Dear Father Moyle

In your recent open letter to atheists you ask, “Why is it that so many in the atheist community cannot bring themselves to get past their anger whenever they engage in discussion about religion?”  You complain that, “The language of many of [the] atheist contributions in public debate is laced with venom and dripping with sarcasm, ”  and you wonder why comments from atheists so often depict the religious as being “‘malicious’ or ‘venomous’”.  Maybe I can provide some answers.

In your letter, you explain that, because Christians and other religious people are oriented towards a “culture of life and light that ends with the gift of eternal life” venom is not a part of the theistic arsenal.

While you do pause to consider whether the sins of the Catholic Church and various clergy may play some role in our aggravation, you quickly brush this thought aside as if 2000 years of clerical transgressions matter little when compared with those halcyon times when the church stood as a ‘paragon of grace’ through its ‘faithful ministry’.  Ultimately, you conclude,  atheists’ irritability must be caused by our self-imposed nihilistic view of life.  To be sure, we non-believers stew on the petty injustices of the Church because we don’t understand that all these sins will be sorted out later, in heaven.  In contrast, all those happy, smiling Christians are so beatifically joyful, good-humoured and just plain Christ-like, because they they know any earthly injustices will be set right in the world hereafter. (Don’t worry about the children dying in the Sudan folks – God will sort it out later.)

To begin with, Father Moyle, if you really want to know why we atheists are cranky, may I direct you to Greta Christina’s blog post Atheists and Anger .  Greta Christina provides a comprehensive laundry list of things you religious folk do that really annoy us.  I shall follow, soon, with my own.

In your letter,  you skip over the sins of the church and the clergy as if they were nothing more serious than an old village vicar nicking the odd glass of altar wine or shrieking, “Jesus, Joseph & Mary” when he stubs his toe.  I really hate to give credence to your stereotyping of atheists as angry and sarcastic, but may I suggest that any human being who isn’t angry at some of the following sins of the church needs more than a quick confession and a few Hail Mary’s to save them.

It’s hard to imagine, I know, but we atheists get really upset that the Catholic Church’s prohibition on condoms results in thousands of needless deaths from AIDS in Africa and South America.  Having no belief in an afterlife we find it outrageous that the church thinks it’s perfectly alright to sacrifice the lives, health and financial viability of vulnerable women and children in order to prop up a Papal proclamation.

We also get inexplicably annoyed when little children are frightened by stories of demons, hellfire and damnation.

Forgive us for being grumpy, but, for us, it’s a natural reaction when he hear of parents allowing their sick children to die agonizing and unnecessary deaths because they believe, quite literally, that prayers, not medicine will effect a cure.

Has it never occurred to you, Father Moyle, that we atheists get angry because you religious types give us a whole lot to get angry about?

My friend, Terry, recently spoke publicly for the first time about how he was savagely beaten repeatedly by his religious father who was simply doing as the ‘Good Book’ directed him.  Spare the rod and spoil the child.  This fifty-something man cried as he talked about his brutal upbringing in a family that put all their efforts into obeying the word of God.

“He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24)

“Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.” (Proverbs 23:13-14)

Just last night, a Facebook friend posted forlornly, “… no one lets an Atheist join in any reindeer games … 😦 ”

It turns out his whole family of warm-hearted Christians had gathered for a pre-Christmas celebration just 15 minutes from where he lives – but chose to exclude him because of his atheism.  Perhaps he should be grateful that his parents only break his heart by excluding him from family gatherings.  If they followed the Bible religiously, they’d be breaking his bones with a good stoning (as directed in Deuteronomy 21:18:21).

My friend Helen’s husband insisted that, in accordance with scripture, his  family obey him as unquestioningly as he obeyed God.  When his adult daughter wished to date someone outside the church, she was evicted.   Helen was then instructed to treat her daughter as if she were dead.  When Helen disobeyed this directive, she, too, was cast out onto the street. She is now forbidden from seeing her other children and has never met her grand-children.

Another friend, Bill, is in his late 50s.  He is still so traumatized by sexual abuse by the Christian brothers at his Catholic school that even discussing it makes him physically ill.  It may be true that those who abused him were not acting in accordance with the Church’s teachings, but the Church has consistently covered  up such  transgressions, leaving thousands of lives destroyed.

You complain, Father, about ‘grumpy’ atheists and their verbal spats with Christians.  How do you compare this with the ‘grumpy’ Catholic nun who beat David Lane, a child with spina bifida, with a pair of scissors for the sin of telling a childish lie?  How do we grumpy atheists compare with the good Christian carers at the Catholic orphanage whose treatment of one child was so appalling that, at 80,  his single good memory of his childhood is that someone brought him a glass of milk, once, when he was six?

You might argue, Father, that these transgressions were human, and not the fault of the Church.  And yet your Church consistently covered up physical and sexual abuse, your Pope enjoined those who reported sexual abuse to keep it secret.  Now, thanks to Wikileaks, we know that the Vatican used its diplomatic immunity to try to thwart the inquiry into systematic sex abuse in the Irish church.  Indeed, the whole self-protective machinery of the Catholic church, worldwide, has functioned to protect the church from scandal – even if that allows abusers to continue their assaults.

So no, Father Moyle, these things do not fade into insignificance when compared with those mythical times when the church has been a ‘paragon of grace’.  I’d certainly like to know when these rare events occurred!  Was it during the witch burnings or the Inquisition, or during the Crusades when the Catholic church was clearly the aggressor? Where was the Church as a ‘paragon of grace’ when Jews were being persecuted in Medieval Europe?   Oh, that’s right, it was the Church that was driving the persecutions.  But, there I am being sarcastic and grumpy again.

Did the Church display itself as a paragon of grace when the Vatican put its support behind Hitler – your clergy even acknowledging the Führer with the familiar salute?

Perhaps you claim that this Camelot of Catholicism occurred in more recent times with the work of Mother Teresa.  Have you read former-nun, Colette Livermore’s account of her experience with the blessed mother?  I think you should.  As a nun with the Sisters of Mercy, Colette found herself, “in a situation where initiative was punished, intelligence was derided, and even saving lives could be punished if it involved a trivial breach of the regulations.”  Colette notes that while the order had money – plenty of money – to buy essential medical and educational supplies, it wasn’t used for this purpose because poverty was glorified above saving lives.

Does withholding medical treatment from dying people make me grumpy, Father?  You bet it does!

And finally, let’s look at those calm, polite, Christians you contrast against us cranky, venomous atheists.  Here are some examples of Christian tolerance and charity for you.  They’re all taken from the website Fundies Say the Darndest Things and are typical of the kind, generous and tolerant postings found on Christian websites:

• [Talking about an eleven year old girl who was raped and then buried alive] – god was sacrificing this child as a way to show others the light. much as he did his own child. what a beautiful gift he has given us.

• If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol

• I honestly don’t care about your rights. If it were up to me, all Atheists would be burnt at the stake and or cast into a river with weights tied to their ankles and or placed before the firing squad, etc etc etc.

• I’d like to make a movie about hell, or somebody ought to, that would be fun. Imagine all the noise and the stench and smoke and the abject squalor and the horrid awful incessant torture, a huge place constructed for a hundred billion hideous people screaming and moaning and gargling their own blood. Meanwhile church folks up in heaven laughing and calling down to the atheists “I told you so.”

And all the toilets in heaven flush into holy divine pipes, and all that poop is piped to hell, where it is heated to 500 degrees and dumped on the atheists. That’s basically what God will have going on for all eternity, and he’ll never get tired of it.

Hot-damn!

Also, Father, if you’re looking for grumpiness, maybe you should compare our vitriolic offerings against those of some of your fellow theists.  For example,  Jason, a member of Theology Web writes:

“Should we kill atheists for there body parts?

What do the other human persons here think?

No doubt someone will object, saying something obviously ridiculous like, but atheists are persons.

But clearly this is mistaken because anybody without a well developed belief in God is obviously not a full human person.

What could be more obvious than that?

How many full human persons do you know without a well developed belief in God. Obviously none, because if they were full human person they would have a well developed belief in God.

Now some people might object to killing atheists for there (and obviously it is there and not thier as they are not whos but whats) organs but think of all the full human persons that would benifit from the organs and the medical research that could be done on these non-persons.

How could anybody object, they are not human persons and if you think we should not kill them then that is just because of out dated ideas and because they must really just want people to suffer. For shame on you!

