Christianity and seek to expunge it from public life with the coercive force of politically correct laws and tribunals

This is emerging as a serious threat to free speech and freedom of religion which may well affect everyone to some degree.

Mistakes have certainly been made in the name of Christ.

But despite this, Christianity has bequeathed a rich cultural heritage and civility that we would do well to examine closely before aggressive secularists make the decision for us to discard it.

Lyle Shelton is chief of staff of the Australian Christian Lobby

_______________

Chrys Stevenson, Sunshine Coast Atheists

Australians really should reconsider the relevance of Christianity to Australian society.

There was a time when our pubs and shops were closed on Sundays. Now they’re not only open, but bustling.

Today, nearly 70 per cent of Australians are married by civil celebrants. What does it say about Christianity’s relevance when most people, on the most important day of their lives, say ‘no’ to religion?

Australia is one of world’s most secular nations. No need for an atheist bus sign saying “Sleep in on Sundays” – 92 per cent of us already do.

Christianity is in decline. An international survey in 2008 found 30 per cent of Australians don’t believe in God while 26 per cent have doubts to varying degrees.

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) may have access to the Prime Minister’s office, but they most assuredly don’t represent the views of most Australians, or even most Christians.

Despite the increasingly shrill protestations of the ACL, a recent Galaxy Poll showed even most Christians support same-sex marriage.

While churches oppose voluntary euthanasia, 85 per cent of Aussies support it. Denied the opportunity to die with dignity, Australia’s elderly most commonly choose hanging as an alternative.

Most Australians are horrified at the high rate of youth suicide. Gay teens are up to 14 times more likely to end their lives. Yet, recently, the ACL endorsed a law which allows religious schools to expel students for no reason other than being openly gay.

Has anyone noticed those standing up for fairness, equality and the alleviation of suffering in these scenarios aren’t the Christians?

The ACL may argue that Australia would be a better place if ‘Christian values’ were returned to centre-stage. Consider this. In those halcyon days when Christianity was far more ‘relevant’ than it is today, we supported the White Australia Policy. Racism and sexism were rife. Gay couples had no rights and were derided as poofters and fairies. Christian churches presided over the ‘stolen generation’. With abortion illegal, women with unwanted pregnancies used a coat hanger or turned to back street butchers. Divorcees were social outcasts and single mothers were cruelly coerced into adoptions. It is only as we became more secular that these things changed.

So yes, let’s reconsider the relevance of Christianity to Australia’s past and present. And then, let’s raise a toast to a future in which Christianity is increasingly irrelevant.

Chrys Stevenson is the convenor of the Sunshine Coast Atheists and co-founder of new national lobby group, Reason Australia.

*Sunshine Coast Daily ‘Letters to the Editor’: letters@scnews.com.au

Thank the editor:  mark.furler@scnews.com.au (Thanks Mark and journalist Owen Jacques for putting the piece together).

Astute readers may have noticed a couple of historical howlers from our friend, Lyle. Please feel free to address them in comments.  Neither Lyle nor I had the opportunity to view each other’s copy before it was submitted, so we were both ‘writing blind’. Now I’ve seen his arguments, I may well take them on directly later in a future blog post. But if anyone else wants to have a go – please feel free.

Related Posts on the ACL

If your product’s a dud, Jim, don’t blame the opposition (Ethics in schools)

Anzac Day Cheap Shot from Religious Extremist

Defending the Indefensible: The Historical Lineage of the Australian Christian Lobby’s ‘Christian Values’

Skepticamp Melbourne – Information Here

Gladly’s ears pricked up when he heard I was writing about Skepticamp. A camp?  All those lovely pick-er-nick baskets and those yummy chewy campers! But alas, while Skepticamp is skeptical, it doesn’t involve pitching a tent in the woods or being eaten by bears. But, trust me (would I lie?), it’s going to be just as exciting!

