in service of the
There are many aspects to marriage. The State quite rightly has an interest from a legal perspective. Legality includes determining eligibility, ensuring proper and free consent, making provision for property title, taxation, welfare benefits, and the rights and responsibilities that relate to children. The State provides legal security through licence, legally in force until death or divorce. The State records termination through death, divorce or nullity. Marriage celebrants (ministers of religion and civil celebrants) act on behalf of the state in formalising the legal marriage agreement between the parties. It is of course in the interest of the State that marriages are stable and contribute to a harmonious and peaceful civil society.
Unsurprisingly Australia followed the English pattern in authorising registered ministers of religion to act on its behalf: those so registered need to follow the authorised rite of their denomination or religious identity in the formalising of the marriage. More lately authorised civil celebrants have multiplied as the need for a marriage celebration outside a religious building has increased. Often these civil celebrants use a rite with quasi religious overtones “for better or worse, for richer or poorer” etc.
For many, perhaps most, marriage is of course more than a legal contract, it is a covenant of love between two people in which commitment is made to serve honour and respect one another, indeed to fulfil the life of the other. Religious conviction undergirds marriage with various levels of covenantal love and commitment. I am committed to a lifelong union. I believe the covenant is made with divine sanction and therefore is a union of grace. The arrival of children and grandchildren deepen the union and extend the layers of responsibility and accountability.
Marriage as I understand it is a commitment between a man and a woman.
But do the legal requirements of marriage by the state and the covenantal or sacramental expression of the couples love need to be formally linked? I do not think they can any longer; indeed the linking of them is causing unnecessary hurt and division in Australian society.
It has been my conviction for some time that the legal requirements of the state for the registering of a marriage should now be separated from the covenantal expression of love for each other, expressed either through a secular ceremony or a religious one. Marriage celebrants, be they ministers of religion or civil celebrants, should no longer do the work of the State. The work of the State should be done formally at a state sanctioned place of registry according to the requirements of law.
This would then free up couples to celebrate their covenantal love for one another as they choose. This would allow religious ceremonies to take on very specific meaning and would be prepared accordingly.
This week Senator Penny Wong has re-entered the marriage debate seemingly suggesting that people of religious conviction should not impact the lives of others through opposition to same-sex union. Being a Christian herself, this is an interesting position to hold. Everyone is entitled to contribute to the debate. It is my contention that Penny’s position can only be taken seriously if the separation I am suggesting takes place. The state has the right, indeed the obligation to enact laws which further the lives of the majority of its citizens. Given polls suggest the majority favour ‘marriage equality’ then this legal provision should be provided to all.
‘Marriage’ would then have different layers of meaning as a great many words or concepts do in every language. Marriage would mean a legal contract entered into according to the legislated provisions of the parliament. It would also have another meaning all together expressed through the religious or secular ceremony of choice. The latter would normally be the ceremony into which considerable investment is made and to which family and friends gather. The former would be a formality according to law. The latter would be open to the institution (or person) responsible to agree or decline to agree to participate in the intended union. The sacramental celebration of the couple’s love could (probably should) be accompanied with a jointly signed certificate which celebrates the intention of the ceremony. It may also become normal for this union to be reinforced through celebrations every seven or ten years.
The marriage debate has met an unfortunate impasse. Overcoming this impasse will not heal the rift that already exists. Whatever decision is made, some will feel vindicated and others aggrieved.
Separating the legal requirement of the State from the covenantal expression of love seems to me to overcome this impasse.
On 12 May I accepted an invitation to be one of the speakers at a forum on “Social Justice: Israel/Palestine” held at the Wheeler Centre Melbourne. On reflection it is one invitation I should not have accepted.
Since the night I have been seeking to confirm its sponsor. I have been told it was Dialogue4Peace. So far I have unsuccessfully tried to find any information about the group, its members, or its purpose. Why didn’t I do due diligence before the evening? Good question, with a fine sounding name I assumed ‘dialogue’ and ‘peace’.