So what do people think?

Should we kill these atheist human non-persons for the benifit of fully human persons?”

[original spelling preserved]

While Jason explains later that his post was ‘in jest’, another poster, ‘Archimedes’, takes the proposition seriously:

I think Jason’s reasoning is ironclad. If one agrees that fully developed relationship with God is a requisite for personhood, then atheists and agnostics are not persons, and harvesting their bodies for organs is not morally any more suspect than (here it comes) abortion. Of course, the atheists will not consider a relationship with an imaginary being as a necessary component for personhood, but this question wasn’t directed to the cattle at all but rather to theists who agree with Jason’s premise…

Another Christian internet poster, David, says:

I think it’s time for another holocaust. This time, instead of Jews, how about atheists. We urgently need to round up all atheists in the world and lead them to the chambers. Our world would be such a better place.

Please, Father, spare us the remonstration that these people aren’t ‘real Christians’.  They’re real all right and they take their teachings from the very same book you preach from – except they probably don’t cherry pick quite as much as you do.

So, yes, Father, we atheists are grumpy.  We’re grumpy because theists are raping children then covering it up.  We’re grumpy because you exalt a woman who had her own health problems treated  at some of the finest and costliest hospitals in the West, but kept vital medical care from the poorest of the poor because she thought poverty was God-ordained.   We’re grumpy because the Church’s teaching on condoms perpetuates HIV/AIDs and condemns devout Catholic women in third world countries to unwanted pregnancies, poverty and preventable diseases.

In Australia, atheists are grumpy because, in the name of God, vulnerable young women were lured into a Christian treatment programme for sufferers of depression and eating disorders where, instead of medical care, they were subjected to exorcisms.

We’re grumpy because some Australian pregnancy counselling services hide their Christian agendas and tell barefaced lies to their vulnerable clients about how abortions lead to breast cancer.  A claim for which there is not one jot of credible evidence.

We’re grumpy that our elderly relatives cannot choose to die with dignity because your Church uses its money and power to enforce your views on those who don’t share them.

We’re grumpy because your Church’s view on homosexuals fuels homophobia and results in the suicides of teenagers.

We’re grumpy that after centuries of killing, raping, torturing, corruption, sexism and homophobia, churches accumulate massive wealth by accepting tax-exemptions based on the laughable assumption that they are a benefit to society.

I could go on, and on, and on, Father, but I think you may have got my message by now.  Yes, atheists are grumpy and we find it very, very hard to remain civil when people, like you, try to defend an institution which is so stinkingly corrupt and evil that, were it not the Catholic Church, it would have been closed down years ago.

We know that Christians are not necessarily bad people (many of our family members are Christian) but we also know that these people prop up the institutions which cause so much hate and suffering.

Despite your intimations to the contrary, we also know Christians can be every bit as vitriolic, intolerant and hateful as we can – turns out Christians are human too.  We atheists are reminded daily that faith in an after life does not preclude Christians from hateful, nasty, depraved, despicable, intolerant and discriminatory behaviour and invective.

As we have seen, faith in a supernatural deity doesn’t stop people from flying planes into buildings, or from  blowing up abortion clinics, the London underground or a Bali nightclub.  Faith didn’t stop a fervently religious theist from shooting a doctor in cold-blood as he stepped out of his local church.  In fact, in all of these instances it seems, faith and a fervent belief in the afterlife, precipitated these evil actions.

So, in short, Father, if you’re looking for the cause of atheist anger, you need not look very far.  Simply open the door of your Church, take off your theistic blinkers and take a good, hard look inside.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Posts

Greta Christina’s Blog:  Atheists and Anger

Pharyngula: Bad Diagnosis – PZ Myers responds to Tim Moyle

Yahoo7:  An Atheist at Christmas by Australian Skeptics (and http://www.ratbags.com/ )

Thinker’s Podium:  More Atheist Anger

AlterNet:  Why Religious People are Scared of Atheists by Greta Christina

Atheist Nexus Submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission – Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century – written and researched by Chrys Stevenson in collaboration with the Australian members of Atheist Nexus.

Catholic Bishop Castigates and Threatens Hospital that Saved Woman’s Life by Amy Newman, RH (Reproductive Health) Reality Check

Gladly’s Book Recommendations

Gladly gets madder than a bear with a sore head when people in glass churches throw stones!  If you liked this article you might be interested in reading further from Gladly’s favourite online bookstore, Embiggen Books.

Letter to a Priest by Simone Weil

Hope Endures by Colette Livermore

People in Glass Houses:  An Insider’s Story of a Life In and Out of Hillsong by Tanya Levin

The Australian Book of Atheism by Warren Bonett (editor) [with a contribution from Chrys Stevenson – aka Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear]

Holy Horrors:  An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness by James A Haught

Holy Hatred:  Religious Conflicts of the 90s by James A Haught

The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse by Geoffrey Robertson QC

Jesus Freaks:  A True Story of Murder and Madness on the Evangelical Edge by Don Lattin

There are a lot of things I could be doing other than writing blog posts on the internet, researching a book and setting up a national lobby group for reason, secularism and freethought in Australia. Sometimes I wonder, “What the hell am I doing this for?” Then a week like this comes along and the question is answered a hundredfold. Let me explain.

The week started with a tweet from Richard Saunders from the Australian Skeptics. Richard had picked up on an article in the Daily Telegraph [since deleted] spruiking an obviously shonky product called the Qlink Mini which purportedly shields mobile phone users from harmful radiation by resonating with “our body’s energy system” in order to “maintain the strength of naturally occurring protective energy systems within our bodies.” Richard smelled bullshit and so did I, Jason Brown (aka A Drunken Madman) and several others in the Australian skeptical community.

It didn’t take us long to suss out that the product was a scam, that the ‘science’ put forward as evidence was bogus and that the ‘experts’ trotted out to support the extravagant claims were either imposters, natural therapists, nutters or totally misrepresented.

Mainly through the efforts of Jason Brown along with Jeremy Sear and Stephen Downes from Crikey, the story was picked up by ABC TV’s Media Watch and Stephen Fenech, the ‘technology writer’ of the Daily Telegraph was exposed for producing advertorial content disguised as editorial.

Channel 9’s Today Show technology reporter, Charlie Brown, was also caught up in the scandal when he made a slightly more skeptical, but unresearched report on the same product.

While Charlie’s transgression fell short of ‘cash for comment’ it was clear that he hadn’t done his homework and based his report largely on Qlink’s media release.

To his credit, Charlie engaged with his critics on his blog – whereas the Daily Telegraph simply pulled the Qlink article while Fenech went to ground. In his own defence, Charlie Brown wrote: “We ran this segment because QLink was in the media …” In other words, “It was in the news, so that made it news.” But Charlie admits he hadn’t used the product and it is obvious from his report that despite his ‘skepticism’ about the manufacturer’s claims, he hadn’t researched it either. In effect, Charlie just repeated what had already been uncritically reported elsewhere by ‘journalists’ like Fenech.

Today, “Bob”, a persistent poster on Jason Brown’s blog wonders why we have made such a big deal of this. And I’d like to answer that.

It’s not about some dumb piece of plastic that will do you no more harm than lighten your wallet to the tune of $48. It’s about a much bigger issue which starts with calling the media to account.

The Qlink incident has shown that a few intelligent, well-networked bloggers can make a difference. We can get a false story exposed on national television, we can shame a major daily newspaper and we can have an irresponsible journalist hauled over the coals for bringing their newspaper into disrepute. We are just ordinary consumers, but the internet gives us the power to fight back against an increasingly lazy and biased media.

And why is this important? It’s important because dishonest journalism isn’t just about selling you shonky devices to stick on your mobile phone. Dishonest journalism also influences the way people vote – and the governments we elect affect every aspect of our lives. It is said that a nation gets the government it deserves. It might also be said that our apathy buys us the media we deserve.

This struck home to me last night when I watched the following report from American political commentator, Rachel Maddow.

In this report, Maddow discusses the claim that President Obama’s recent trip to India and Korea will cost embattled American taxpayers $200 million per day and involve one-tenth of the entire US Navy anchored off India in case of a terrorist attack. I have to admit, if I was an American who’d lost their job and their house in the Global Financial Crisis and I heard that reported as if it were true, I’d be pretty pissed off too. But the fact is, the report is as misguided as Stephen Fenech’s spiel on the Qlink Mini Radiation Shield. It’s just not true. It’s a right-wing meme and the evidence put forward for it being true? “I’m not just making this up – it’s on the news!”