Skepticamp is a whole new concept in presenting conferences. No famous headliners here. At Skepticamp, the audience are the stars.  That’s right! The participants are also the presenters (although if you’re very shy, there’s no pressure for you to take to the spotlight),

Skepticamp provides a fantastic opportunity for you to meet with like-minded people, to learn from those who are practicing skeptical activism in your city, and to make a ‘name’ for yourself and share your views.  You don’t get to do that at the Global Atheist Convention.  “Step aside now, Professor Dawkins, I’d like to give the audience my take on evolutionary biology!”

At Skepticamp, every participant is encouraged (but not required) to offer an interactive talk on a science or skeptic-themed subject.

There’s so much talent in the skeptical community, but how do you get discovered as the next brilliant new speaker for TAM (James Randi’s ‘The Amazing Meeting’) or the next DJ Grothe-style podcaster? Even Dr Karl (Kruszelnicki) had to start somewhere!  (I’m not sure it was at a Skepticamp, but it should have been).

Skepticamp Australia was born at TAM Sydney in 2010 when Jason Brown (A Drunken Madman/In Vino Veritas) vowed to ‘make it happen’ here in Australia. I’m excited to say I was in the room at the time. During a panel talk on Skeptical Activism, a question came from moderator Brian Dunning (Skeptoid): “What would you do for activism if you were handed a budget?”

Jason leapt up and said he would organise a skepticamp, to inspire, inform and motivate skeptics in Australia.  Never backward in coming forward, he said if people would give him some money there and then, that’s exactly what he’d do. Suddenly, everyone, including the panelists, started pulling out their wallets and giving Jason money, and soon Skepticamp Sydney was underway.  Now, that’s grass-roots activism!

Skepticamp Sydney was a huge success. Held in May this year, it attracted around 100 participants. Sessions were short – 10 minutes presentation and 5 minutes for questions.  A good plan!  It means if someone’s as boring as dirt, you don’t have to endure them droning on for an hour. And, if they were fascinating, you can always collar them for a good chat during the breaks.  There was also a ‘flash talk’ session, in which participants were invited to give a quick 5 minute talk on a skeptical or science subject close to their heart.

To give you some idea of the ‘flavour’ of a skepticamp, Sydney talks included: Peter Bowditch on how not to get sued for your skeptical activism; Tim Harding on GMO foods; Kylie Sturgess on homeopathy; Bob Lloyd on the persistence of ‘woo’ beliefs in the nursing profession; Tim Mendham on dealing with the media (without blowing it for everyone); Dave Singer on online activism; Joel Pittman on his intimate acquaintance with evangelical religious education, and; Alan Conradi on the dangerous practice of using unproven treatments on children with intellectual disabilities.

There’s no speakers’ program for Skepticamp Melbourne, yet – that’s up to participants.  But, I’m sure it will be every bit as interesting and diverse as the Sydney event. (Melbourne’s sure to do it better than Sydney, right?)

Lucas Randall from the Melbourne Eastern Hills Skeptics (Meh!) together with Chris Higgins, Linley Kissick, Kieran Dennis and Ed Brown are the ‘un’organizers for Skepticamp Melbourne.  If you can give them a hand (or some sponsorship), I’m sure they’d like to hear from you.  They’re at skepticamp@melbourneskeptics.com.au .

Organizers are also needed for events planned for Brisbane and Perth (contact @drunkenmadman on Twitter if you can help).

Skepticamp Melbourne is happening on Saturday, 22 October 2011 at Melbourne University.  Tickets are free, but you need to book.

If you want to present, there will soon be an online application available,  but, if you’re so excited about putting your name forward you just can’t wait, email your idea to skepticamp@melbourneskeptics.com.au and tell them I sent you. –

These events take a tonne of organizing and if we want an active and vibrant skeptical community, we really have to get behind them.  If you’re in Melbourne, make the effort and support Skepticamp – you won’t be sorry!

Skepticamp Melbourne – Saturday, 22 October 2011

Skepticamp Melbourne Wiki

Free tickets available now from Eventbrite

For more information contact: skepticamp@melbourneskeptics.com.au

Chrys Stevenson