Why angst after the event? Because it was an event the like of which I cannot recall experiencing in now more than 50 years of public life. Neither ‘dialogue’ nor ‘peace’ was on the agenda that night. At least it gave me a momentary glimpse into the world Palestinians suffer 24/7.
There was no dialogue, just raw confrontation. Material left on the seats for the audience to pick up was spiteful, and presented a generic picture of Palestinians as terrorists, devoid of morality and the cause of the ongoing conflict. I and the Palestinian speaker Yousef Alreemawi, provided information about APAN and copies of the Kairos statement, a theological and social justice statement signed by leaders of the Middle East Council of Churches.
The opening speech at the forum was an unrelenting attack on me, presumably because I speak in defence of Palestinian rights as President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. The second speaker in support of Israel’s position was a Coptic Christian. I totally understand the depth of anguish she feels as a result of the atrocities meted out to Coptic Church membership in Egypt from extreme elements claiming to be Islamic. As a fellow Christian I identify with the anguish, but what has that to do with Palestinians? It is also important to remember that following these atrocities grassroots Egyptian Muslims came to the aid, defence and support of their Coptic fellow citizens.
The assertion at the heart of the presentation exonerating Israel and blaming the Palestinians was that this is essentially a religious conflict and more specifically a religious conflict being waged by extreme elements of Islam. It of course suits Israel for this assertion to be made because it allows Israel to justify (to itself and its friends) its military incursions and its oppression of Palestinians on the basis that it is joining the free world in a global fight against Islamic terrorism. It would have been good if the forum could have debated this out. But it was not to be. Fortunately this terrible misrepresentation of truth has not been swallowed by most in the international community although of course it is peddled as truth in America and Australia. Regular polls indicate that the majority of Australians have not swallowed it either, although it appears to suit many of our political elite to run this line.
Does injustice provide a seedbed for extremism – yes it does. Is a convenient flag of identity for extremism a religious flag – yes it is. Do the extremists live out the values of the religious flag they carry – no they don’t. Should a civilian population be corporately punished for the acts of violence of a few – no of course they should not. But shamefully this is what is happening to the Palestinian people through a denial of their basic human rights.
Should the injustices which provide the seedbed for extremism be addressed – yes of course they should, but rather than being addressed they are being exacerbated. To their absolute credit the Palestinian civilian population has disavowed violent resistance and are focussed on non-violent resistance. The current hunger strike is one form of this resistance, BDS is another.
The facts of the matter are that this is not a religious conflict. It is a conflict that has intensified as the power and domination of Israel has grown. This domination increasingly denies Palestinians the right to exist. (Ironic that Israel insists exclusively on the opposite). The international community is clear about Israel’s borders, (the 1967 borders) 78% of historic Palestine. But Netanyahu and his government clearly covet the remaining 22% which the Palestinians since the Oslo Accord have remarkably been prepared to accept as a Two-State solution. However every day more and more of this 22% disappears as more illegal settlements are constructed and Israeli roads and infrastructure alienate more and more land. For centuries Arabs and Jews lived side by side. 20th and 21st century migration has changed all of that. Palestinians are now corralled into smaller and smaller enclaves without proper access to basic resources while newly-arrived Israeli immigrants from anywhere in the world are afforded a first world standard of living on land which has been confiscated from Palestinians.
It is said that the majority of Israelis are not religious (although their leadership and supporters rely on religious history to undergird claims on land). The majority of Palestinians are Muslim and a minority Christian, but the identity that forms and nourishes them is that they are Palestinian.
The presentations on Thursday night in support of Israel discouraged moderation, they encouraged extreme and distorted views of reality out of fear, and I am sorry to say, out of hate. The question which concluded the forum was “what advice do you have for Trump and others who claim to be looking for a solution to this conflict”. My answer was that I would ask Netanyahu whether he wants common ground. If common ground is not wanted it will never exist.