Because the story is on television,  ‘in the papers’ and ‘on the radio’ millions of Americans will believe this lie and when the next election rolls around, it will form a part of their decision making. In short, shonky media reporting means that a very large number of Americans will place their votes for the next leader of the free world based on outright lies and distortions. If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, I don’t know what will.

The self-contained right-wing media described by Maddow is little better than that which prevails in countries like North Korea. America’s media may not be controlled by the Government, but the vested interests which do control large sections of it (yes, Rupert, I’m talking about you) are clearly not driven by a commitment to truthfulness, accuracy and objectivity. As Maddow argues, while America does have a ‘free press’ many voters receive only the information provided by the right wing media conglomerates. These conglomerates have a vested interest in creating suspicion and paranoia about media outlets whose reports conflict with their conservative ‘spin’. How can journalists and editors be truthful, accurate and objective when they are clearly driven by a right-wing political imperative? If journalists will schill shonky products for money, it’s just another step to schilling lies for political motives.

For me, the difference between lying for political gain and lying for monetary gain are just two sides of the same coin. Sure, schilling a shonky ‘radiation shield’ isn’t going to effect world peace, but it’s the same kind of ‘sell-out’ journalism that leads to the highly politicized tabloid media now entrenched in America. Is that what we want here in Australia? Is this the kind of media we deserve?

We have shown this week, in a very small way, that we can fight back against a media that doesn’t represent our interests as consumers. If we do our research and shout loud enough and in the right places, we can make a difference. Sure, it’s a dodgy bit of plastic that caused a scandal this week, but next week it might be another ‘children overboard’ scandal reported uncritically by a lazy or biased press. If the media know that the public is not only watching, but checking and that we not only expect, but demand truthful, accurate and objective reporting, then we may just avoid the situation which exists in the USA.

This takes vigilance and effort on the part of the public, but not an inordinate amount of time. It simply means when you come across something that sounds biased or wrong, you do a little research and, if your concerns are warranted, you write to the media outlet and cry foul. If you have a blog, you can blog about it. If you’re on twitter, you can tweet your concerns. If you’re on Facebook you can share it. Encourage your followers to complain as well. Be polite, but firm. If we allow our journalists to parrot media releases and our newspaper editors and television producers to feed us uncritical, unscientific, unresearched pap, then that is what we deserve. I claim that we deserve much more, and the only way we’re going to get it is to actively engage as consumers and demand far better standards in journalism than we are getting from our press, popular radio and commercial television. These outlets are consumer sensitive and will react positively to public outrage.

In order to get the media we deserve, we have to stop being passive consumers and become active participants in the dissemination of news. The internet allows us to do that. An uncritical media report might sell you a shonky bit of plastic today – tomorrow it might sell you a shonky government. This is not just about a piece of plastic.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Pages

The Super Duper Quick and Easy Guide to Becoming a Hard-Hitting Journalist – Too busy for J-School? This is all you need to know … Cartoon by Mikhaela B. Reid

Gladly’s Book Recommendations

Gladly finds shoddy reporting unbearable.  If you share his interest in politics, media and critical thinking you might like to read these books.

Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues by Jim A. Kuypers and Robert E. Denton Jr

Supermedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save the World by Charlie Beckett

On Doubt by Leigh Sales (Australian journalist)

Man Bites Murdoch: Four Decades in Print, Six Days in Court by Bruce Guthrie

The Persuaders: Inside the Hidden Machine of Political Advertising (Australian) by Sally Young

Trust: From Socrates to Spin by Kieron O’Hara

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges

Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism by Beder Sharon

Critical Thinking: A Beginners Guide by Sharon M Kaye

Critical Lessons: What Our Schools Should Teach by Ned Noddings

Educating the Consumer Citizen: A History of the Marriage of Schools, Advertising and the Media by Joel Spring

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Frauds, Scams and Cons by Duane Swierczynski

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

Bogus Science: Ideas that fool some of the people all the time by John Grant

… and hundreds more books on critical thinking and skepticism from Embiggen Books online.

Special Plug:  Don’t forget The Australian Book of Atheism edited by Warren Bonett and including a chapter on the history of atheism in Australia by me will be released into all good bookstores on 22 November.  The book is available for pre-order from Embiggen Books and will be on sale at The Amazing Meeting (TAM Oz) in Sydney later this month.

Queensland Government –

People’s Question Time:

10 November 2010

Submit your question here

It would be great if as many Queenslanders as possible could submit a short question relating to the intrusion of religion into Queensland state schools. The Premier, Anna Bligh and Education Minister, Geoff Wilson will be available to take questions from the public. Please make your question is short as this gives it more chance of being aired. A question from your own experience would be great, but as ‘inspiration’ here are some issues worth considering in relation to the Premier’s response to questions on religion and education in a previous question time:

The Premier lied when she said that Queensland has a secular education system. In fact, the word secular was expunged from the Queensland education act in 1910 and the Education Minister, Geoff Wilson, wrote to the Australian Secular lobby on 15 June 2009 saying: ‘… the government currently has no plans to re-introduce the word “secular” into legislation.’

The premier assured listeners that religion in state schools is voluntary and yet the ASL has repeatedly produced evidence to the contrary to Education Queensland and been ignored. We know for a fact that a large percentage of parents who have marked ‘no religion’ on enrolment forms have found their children were put into religious instruction classes without their permission and some parents who have explicitly requested that their children not be exposed to RI have found their kids have been seated at the back of the RI class!

How ‘voluntary’ is religious exposure when chaplains wander around the school grounds handing out religious material, say prayers on assembly and at school speech nights and invite kids to lunch-time Bible studies and religious school camps? How ‘voluntary’ is religion when in order to participate in a school wide ‘non-uniform’ day, kids have to make a donation to support the school chaplain?

Education Queensland allows Hillsong’s Shine and Strength programmes into state schools and represents them to parents as secular, despite ample evidence that these programmes are used for proselytising and to impart ‘Christian’ values. Even Anna Bligh admits in the video above that Shine is a Christian programme. The video below explicitly reveals the aim of the programme is to provide “influence from a godly perspective” and to fill a “gap” in the children’s lives.

“… it gives the church to have an opportunity to have a foot in the door … and to give them those principles … that they may not get if they’re not in a Christian family … I want to see these young girls come to a knowledge of salvation … to get to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.”

The Premier says that intelligent design is appropriately used in senior science classes to encourage ‘critical thinking’. One wonders whether she also advocates that the ‘flat earth theory’ should be introduced into geography classes for a similar purpose.

The Queensland Government supports the National Schools Chaplaincy programme despite opposition to the programme from teachers unions, mental health experts, and parents and citizens groups who believe the programme short-changes our children and would prefer trained mental health professionals instead.

ACT Parents and Citizens

Australian Psychological Society

New South Wales Teachers Federation

In 2008 the ratio of school counsellors to children in Queensland schools was 1:1300. Why is money being spent on chaplains rather than qualified professionals?

The more questions received on this subject, the more likely at least one or two will be put to the Premier and the Education Minister. Let’s let them know that this is an issue that’s not going to go away or be swept under the carpet.

Submit your question here

Chrys Stevenson

Related Links

Australian Secular Lobby

High Court Challenge (to National Schools Chaplaincy Programme)

Let’s Get ‘Secular’ Back in the Queensland Education Act

Secular Public Education Lobby (SPEL)

Stop the National Schools Chaplaincy Programme

Much excitement! I received my advance copy of “The Australian Book of Atheism” last night. Boy, it’s big! Even more exciting, we’ve just heard that it’s been reviewed in Bookseller + Publisher, the bible of the Australian book trade, and awarded a 5 star (out of 5 star) rating!

The book will be released into all good bookstores on 22 November (e.g. Booktopia, ABC Shops, Borders, Readings) and can also be pre-ordered from Embiggen Books (use the link below).

After I got home last night, I couldn’t resist dipping into the book immediately.

Editor, Warren Bonett has written a brilliant and funny introduction.

I started by re-reading my own chapter on the history of Australian atheism and was quietly pleased with this first attempt to sketch out the skeleton of a history which I hope to flesh out into a book over the next 12-18 months.

Max Wallace’s chapter on the Australian constitution picks up many of the historical markers in my essay and expands on them. Similarly, Clarence Wright’s “Religion and the Law” adds yet another layer of knowledge to the ‘historical’ section of the book.

Robyn Williams (The Science Show) headlines the next section on personal experiences of being an atheist.

“What puzzles the atheist, even about full-square mainstream religions, is how many odd, or even mad, shibboleths they insist upon,” Williams explains.

Colette Livermore, formerly a nun with Mother Teresa’s order follows with the story of her loss of faith.

“Mother Teresa asserted that ‘she, who has herself for a guide, has a fool for a guide.’ However, if the inner core of one’s being is surrendered, what protection does the individual have against tyranny?”

The wonderful, amazing  Tanya Levin (author of People In Glass Houses: an insiders story of a life in and out of Hillsong)  is typically funny, moving and profound in her story of being brought up to be a ‘Kingdom woman’ in Sydney’s Hillsong Church.

“… we were schooled as women to be as the Proverbs 31 woman. Stepping one step up from the ‘Submissive Wife’ movement so popular in the States, the Proverbs 31 woman is all of those things without actually being human. She is Mrs America and the Bride of Christ.”

Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon’s chapter comes next, writing about growing up in an atheist/communist household and its impact on her political views.

“The curious thing is that, as Australian society has become increasingly secular, religion has more than ever begun to creep back into political life.”

I was delighted to discover that David Horton is a brilliant, funny and witty writer. His light-hearted (but serious) diatribe against agnostics draws on inspirations as diverse as My Fair Lady and Bob Dylan.

“Being agnostic is a bit like voting for the Iraq war and then saying later that you only did so because of the dodgy intelligence, knowing all along that there wasn’t dodgy intelligence; there was in fact no intelligence …”

And, finally, around 2am, I finished my night’s reading with Tim Minchin’s beat poem, Storm. I think all of us have been in Tim’s situation – sitting at a dinner party when someone spouts off with some absolute religious or new age garbage and despite urgent, silently mouthed warnings and furious kicking under the table from our partner our self-restraint fails and we explode:

“I’m becoming aware
That I’m staring,
I’m like a rabbit suddenly trapped
In the blinding headlights of vacuous crap.
Maybe it’s the Hamlet she just misquothed
Or the sixth glass of wine I just quaffed
But my diplomacy dyke groans
And the arsehole held back by its stones
Can be held back no more.”

I’m going to spend today reading the rest of the book.  Flipping through the pages I see that the Education section begins with my friend Hugh Wilson’s explanation of how Queensland’s secular education system was nobbled.

Professor Graham Oppy talks about evolution and creationism in Australian schools. The fabulous Kylie Sturgess gives us an insight into the life of an atheist teaching in religious schools:

“It’s 1999 and I am told that, as an employee of the nation of Islam, one of my duties is to supervise the female students of the college while they participate in Dhuhr. I make sure that my brightly dyed Coke-bottle red hair (invisible in the course of everyday work) is even more firmly sealed under my hijab ….”

A section of culture and society comes next, including essays on euthanasia and abortion from Dr Philip Nitschke and Leslie Cannold .  Jane Caro talks about atheism and feminism, while Karen Stollznow (now one of the hosts of the Point of Inquiry podcast) looks into spiritualism and pseudoscience.

The section on politics includes essays from politicians Ian Hunter, MLC and former senator Lyn Allison as well as prominent Australian journalist, Michael Bachelard and academic Russell Blackford.

The Philosophy section examines the possibility of a moral, spiritual and meaningful life as an atheist, while Tamas Pataki talks about religion and violence.

And, in the final section, Dr Adam Hamlin and Dr Rosemary Lyndall-Wemm take us inside the human brain in an attempt to explain the ‘religious experience’ in naturalistic terms.

Don’t miss this book – and please let your friends know about it. As Meg Wallace said to me last night – “At last! The Australian atheist Bible!” 😉

Chrys Stevenson

Related Links

Point of Inquiry – Karen Stollznow interviews Warren Bonett about The Australian Book of Atheism

Pre-order The Australian Book of Atheism at a discounted price from Embiggen Books.

Booktopia on The Australian Book of Atheism

More info from me on The Australian Book of Atheism including full chapter list.

Controversy has raged this week over allegations that some young women were sexually assaulted by two or more players of the Collingwood Football Club following Collingwood’s premiership win on Sunday, 3 October.

Two days later, footballer, Peter ‘Spida’ Everitt, made headlines after tweeting:

Girls!! When will you learn! At 3am when you are blind drunk & you decide to go home with a guy ITS NOT FOR A CUP OF MILO! Allegedly……

One sports blogger says, “I am sickened with these comments coming from a “respected” ex player. Everitt is virtually claiming that the girls have lied about a sex attack.”

That’s a huge misrepresentation of Everitt’s tweet.  Surely noting that the attack is ‘alleged’ isn’t tantamount to saying that the girls were lying.  And is Everitt wrong to suggest that it’s a really bad idea for a girl to get into a cab with a drunken footballer she’s only just met at 3am in the morning?  Frankly, if  he was giving that advice to any young lady of my acquaintance, I’d thank him for it.

The hysteria reached fever-pitch when Kerry-Anne Kennerley, host of Channel Nine’s Mornings with Kerry-Anne interviewed Everitt and weighed in with her own editorial comment, warning that AFL players “put themselves in harm’s way by picking up strays”.

The general response has been outrage that anyone would suggest, even obliquely, that the responsibility for rape, or sexual assault, could in any way be placed on a woman.

I have sat silently through the week, reading my fellow feminists’ comments on this issue and cautioning myself to keep my thoughts to myself lest I end up as pilloried as author, Helen Garner.  Garner found herself accused of being anti-feminist when, in The First Stone (1995),  she lamented the high cost of  (unproven) allegations of sexual harassment and assault on an academic at Ormond College, University of Melbourne.  By stating that the relatively minor allegations (lewd comments and a groped boob) might have been handled without resort to court action and the destruction of an academic career, Garner effectively declared hunting season open, and herself as the fox.  It was an object lesson for those of us who don’t always agree with the feminist consensus.

But, as my regular readers will know, sitting silently whilst steam is coming out of my ears is one of those things for which I have the least talent, and, of course, the temptation to argue my case has become irresistible.  It’s important to state that while my argument, below, does refer to girls in pubs and footballers, I am not referring specifically to the women or the footballers involved in the Collingwood incident as I have no knowledge of the circumstances pertaining to those allegations.

Firstly and unequivocally, I do not believe that any woman is to blame for being sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or raped.  I believe that men have a clear responsibility (regardless of whether they are sober or drunk) to ensure that they have the full, informed consent of a woman before engaging in any kind of sexual touching or sexual intercourse. No means no – at whatever stage of the ‘action’ “No” is given.  And a woman is who is high or rip-roaring drunk is obviously not in a condition to give informed consent.  If a man fails to obtain such consent and they continue anyway – even if the signals given by the woman are ‘mixed’ – then the blame lies with the man.  If men are unable to control their sexual inclinations whilst drunk, they should refrain from drinking in mixed company.

Further, I fully appreciate that sexual harassment is often perpetrated upon vulnerable young women in an unequal relationship to their harasser.  It isn’t easy to stand up to your boss  (especially if you really need to keep your job), or to your teacher or university professor who may retaliate with failing grades.  But, these days, there are protections against unlawful dismissal and universities take allegations of sexual harassment far more seriously than in the past.  My argument, unlike Garner’s isn’t that women shouldn’t resort to the law in what may appear to be minor cases of sexual harassment, but I do agree with her to the extent that there are options that may and should be pursued before taking that route.

That said, and as much as it pains me to agree with Spida Everitt and Kerry-Anne Kennerley, I think the hysteria over their comments is unwarranted.

There is a marked difference between responsibility and blame.  If I absent-mindedly leave the house without locking the front door and my house is burgled, the theft is not my fault, and the burglar is equally as guilty whether he came in by an unlocked front door or smashed a window to gain entry.  However, I must bear some responsibility for having been lax about the security of my home – and my insurance company may rightly take that lack of responsibility into consideration when considering whether to pay out on my claim.

No-one in their right mind would suggest that because the onus lies on burglars to control their urge to steal, we should assert our freedom and independence by leaving our houses unlocked.  Why then do some feminists (men and women) become so enraged when it is suggested that young women need to take some responsibility for their sexual safety?