It is my experience that Palestinians long for peace, for the opportunity to live their lives as others do. The majority of Palestinians would, in my view, be prepared to live with any solution as long as it was a genuine democracy with equal rights for everyone. Surely this is not too much to ask?
Netanyahu on the other hand rules out, either a One-State or a Two-State solution, presumably meaning he would like all Palestinians to leave or be corralled into disconnected Bantustans.
In the forum those defending Israel were aggrieved at the use of the term apartheid to describe the current situation. It was said that anyone who had lived in South Africa during the Apartheid era would not use this language of Israel. It was pointed out that before his death this was exactly how Mandela described the Palestinian plight and it is how Desmond Tutu continues to describe it.
This is not a religious conflict, it is a conflict of human rights, a conflict of social justice, the moral argument is with the Palestinians, it is little wonder that those who support Israel fall back on invective in the absence of any moral argument.
We are used to hearing that Judaeo/Christian influence has shaped Western society, but what exactly does that mean? Like all ideas expressed in words it can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean, both positive and negative. However, it is usually understood to mean that this tradition has somehow shaped and undergirding national values. Well, what values? Both sides of Australian politics as well as the growing myriad of independents stake their claims on the basis that they, more than their opponents, exemplify ‘values’ that are truly Australian.
So what of Judaeo Christian values? The touchstone can be found in the Old Testament prophets and the tradition that surrounded them. It was the prophets who forged the idea of monotheism within what was a polytheistic world and with it the necessary concomitant that all human beings are equal, have equal rights, share the same destiny under the one God. As this became the prism through which human life was to be understood then justice and how it should be both administered judicially under God and more importantly accepted as a way of living by the people became the overriding concern of the prophetic tradition. Matters of religious expression, cultural identity and ownership or sovereignty of land were secondary to this first principle. “The context of the Old Testament concern is not the nation, although Zionism distorts it into that, but the God of justice who, divinely representing justice for everyone and every nation, is called the universal God”. (Paul Tillich)
Justice is honed in the New Testament through the application of the principle of grace. That is to say, justice is not simply a matter of right and wrong alone, it is a matter of equity and fairness, of raising up the weak, of releasing the captives and setting the down trodden free. Justice undergirds harmony, equity and peace without which the world is condemned to violent competition and suffering.
With this in mind it is difficult to understand those Australian policy makers who claim to be in the Judaeo/Christian tradition and yet enslave the poor through monetary and fiscal policy that favours the rich. It is also very difficult to understand those who claim to stand in that tradition but who continue policies that have seen refugees caught in a time warp, seemingly without end, on Manus and Nauru. As my ecclesiastical patron, Bishop John Stoward Moyes of Armidale argued, “it is impossible to claim Judaeo/Christian values if you are a communist who accepts the right of the state to make its people subservient. Equally it is impossible to claim these values, or indeed claim to be a Christian, if you are a capitalist who believes in a market that enables a few to benefit from the resources of the many while the many languish in layers of disadvantage”.
If a nation is to have the right to claim Judaeo/Christian values as its foundation, it must find a path which embraces both space for individual aspiration and a society transformed by social justice.
Let me also take this reflection into the heart of the modern State of Israel, presumably an inheritor of the ‘Israels’ that have preceded it. Universal justice appears to have become an unwelcome stranger in the land of Israel. Zionism’s compulsive identification with land, has replaced justice as its core value. The having, holding and conquering of land has seemingly become the arbiter of nationhood, the ideal which must not be questioned, to do so is to be a ‘self hating Jew’ or anti-Semite.
The modern State of Israel is secular. Those who believe in what might be understood as religious Judaism may well be the minority. However, the claim to land has a religious history and the manner in which this is articulated relies on that history for its validation. The West, by this I mean Australia and the US make certain claims about Israel that identify it with values which we are purported to share.
· Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Hang on, no it is not. First of all, on who’s definition of democracy? Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are afforded no rights while Arabs in Israel have differing and reduced rights to their Jewish counter parts.
· Israel is the only country in the Middle East that enables freedom of religion. Well, no. Israel claims to be a Jewish State. By definition the statement excludes those who are not Jews. The idea of Jerusalem as an historical centre for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike is being constantly eroded. “Jerusalem is being Judaised” as the Christian leaders in Jerusalem explained to me. On the other hand, Palestinian leadership has consistently pleaded with me to ensure that the Christian population of Palestine is not further reduced through lack of support from the West.
· Israel is the only country in the Middle East that lives by the rule of law. Well, no, it does not. Palestinian children as young as primary school are incarcerated in Israeli gaols because they resist the occupation. The occupying force protects the illegal settlers and not the Palestinian civil population. Essential services are provided to the illegal settlers and restricted or denied the Palestinians.
My strong critique of the State of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians is based upon what I understand to be Judaeo/Christian values. As such, rather than this critique being anti-Semitic, I believe it to be supportive of the essential value upon which the culture of Judaism is founded – the practice of universal justice. It is Zionism, the placing of land in the position of ultimate concern, above human well being, above fairness and justice, which is the truly anti-Semitic narrative.
The Judaeo/Christian ethic then is founded on the principle of universal justice: justice that exceeds simple right and wrong, a justice which seeks to restore the balances of personal national and global disadvantage, justice that has its goal in shalom, the harmony of a mutually shared life to which all aspire and in which all might flourish.
The aftermath of the Child Abuse Royal Commission into the Diocese of Newcastle is quite devastating for the Diocese as a whole and for some individuals in particular. That such abuse could have been perpetrated for so long, and by so many, does indeed beggar belief.
A significant focus of the Commission was the role of St John’s Theological College Morpeth. This focus is reflected in the Commission’s findings and in perceptions that now prevail in the Diocese and perhaps in the mind of the general public.
My interest is generated by my years as a student (1963-65), Vice Principal (1973-76), by my long term friendship with many staff members and the emails I receive from student contemporaries of both periods.
I see no evidence that justifies a perception that the College was somehow the womb in which a paedophile ring was nurtured. It is tragically the case that many clergy who have since been shown to be abusers of children were at one time students of the College. But where is the evidence that the College turned a blind eye, or much worse, nurtured this culture, presumably with the tacit knowledge of staff and or members of the College management? I do not believe there is any evidence.
In the 1960s the College was the seminary of choice not simply for students of NSW regional Dioceses, but for students from Melbourne, Brisbane, Rockhampton, Tasmania, Perth and Adelaide. I was myself a student for the Diocese of Armidale.
It seems to me that two issues need to be addressed which have nothing to do with the College. The first relates to how students are selected. While no selection process can ever be expected to be foolproof, it is reasonable to assume many whose malevolent behaviour became manifest later should have been weeded out in the selection process. Where does responsibility for selection reside? The College was not responsible for selection; this was the responsibility of Dioceses. The only students for whom selection was the College’s responsibility were independent students. I am unaware of any in that category who later were shown to be paedophiles. As a student and later as a staff member I was not aware of aberrant sexual behaviour, but on several occasions, as a staff member, it was my experience that Diocesan Bishops did not want to hear negative reports of their students on other issues. On one occasion it was my difficult duty to recommend to a bishop that all four of his students have their ordinations deferred or cancelled. The recommendation was not accepted, causing the Diocese concerned considerable deferred grief. As parents often blame a school for their children’s behaviour rather than accept their responsibility, so Bishops would sometimes choose to blame the College rather than face deficiencies in their students. It seems convenient now to focus on the College rather than face wider issues
The second issue is how a clique of Anglo-Catholic clergy and lay people, not representative of the Diocese as a whole, could become so powerful. This bears upon the issue of how Bishops are appointed. It is clear that in the Diocese of Newcastle this powerful clique held sway across several episcopates and that what has become known as a paedophile ring was endemic within it, although not necessarily embracing all of it.