I think suggesting to young women who dress provocatively, drink copiously and fraternize flirtatiously with footballers on a bender that they bear no responsibility for unwanted sexual advances is not only wildly unrealistic, but downright dangerous.  Yes, ideally, footballers (or indeed, men in general) should behave themselves and act with as much respect towards a drunken woman with her boobs hanging out as they would to a stone-cold sober nun in full habit.  But, realistically, it’s just not going to happen.  That doesn’t excuse the men’s bad behaviour.  However, it does mean that young women must be taught to take some responsibility for their own safety.

I have long been an advocate of raising young women to be confident and assertive.  We need to give girls the tools to keep themselves safe and, where possible, to avert unwanted sexual attention.  We need women warriors, not wimps, and I don’t believe we achieve that by telling young women they are not responsible, at least to some degree, for their own safety.

The difference between assertiveness and victim-hood is nicely expressed in an example from Australian scientist and academic, Dr Marjorie Curtis.

A couple of my experiences may be of interest … The [London] Tube is well known for its gropers, and I remember an occasion where a man started groping me, getting bolder and bolder as time went on. I tried to move away but he wouldn’t let me. He was also making verbal threats. Luckily I was near the door, and when I arrived at my destination I leapt off the train at the last minute, and was relieved to see him being carried away by the train. I was absolutely terrified.

However, I was put to shame not long after when a friend encountered the same situation. She had more confidence than I, and grabbed the man’s hand and somehow managed to haul it over her head, saying, ‘There is a hand on my body. It is not my hand. I wonder whose hand it may be?’ The groper turned scarlet and shot off the train at the next station, to the applause of most of the passengers.

Her action turned a potentially nasty situation into a comic one, and probably put the groper off for life, whereas my cowardice merely left my groper confident that he had power over women, and could get away with quite unforgiveable behaviour.

Curtis’ account reminds me of a similar situation I had with an over-amorous boss when I was 20 years old.  Soon after starting my employment, I found myself cornered in the photo-copying room with my boss leaning across my body, his hands pressing against the wall above my shoulders.  There was no escape.  I said quietly. “Mr Smith, if you make one more move I will raise my knee and kick you so hard in the groin that you will be black and blue for a month.  Further, I will then call your wife and tell her why I am sending you home with bruised balls.  Do I make myself clear?”

Smith said, “Oh, so that’s how it is, eh?”

“That’s how it is,” I replied.

“OK, now I know,” he said, “Thank you for making your position clear.”

I never had another problem with him and, in fact, some time later I received a generous raise in salary.

Now, it was certainly not my fault that Mr Smith decided to sexually harass me, but I did feel I had a responsibility to take assertive action to resist it. If you like, I felt a responsibility to ‘man up’ and be my own advocate.  I refused to be a victim.

Similarly, a woman who decides to go out drinking with footballers should feel perfectly free to do so – and to dress as she pleases and drink as much as she likes – but at the point at which she is invited to accompany a footballer home (or to a hotel room/dark alley or similar), assuming she doesn’t want to have sex with him, she has a responsibility to herself to say, “Nah, I’ve had too much to drink, and so have you, I think I’ll just go home.  Here’s my number, call me tomorrow when we’re both sober if you’re still interested.”

If we are going to argue that a drunken woman isn’t in full control of her faculties and therefore can’t take that level of responsibility, then don’t we also have to argue that a drunken man’s responsibility in making decisions is similarly impaired?  That’s where the legal slippery slope begins. My argument is that drunkenness is no excuse – you may have diminished responsibility when drunk, but you always have the choice of whether or not to get so drunk that you can’t make reasonable decisions.  Your responsibility, whether you’re a man or a woman, begins before you get smashed.

Let me recount another personal experience.  I was just 15 years old when, to my parents’ horror, I started hanging out with bikies.  On one occasion –  I couldn’t have been more than 16 – I found myself, very late at night, in a disused quarry full of drunken bikies.  I had put myself in that predicament.  Nobody forced me.  I had chosen to fraternize with bikies, I’d chosen the cute little see-through top I was wearing with a view to titilliating, I’d chosen to down a few drinks and I’d chosen to get on the back of a bike and go to the party.  At one point, when the party started to get very rough, I felt a hand on my shoulder.  A young bikie whispered in my ear, “Come on, things are getting out of hand, I’m going to get you out of here.”  And he put me on his bike and took me home.  Had I been raped that night I would not have been to blame, but I would have been, in part, responsible for putting myself in a situation where I was at risk.  The young man who saved me, Graham, (I still remember his name), not only saved me, but protected his mates as well.

While men must bear the blame for sexual harassment, assault and rape, women cannot exonerate themselves from the responsibility of looking out for their own security and for advocating for themselves.  Both men and women must also be pro-active in looking out for each other.   In some cases this will not be sufficient, but in many cases it will.  Sexually aggressive men are bullies and, often, cowards.  The best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.  The victims of bullying are not to blame for the bully’s actions, but they can learn to take responsibility for deflecting or avoiding the attacks.

I must add, at this point, that I am fully aware that many victims of sexual assault and rape have not recklessly put themselves at risk and I am well aware that once a sexual attack has commenced, only the victim, herself, can decide whether resistance or compliance is the best strategy to minimise her risk of serious injury or death.   My argument here should not be construed as saying that every woman who gets raped has been reckless with her personal safety, or that every woman who is assaulted should fight back.  Context is everything.  Neither am I saying that because a woman is drunk or reckless it should be a mitigating factor in favour of the assailant.  Absolutely, unequivocally, I am not arguing that at all.

But to paint women, universally, as the helpless victims of male sexual aggression is to infantilise us and, may I say, emasculate us.  Women can have ‘balls’ and we need to encourage that in our young women.  We need to teach men that ‘no means no’ but, equally, we need to teach women how and when to say no – and in most instances, that ‘no’ is going to be far more effective before you get into a cab with a drunken man you’ve only just met at 3am in the morning.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Articles

A chilling realisation of how close I might have come to rape by Campbell Mattinson, SMH

Talking about rape by Leslie Cannold, The Age

Time to recognize the ‘me’ in blame by Gretel Killeen, Brisbane Times

When I woke up this morning, I found my elderly mother already up and watching the television.

“One of your mob’s been burning Bibles,” she said, faintly amused.

“One of my mob?  You mean an atheist?” I said.

“Yes.  It was on the news.”

“An Australian atheist?”

“That’s what they said.”

“Well it wouldn’t be anyone I know,” I said, confidently.  “Probably just some nutter.”

“Oh wait, here’s the news on now, come and watch.”

And there, on the television was someone I do know – Alex Stewart, a lawyer, and member of the Brisbane Atheists.

“Oh dear, Alex,” I thought,  “What have you done?”

What Alex did was to post a video on YouTube, showing himself in the midst of a tongue-in-cheek experiment to determine which burned better; the Bible or the Koran.

The news, in recent days, has been full of an American evangelist threatening to burn copies of the Koran.  This, apparently, was Alex’s response to the outcry.  Alex’s method of determining the burning properties of the holy texts was to use leaves of the books as cigarette papers to roll what appeared to be joints.

“Oooh, I think I just tongued Jesus,” says Alex, licking a page from the Bible.

“I wonder what Mohammed, would have thought about this?” Alex muses as he rolls a page from the Koran.

“Is this profanity? Is it blasphemy? And does it really matter?  I guess that’s the point with all this crap.  It’s just a fuckin’ book.  Who cares?  Who cares?  Like, you know, it’s your beliefs that matter … and, quite frankly, if you’re going to get upset about a book you’re taking life way too seriously. Where did I put that fuckin’ lighter?”

“The final point which I would like to make,” says Alex, “which I think a lot of people ignore, is that it’s just a book and, like, you can burn a flag, no-one cares, like, people get over it.  So, with respect to books – like the Bible, the Koran whatever – just get over it.  I mean it’s not as though they’re burning your copy – they’re burning someone else’s. That said, I don’t think it’s completely appropriate unless it’s done for a good purpose which, um, I’d say I’ve done today.”

A disclaimer at the end of the video clarifies Alex’s point in making the piece:  Why get upset when someone disrespects your beliefs?  It’s not like you lose the belief.

After watching the video I checked my inbox and found it bulging with emails from people asking, “Do you know this person?  What do you think about this?”

I have to admit that my first reaction was that I didn’t like it.  To me, it was unnecessarily provocative, slightly juvenile, and, above all, a monumental waste of Alex’s considerable intellectual gifts.  In short, I was disappointed in Alex.  Here is someone with the talent to be a future leader of the new Enlightenment and, instead, he opted for notoriety and 15 minutes of fame by taking a cheap shot which would inevitably make the rest of us look bad.

By mid-morning it became apparent that Alex’s stunt had gained national media interest.  He was even the opening story on Kerry-Anne Kennerley’s advertorial morning show.  By late afternoon, the video had been deleted from Alex’s YouTube channel.  Tonight, I assume, Alex will be on the news and the current affairs shows – unless his employer has issued an ultimatum during the day.

One has to give Alex credit, at least, for having ‘cut through’ to gain national media exposure about issues of free speech, the limits of religious tolerance, and the right to blaspheme.  He has given the country something to think about.  He has launched a discussion that will reach beyond the halls of academia and into people’s living rooms.  And, let it be said, Alex has made some very good points; principally, I think, the fact that someone burning a holy book is attacking only printed paper – they are not causing believers or their beliefs any actual harm.  Alex has made himself an object lesson for Phillip Pullman’s oft repeated injunction:   “… no-one has the right to live without being shocked.  No-one has the right to spend their life without being offended.”

Importantly, Alex’s video is part of a wider topical debate within the atheist and skeptical communities.  How do we best achieve our goals?  Should we engage only in calm, rational and respectful debate?  Or should we heap derision on ideas we believe are not only delusional, but dangerous?   Christians are hardly polite in dealing with atheists – should we respond in kind?

Former JREF president, Phil Plait recently sparked intense debate in the atheist and skeptical communities with his “Don’t be a dick”  talk at the James Randi Educational Foundation’s TAM8, convention.

“… there’s been some alarming developments in the way skepticism is being done,” says Plait, “ … the tone of what we’re doing is decaying.  And, instead of relying on the merits of the arguments … it seems that vitriole and venom are on the rise.

… The message we’re trying to convey is hard all by it’s lonesome … [it’s] a tough sell.

… Right now in this movement … hubris is running rampant and egos are out of check … What I’m … concerned with is our demeanour … remember, the odds are against us, there are more of them then there are of us … we have to admit that our reputation amongst the majority of the population is not exactly stellar”

Plait asks his audience to consider how best to achieve the goal of ‘selling’ rationalism.  He continues:

“The key, is obvious to me, at least … it’s communication … [therefore] our demeanour – how we deliver this message –  takes on crucial, crucial importance …”

Using insults [and make no mistake, Christians and Muslims alike will find Alex’s video insulting], says Plait, is like using a loaded weapon.

“ … we need to be exceedingly careful where we aim that weapon … when you’re dealing with someone who disagrees with you, what is your goal?  … it may rally the troops, it may even foment people to  help you and to take action … but is your goal to score a cheap point, or is your goal to win the damn game?

.. When somebody is being attacked and insulted they tend to get defensive.  They’re not in the best position to be either rational or self-introspective … in the skeptic movement we have our share of people who are a bit short in the politeness department … Taking the low road doesn’t help.  It doesn’t make you stronger, it doesn’t make you look good, and it doesn’t change anyone’s minds.”

“In times of war,” says Plait, “we need warriors.  But this isn’t a war … we aren’t trying to kill an enemy, we’re trying to persuade other humans.  And, at times like that we don’t need warriors.  What we need are diplomats.”

Before engaging with our opponents, he concludes, we must first ask ourselves, “What is my goal?” and then ask, “Is this going to help?”  Secondly:

“… and not to put too finer point on it, don’t be a dick! …  But, Seriously, OK, don’t.  Don’t be a dick.  All being a dick does is score cheap points.  It does not win the hearts and minds of people everywhere and, honestly, winning those hearts and minds, that’s our goal!”

Plait’s “Don’t be a dick” speech sparked a rash of debate on the internet.  Even Richard Dawkins joined in the fray, saying:

“ … Plait naively presume[s], throughout his lecture, that the person we are ridiculing is the one we are trying to convert. Speaking for myself, it is often a third party (or a large number of third parties) who are listening in, or reading along … I am amazed at Plait’s naivety in overlooking that and treating it as obvious that our goal is to convert the target of our ridicule. Ridicule may indeed annoy the target and cause him to dig his toes in. But our goal might very well be (in my case usually is) to influence third parties, sitting on the fence, or just not very well-informed about the issues.  And to achieve that goal, ridicule can be very effective indeed.”

PZ Myers, perhaps one of the most successful, and tactless, campaigners for disbelief and skepticism backs Dawkins:

“I’ve been totally unimpressed with the arguments from the side of nice, not because I disagree with the idea that positive approaches work, but because they ignore the complexity of the problem and don’t offer any solutions   …  We don’t need to be trivially abusive, but on subjects we care about deeply, we should express ourselves with passion.”

Curiously, even Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, while not exactly condoning atheist attacks,  concedes that the rhetoric of some evangelical leaders has been so strident they have invited an in-kind rebuke from non-believers.

“We have done a terrible job of presenting our perspective as a plausible world view that has implications for public life and for education, presenting that in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of people who may disagree,” he said. “Whatever may be wrong with Christopher Hitchens’ attacks on religious leaders, we have certainly already matched it in our attacks.”

I have two views on Alex’s video.  My personal or ‘gut-instinct’ view is that I wouldn’t have done it, I don’t ‘approve’ of it, and I don’t think the cost, either to our community or to Alex personally, is worth the brief, if intense, amount of publicity it will elicit.  But, my intellectual view as a historian and sociologist is somewhat less emotional and more tempered.  I have learned that every social movement needs both intellectuals and radical agitators.  No social movement has ever succeeded without both – and both usually work in tension with each other.  The Civil Rights movement was advanced by both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.  The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer’s brilliant intellectual treatise on feminism was equally supported by ‘strident’ feminists burning their bras in the street.  The Vietnam War was halted by diplomatic efforts and by university students marching the streets with placards.  I’m also pretty sure that many quiet campaigners for gay rights were horrified and not a little concerned about their credibility when that movement exploded into parades featuring gay men in fishnet stockings and pink feather boas!  But, in each case, the two-pronged strategy has worked.

So, while I would not have chosen Alex’s approach, I defend his right to take the path he has chosen.  I also concede that my ‘gut-instinct’ in this case is very likely wrong.  While I’m not the type of person to burn my bra, ride on a float in a skimpy outfit, argue with the bellicosity of Malcolm X, or march through the streets (I attended my first, quiet protest this year at the age of 51!), that doesn’t mean that those choices are not valid.  Alex is not me, so Alex doesn’t have to conform to my choices or sensibilities.  I accept that I don’t have the right not to be offended by Alex’s video.  And I agree absolutely with his point, that those who take offence at something with does not materially effect either them or their faith, only gives fuel to the fire being stoked by their detractors.  As one wit on Twitter posted today:

“News” : copies of The God Delusion burnt by Muslim/Christian groups.

Response from atheists –  “Meh”.

I don’t like Alex’s approach – it makes me uncomfortable, and embarrassed.  I fear for the consequences.  I don’t like seeing Alex being called ‘an idiot’ on television.  Although the wisdom of his actions may be debatable, he is far from an idiot.  But, despite my misgivings, Alex has my support and I trust that he will similarly give others in the movement, who may make choices he doesn’t agree with, the benefit of the doubt, and support them in their choice  to take a path he wouldn’t.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Posts:

Brisbane Atheist embarrasses fellow non-believers in lame stunt – by Jayson D Cooke

One way holy books can alter your brain – by PZ Myers, Pharyngula

Hero or Villian? Neither. He’s an idiot. – by John Birmingham, Brisbane Times

Offend the religious and you may lose your job – by Sean the Blogonaut

NOVEMBER 2010 RELEASE – AVAILABLE ALL GOOD BOOKSTORES INCLUDING ABC SHOPS, READINGS BOOKS & BOOKTOPIA, OR PRE-ORDER NOW FROM EMBIGGEN BOOKS.

Over 18 months ago, Warren Bonett and I were having dinner in a pub at Noosa. He said, “I’m thinking of doing a book on Australian atheism.”
I said, “Great idea! I’ll help.”

I hurried home and drew up a long list of possible contributors and Warren pretty well did all the rest!