Historically, the Diocese of Newcastle considers itself a child of the Oxford Movement, the Tractarians, a movement later known as Anglo- Catholicism. In the early 20th century Anglo-Catholicism was greatly influenced by Charles Gore, Bishop of Oxford. Gore, whose piety was deeply seeped in a sacramental life, considered any piety to be useless unless it poured itself out in love for the world and its transformation, through intellectual engagement and a commitment to social justice. This combination of holiness and engagement can be clearly seen in the life of Father Gerard Tucker who founded the Brotherhood of St Lawrence in Newcastle before moving back to Melbourne. It can also be seen in the life and ministries of Fathers Bill Childs, Bill Brown and Gordon Coad who so colourfully and effectively reflected the life of the Diocese of Newcastle in the 1960s, the period in which the Royal Commission investigation of the Diocese begins.
The Anglo-Catholic clique that developed since the episcopate of Bishop Ian Shevill (1973-1977), appears to have regressed into a club of priestly ecclesiastical ritual, energised by each other’s company and in opposition to Sydney’s evangelicalism; rather than being energised and empowered through an outward looking and inclusive engagement with the world. Such an engagement as demonstrated by Childs, Brown and Coad could be (perhaps should be) inherently evangelistic as well as socially transformative.
The authoritarian nature of this clique was clearly demonstrated in the speech given by Bishop Shevill to his first Newcastle synod in which, presumably feeling rebuffed by the afore mentioned priests together with his Dean, John Falkingham and the Acting Principal of St John’s Morpeth, George Browning, he told the synod they could either submit to his authority or he would retire to his study and write books.
This controlling streak was accentuated through implied superiority. This can be illustrated by a sermon delivered by Peter Rushton at the celebration of a new priest’s first mass when he made the extraordinary claim that ordination effected an ontological change that set the young man apart from his congregation. Such an unbalanced claim misses the fundamental point that ordination gifts the ordinand with a new set of relationships within the body of Christ which require not so much the honouring of the priest by the congregation, but the honouring of the congregation by the priest. When the latter occurs, the former is a side product and experienced as a wonderful gift, not the other way around.
From the outset the Church has been beset by cliques (1Cor. 3:4). They are anathema to the body of Christ which relies upon and is enriched by the engagement of difference. A clique is by definition a self referencing and self authenticating group. Cliques are more open to serious human malfunction because they are not referenced by the standards of others. There are plenty of other more significant political, economic and religious cliques threatening the contemporary world that can be the attention of future blogs.
In the meantime the Diocese of Newcastle has much to offer the wider Church and the world if it can find a new Bishop in the Anglo-Catholic tradition who will have the intellectual capacity, the moral courage, and the personal holiness to lead the Diocese into a future of transformative engagement. Finding such a person who of necessity will need to lead a life of humility and sacrifice deserves the prayers of all.
What exactly do we need always to remember?
We do need to remember the valour and sacrifice of men and women who have given their lives and service in the name of peace and freedom. Both my grandfathers fought in WW1 and my father in WW2. We need to remember that freedom is indeed hard won; but harder to honour in peace time, when much effort by many people goes into self interest, greed, domestic violence and the avoidance of civic responsibility.
What we also need to remember is that wars are grotesque, futile, mistake ridden, and the cause of enduring sorrow. Lives are not only lost in war, they are lost in its aftermath as damaged lives find it very hard to adjust to civilian life. Arguably the only war worthy of Australian engagement was WW2. Nazi Germany presented an impossible threat to the peoples of the world.
WW1 was a war in which national and personal hubris dragged countless thousands into a needless conflict of unimaginable suffering and death. The aftermath of the war led to WW2 and in addition it has had enduring consequences in the Middle East a century later. Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories were created and carved up by Britain and France with their interests, not Arab interests, in mind. Half promises were made which could not be fulfilled, but which have set peoples with different hopes and expectations against each other. That Iraq and Syria in particular are caught in a seemingly unsolvable cycle of conflict can be attributed in large measure to outside interference that dislocated the fragile balance of centuries, at the commencement of both the 20th and 21st centuries.
The Vietnam War, The Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan have not contributed to a more stable secure and just world, in fact the contrary. The rise of ISIS or Daesh can be attributed in no small measure to the aftermath of the Iraq war when the Sunni population lost its voice and representation in most areas of the country’s power and administrative structures.
We need to remember too that war is a financial bonanza for one of the largest industries on the planet – the armament industry. The armament industry does not distinguish between friend and foe, a sale is a sale. Saudi Arabia remains a partner with the West in the arms trade, notwithstanding the reality that Saudi Arabia has funded some of 21st century’s worst terrorism.
It is a myth that Australian nationhood was forged at Gallipoli and on the Western Front, many other factors have been at least, if not more decisive. That war and its aftermath was a cause of considerable tension in the Australian community. Australian nationhood has been forged through its vibrant and enviable democracy; the federation of its fiercely independent states; migration; the principle of equality that emerged out of the struggles of the early settlers and the emancipation of the convicts; the courage, endurance and enterprise of the rural communities; and the regular triumph over natural tragedy of fire, drought and flood. All have contributed to the nation that Australia is today.
So why is ANZAC day, by default, Australia’s national day, far more significant than Australia Day, Easter, Christmas, or any other day? Perhaps, despite the continual reference to ‘Australian values’ by the Prime Minister and other leading politicians, the reason is we really do not know what Australian values are and fallback on ANZAC Day as a default position. ‘Mateship’ is thrown around as the great Australian value. But is Australian ‘mateship’ any different from the commitment Indonesians, Turks, Kurds, Greeks or Italians feel for one another. I doubt it. What about a ‘fair go’. I have learnt that in Islamic culture care for the needy and stranger is taken for granted. If there is food in the house, it is there for all. I am not sure that a ‘fair go’ is any more Australian than it is a character of other peoples.
My memory of growing up as a child in the UK is that scattered throughout the year there were many days that celebrated different aspects of our history, culture and values. No one day dominated above others. Remembrance Day was important, but not more so than other days of religious and civic significance.
21st Century Australia needs a variety of days to celebrate values, hopes and aspirations. We should have a coordinated day across all states which celebrate our multicultural and migrant past and present. Our multiculturalism is arguably our great strength; celebrating it with vigour should bury the prejudice, fear and intolerance of popular right wing politics and celebrate what makes Australia qualitatively and successfully different from virtually every other nation on earth.
We need a national day which celebrates the rich culture and history of our indigenous peoples. What has happened in the past is shameful, but we need to move on. There is so much to share and gaps that need to be bridged. Most Australians are shamefully ignorant of the challenges and disadvantages suffered by Australia’s indigenous and equally ignorant of the rich heritage we can discover through and with them.
We should have a day which celebrates the richness, diversity, beauty and fragility of our landscape. The continent is our greatest treasure; it is also our most vulnerable. A sustainability day could see trees planted, parks dedicated, green space celebrated, resources audited and national policies aligned to a sustainable future; the greatest legacy we can bequeath to our children and grandchildren.
Of course we should continue to celebrate ANZAC day, but it alone cannot focus our values hopes and aspirations, indeed it may contribute to a values vacuum based on a myth that Australian youngsters look for at Gallipoli as a rite of passage, while the real issues that will determine their future remain unattended.
The media feeds us on a diet of rather depressing news, indeed it appears not to be news unless it is depressing! Weather events, climate change, terrorism, the shenanigans of the White House, Mosul and Aleppo, drug taking, paedophilia in the church, the exploits of politicians and the housing crisis – is there any good news? Is good news too good to be true – is it fake news?