I can remember Woz and I swapping excited emails as amazing people we’d admired from afar said, “Yes, we’ll contribute!”

I don’t think either of us had any clue just how much work it would involve  and Warren –  with help from his partner, Kirsty Bruce, Karen Stollznow and our friend, Jode –  has done the vast bulk of the work while also running his science-based bookshop Embiggen Books at Noosaville (also online).

There were worried weeks when we wondered whether it would find a publisher and then jubilation when Henry Rosenbloom, the founder of Scribe, contacted Warren personally to accept the book.

Weeks of editing followed and, now that the book is in its final stages, Scribe has announced a publication date of December 2010. Scribe is touting The Australian Book of Atheism as its ‘anti-Christmas’ book.  The book is an anthology of essays from around 35 Australian authors including:

• Educator, skeptic, blogger and podcaster Kylie Sturgess aka PodBlack Cat;
• Bioethicist, Leslie Cannold;
• Radio National’s Robyn Williams (the Science Show);
• Former nun, Colette Livermore;
• Former Hillsong member, Tanya Levin;
• Academic and philosopher,  Russell Blackford;
• Entertainer, Tim Minchin;
• Karen Stollznow, skeptic and presenter of the Point of Inquiry radio show and podcast;
• Former senator Lyn Allison;
• Author, social commentator and media personality, Jane Caro (Gruen Nation);
• Journalist and author, Michael Bachelard;
• Politician,Lee Rhiannon,
• Philosopher of religion, Professor Graham Oppy,
• Academic, Max Wallace, director of the Australia New Zealand Secular Association and author of  The Purple Economy;
• Me (on the history of Australian atheism) and many more.

My chapter took months to research and more months to write and polish.  Ambitiously (OK – over ambitiously) it covers the history of Australian atheism and freethought from 1788 to the present.  I was astounded at the amount of material I uncovered – some of it hilariously  funny and some it heart-breakingly sad.  I finished the chapter feeling that this country’s heritage and national identity owes a good deal more to irreligion than to Christianity.

And now, in just a few short months, our book will be on the shelves of  Australia’s major book stores!  I really can’t describe the excitement to see this little idea, hatched over a couple of glasses of wine in a pub, come to fruition!

I do hope my readers will add it to their ‘Mythmas’ list.

Pre-orders can be made now, for a discounted price at Embiggen Books.

Chrys Stevenson

Update

19 August 2010 –  The chapter list for The Australian Book of Atheism has been released. I’m very proud to be in with the first chapter and amongst such prestigious company. Take a look! Pre-orders available now – publication late November/December:

• Chrys Stevenson [Historian], Felons, Ratbags, Commies and Left-Wing Loonies [The history of Australian atheism]

• Max Wallace [Australia New Zealand Secular Assoc], The Constitution, Belief and the State

• Clarence Wright [Lawyer], Religion, and the Law in Australia

• Robyn Williams [The Science Show, Radio National], A Part-time Atheist

• Dr Colette Livermore [former Sister of Mercy nun], Atheism: an explanation for the believer

• Tanya Levin [former Hillsong member, feminist, author People In Glass Houses], Above Rubies

• Hon. Lee Rhiannon [former MP, Senate candidate], Growing up Atheist

• David Horton [BA, BSc, MSc, PhD, DLitt – biologist, archaeologist], Agnostics are Nowhere Men

• Tim Minchin [entertainer], Storm

• Hugh Wilson [Australian Secular Lobby], Public Education in Queensland

• Peter Ellerton [Australian Skeptics, Winner of the 2008 Prize for Critical Thinking], Theology is Not Philosophy

• Professor Graham Oppy [Philosopher of Religion], Evolution vs Creationism in Australian Schools

• Graeme Lindenmayer [Rationalist Society of Australia], Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory

• Kylie Sturgess [Podblack Cat/Token Skeptic], Atheism 2.0

• Dr Martin Bridgstock [Senior Lecturer, Biomolecular and Physical Sciences], Religion, Fundamentalism & Science

• Dr Philip Nitschke [Founder/Director Exit International], Atheism & Euthanasia

• Alex McCullie [blogger, CAE tutor on Atheist Philosophy], Progressive Christianity: A Secular Response

• Dr Leslie Cannold [Bioethicist], Abortion in Australia

• Jane Caro [Author, Social Commentator], Why Gods are Man-Made

• Dr Karen Stollznow, Spiritualism & Pseudoscience

• Rosslyn Ives [Council of Australian Humanist Societies] Life, Dying & Death

• Hon. Ian Hunter MLC, Prayers in Australian Parliament

• Lyn Allison [former Senator], Ever Wondered Why God is a Bloke?

• Michael Bachelard [Journalist], Politics and The Exclusive Brethren

• Dr Russell Blackford [Philosopher, co-editor 50 Voices of Disbelief], Free Speech

• Dr John S Wilkins [Philosopheer], The Role of Secularism in Protecting Religion

• Warren Bonett [Editor], Why a Book on Atheist Thought in Australia?

• Dr Robin Craig [Geneticist, Philosopher], Good without God

• Ian Robinson [Rationalist Society of Australia], Atheism as a Spiritual Path

• Professor Peter Woolcock [Humanist, Ethicist], Atheism & the Meaning of Life

• Dr Tamas Pataki [Philosopher], Religion & Violence

• Dr Adam Hamlin [Neuroscientist], The Neurobiology of Religious Experience

• Dr Rosemary Lyndall Wemm [Neuropsychologist], The Neurology of Belief

More

Here, courtesy of Embiggen Books, are some wonderful videos of presentations by Warren Bonett, editor of the Australian Book of Atheism, and Russell Blackford one of the authors.

Gladly’s Book Recommendations

Gladly’s looking forward to a very large pot of honey once those royalties start rolling in!  If you can’t wait until December to read a great book on atheism, try these books which you can order online from  Embiggen Books.

The Australian Book of Atheism edited by Warren Bonett (pre-order now at discounted price)

50 Voices of Disbelief by Udo Shucklenk and Russell Blackford

Hope Endures by Colette Livermore

The Purple Economy:  Supernatural Charities, Tax and the State by Max Wallace

Behind the Exclusive Brethren, Michael Bachelard

Against Religion Tamas Pataki

People in Glass Houses, Tanya Levin

If Alex’s Wildman’s suicide (discussed in my previous article) raises concerns about the National School Chaplaincy Program, consider the teenagers who are probably most at risk in our schools. Research studies reveal that one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. Considering that gay teens only comprise one-tenth of the school population, this means that they are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth.

So to whom do we entrust these vulnerable young people? Evangelistic, fundamentalist Christians. As Adele Horin wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:

“… Religious institutions remain the last bastion of bigotry. They have resisted the evidence from health and legal professionals that homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality. They have instead maintained a hardline interpretation of a few scattered references in the Bible.

… Church leaders should be spreading a message of love and acceptance of gays. Instead, they are part of the problem.”

The Australian Coalition for Equality’s spokesperson, Rod Swift, says his organisation has concerns about the abilities of chaplains to counsel young people dealing with issues of sexuality. But are those concerns misplaced? Let’s look at what one of the organisations which supplies chaplains to Australian schools thinks about homosexuality.

GenR8 Ministries says they ‘utterly reject and repudiate’ the assumption that homosexuality should be regarded as ‘acceptable sexual behaviour’. Instead, they are in favour of ‘a healthy and wholesome society in which young people are brought up effectively to their full humanity.’

What? Rewind that. Are they really suggesting that homosexual people are not ‘fully human’??? Is that the message their chaplains give to young people who come to them with issues about sexuality?

GenR8 opposes efforts to:

“enforce favourable attitudes to groups with sexual practices that are proscribed in, not only our authoritative Scriptures, but in the teachings of other major religions.”

They note that:

“Homosexual activity as with heterosexual fornication and adultery are serious sins in Christian theology and Biblical teaching, and we are committed to teaching this.”

This attitude, of course, contravenes the policies of Australia’s public education departments and GenR8 are well aware of this. GenR8 Minisitries freely admit the conflict in values:

“There is increasing awkwardness in teaching Christian sexual ethics when schools have secular humanist policies that clearly conflict with this teaching.”

They go on to complain that:

“… to be asked to collude in wrongdoing of such a kind as this that does so much damage to the people involved themselves as well as giving the worst kind of messages to young people trying to consolidate their sexual identity and form healthy relationships with proper sexual discipline is totally unacceptable to us.”

Chillingly, GenR8 note that they do not oppose homosexuality, per se, only homosexual acts which they regard as ‘fornication’. They add that the idea of same sex marriage is ‘repugnant’. Their view, clearly expressed, is that sexual activity outside of marriage is unacceptable, and that gay people should never be allowed to marry – and therefore, should never be permitted to express their sexuality physically.

Given this, we can expect that the advice given to a troubled gay teen by a GenR8 chaplain would be either:

a) change or deny your sexuality (or, indeed, ‘pray the gay away’) or,

b) accept your sexual ‘inclination’ but look forward to a celibate life with no prospect of physical intimacy with a life partner of your choice and, of course, no children.

Can you imagine the psychological torment such advice inflicts on a sensitive teenager?

Former Jesuit, William Glenn a graduate of a Catholic high school which embodied these kinds of attitudes describes his experience as a gay teen:

During puberty’s final onslaught I came to believe that I was evil. And more: that I was sick, sinful and unacceptable in the eyes of the world. All our culture’s words and notions and judgments came home to roost in me, a 16-year-old gay boy, whom the world, let alone his parents, could not know. But finally, and primarily, I came to believe that I was unacceptable as a human being in the eyes of God. The more I prayed to be changed, which was the concentrated content of my prayer (deeply aware that I had not chosen this but believing it was visited upon me because of my sinfulness), I regarded my not changing as God’s judgment on me. [I was] abandoned .. to despair because the person I had become could effect no change, could not desist from either my feelings or my desires, no matter how hard I fought them or prayed to be delivered from them. In the end, I was utterly alone.

But, according to GenR8, this isn’t really a problem because:

“The issue has not yet emerged to our knowledge in relation to our chaplains – perhaps partly because they do not have a formal religious teaching function and are not to proselytize.”

Strange, then, that the 2009 National School Chaplaincy Association (NSCA) report (quoted by the Australian Psychological Society) , found that 40% of school chaplains say that they deal with issues of student sexuality. But GenR8 are Christians – they wouldn’t lie, would they?

So, how do chaplains deal with students who have issues relating to sexuality? I don’t doubt that many are sensitive and accepting but I also have no doubt that many are not.

In a letter to the Atheist Foundation of Australia, for example, a former student of Victoria Point High School alleges that the chaplain was distributing “Jack Chick” style anti-homosexual pamphlets to students.

In Western Australia,  ‘Anita’ – a teacher with two teaching excellence awards – alleges that, until recently, her school had “a chaplain from the Church of Christ who handed out anti-gay leaflets”. That same chaplain, says Anita, refused to provide pastoral care for a gay student:

“He did not counsel a gay student who’d had a knife held to his throat. That same student came back to school the next day because his mum had taken it to the police who said they [couldn’t] do anything about it… He headed back to school and was beaten up that day by the other students…”

When Anita suggested that some measures should be put in place for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual) students the chaplain sarcastically replied, “Why don’t you do something for left-handers?”

Shocked, Anita said that she would:

“… when he could tell me about left-handed people who are not allowed to be open about being left-handed, who are beaten up at school because of it, thrown out of their homes, labelled as pedophiles and rejected by their families…”

Anita’s championing of gay students was not a hit at her previous school, either. She tells the story of being paired with the chaplain in the staff’s ‘Kris Kringle’ (similar to Secret Santa). Of their exchange of gifts she says:

“I received…a cactus in a little pot with a blue ribbon on it… A banana and two kiwi fruits … A cucumber with a red condom on it with a Father Christmas face on it …  And a cheap shitty Christmas stocking …”

A chaplain in regional WA confessed that, even if she knew a student was gay, she wouldn’t take any action unless it became ‘an issue’. This is chillingly reminiscent of the Alex Wildman case, with the school waiting until it was too late to intervene with an ‘at risk’ child. Given that research evidence shows clearly that gay students are most at risk before they come out to anyone, the approach of waiting for students to come out before providing support could be deadly.

The WA chaplain defended the lack of proactive support for gay students. She feared that if she talked about homosexuality, the kids might want to try it. She felt that talking about the subject might somehow ‘glorify it’. But research at Deakin University has found that the only effect of pro-active education about homosexuality was to reduce teenage students’  homophobic attitudes and behaviours. Teaching kids about homosexuality in no way made them more prone to experiment or to become more sexually active. Of course, we could expect a trained counsellor or psychologist to know that. We can’t expect an unqualified chaplain, whose church tells him that homosexuality is a sin and can be ‘cured’, to either be familiar with, or to accept, such research.

Julia Gillard’s announcement that a re-elected Labor Government would spend another 220 million of tax-payers’ dollars to expand the current National School Chaplaincy Program by more than 33% should outrage every parent. How much more responsible it would be to spend that $220 million – or more – on full-time, qualified counsellors for our kids. It’s not as if the chaplains are a complement to counsellors. School counsellors, it seems, are nearly as rare as hen’s teeth! Take a look at the results from a 2008 study of the ratios of counsellors to students in our public schools.

ACT – 1 counsellor to 850 students

NT – 1 to 2500

NSW – 1 to 1050

QLD – 1 to 1300

SA – 1 to 1994 (at best)

TAS – 1 to 1800.

But, is our government committing more money to counsellors? No, they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on unqualified people with a religious agenda! As my friend, Sean the Blogonaut (a teacher himself) says, “Who would you prefer to work with your troubled teen? A qualified counsellor or a retired motor mechanic?” (the only professional qualification of a chaplain of Sean’s acquaintance).

What price do we put on our children’s welfare and mental health? This should be a national scandal! What would be the reaction if adults needing psychological assistance were told by Medicare or their private health fund to visit their local minister or pastor instead – because it was cheaper?

The National School Chaplaincy Program must be stopped. It is nothing more than a means by which politicians are attempting to buy votes from right-wing Christians. It has nothing whatever to do with the best mental-health outcomes for our children.

Julia Gillard’s announcement shows that she is willing to sacrifice Australian children’s welfare in return for Christian votes. That is, quite frankly, sickening. It now appears that the only way to stop this ill-advised and dangerous program is the High Court action which will challenge the scheme on constitutional grounds.

It was announced, this week, that high-profile Sydney barrister, Bret Walker, SC will lead the legal team engaged for this land-mark constitutional challenge. The importance of having the case represented by such a leading figure in Australian law cannot be overstated. Walker is one of Australia’s leading barristers. He has been president of both the NSW Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia and Governor of the Law Foundation of NSW. He is Editor of the NSW Law Reports and Director of the Australian Academy of Law. It is exciting that such a high profile, well-informed, legal luminary believes that Ron’s case is strong with a high chance of success.

Walker will be supported by barrister, Gerald Ng, and the law firm, Horowitz and Bilinsky. The next step in the legal process is approaching, and further details will be released when it occurs.

In the meantime, if you have read this series of articles –

Part One: A Fox in the Henhouse

Part Two: Russian Roulette

Part Three: Gay Teens at Risk from School Chaplaincy

and you share my concerns about the National School Chaplaincy Program, I urge you to dig deep and donate to the High Court Challenge team.

Chrys Stevenson

8 August 2010: The Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, will today announce an allocation of $222 million to boost the number of chaplains in schools by more than one-third, which would mean about 3700 schools will be covered under the voluntary scheme introduced by the Howard government.

First time comments on this blog are moderated, but will be approved as soon as possible.

Further Action

If you oppose the National School Chaplaincy scheme, please donate to the High Court Challenge against National School Chaplaincy.  A paypal facility is available on the website.

Ron Williams, a parent from Toowoomba, is bravely taking on the government and arguing against this scheme on constitutional grounds.  He has recently announced that high profile lawyer, Bret Walker SC will lead the legal team. Walker will be supported by Gerald Ng, Barrister, and the law firm, Horowitz and Bilinsky.

Note – money raised for the High Court Challenge goes into a trust for the payment of legal fees, not to Ron Williams and his family. For a small (or large) investment, this is a chance to be a part of Australian history.

Gladly’s Book Recommendations

Gladly’s favourite book store for online purchases is Embiggen Books.  If you’ve found this article interesting you may enjoy this further reading:

Same Sex Different Cultures: Gays and Lesbians Across Cultures by Gilbert H Herdt

Similar Articles

Jesus weeps for Gillard the hypocrite, Ben Sandilands, The Stump