It can be argued that the Church and Christianity is in part responsible for fake news in the Western world. Apparently 40+% of Americans believe God created humans less than 10,000 years ago. If 40% of Americans can challenge evidence driven science on something so basic; then space is created for ‘alternative facts’ in any dimension of life. Many of the assertions of POTUS (President of the US) are clearly false, and yet remain seemingly acceptable to a vast number of citizens because he is allowed to claim what most would consider reliable facts, to be fake. If a culture is developed in which opinions, or assertions have the same value as facts, then anybody’s opinion is worthy of trust and subsequently of great disappointment.
So what of Easter; is it a myth concocted by a small band of disaffected men and women at the commencement of the modern era?
Space does not permit an examination of the many explorations of the evidence, of which there is plenty: most compelling of which being the extraordinary power to transform, this belief demonstrated in the lives of the early disciples. However, I would like to take a dive into ‘so what’?
One indisputable fact of life is its ending – death. An increasing number are fortunate enough to escape its arrival for four score years and more, but arrive it will. Because death is inevitable we human beings live in a transitory world coloured by death’s expectation. We accumulate resources as if ‘our life depended upon it’. We value that which is useful to us, often to the exclusion of others, then throw it away. We viciously compete for the domination of our ideas, our race, our religion even to the extent that we will go to war in the hope of gaining an advantage for the miserably short span of time we are here. We are victims of the ‘tragedy of the commons’: we will use and if necessary trample on that which is common to us all, for fear that if we do not then someone will get there in front of us.
These are traits with which we and all who have preceded us on the planet are tragically familiar.
But what if death is not the final word, what if it has been replaced with resurrection? This is not a thought redolent only with hope for the future (pie in the sky when we die), but a reality to transform the present. Resurrection teaches us that material and spiritual are intertwined with a shared destiny. Resurrection says that nothing of value is ever lost. Within the providence of God everything matters, every human life matters, but so does every plant, the earth itself, the air and the sea, indeed anything that we can conceive matters.
Easter is the ultimate celebration of life. Easter should make the thought of violent action impossible to conceive, for violence denies another human or another part of creation the flourishing that is their destiny.
Easter makes aggressive competition unseemly, for resurrection is life’s intended destiny for rich and poor alike; indeed claiming space for oneself that is denied to others, diminishes the prospect of this destiny. We cannot strive for a greater prize than what is already on offer – resurrection. It is the same prize for all.
Jesus is resurrection’s first fruit: resurrection is shared life: to be united with all living through him is to be truly alive, to be separated, like a pruned branch, is to die. Resurrection denies all duality.
The good news of Easter is not simply about an event 2000 years ago, it is the re-writing of history’s narrative in which death is not the final word: life and its celebration is. The Deuteronomic writer anticipated this Easter message when he declared “choose life”. This choosing must occur in matters large and small many times every day. To be generous, forgiving and hospitable is to choose life. To consider how one might add to the life of another is multiply life
To go to war is to deny life
To take advantage of another is to despoil life
To avoid responsibilities for the common good is to be dazzled with fool’s gold whilst surrounded with abundance.
To choose life is to love God with heart mind and spirit and to love ones neighbour as oneself.
A very Happy and Blessed Easter.
The Palestinian activist Bassem Al-Tamimi was issued a visa to come to Australia on 4th April 2017. While he was in Amman, the next day, waiting for a connecting flight to Australia, it was cancelled. According to a statement from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection his visa was cancelled on the grounds that: “The Department has recently been made aware of information that indicates there is a risk that members of the public will react adversely to Mr Tamimi’s presence in Australia regarding his views of the ongoing political tensions in the Middle East. Therefore, there is a risk that his presence in Australia would or might pose a risk to the good order of the Australian community.”
Al-Tamimi was ten weeks old at the time of the Israeli invasion of the West Bank in June 1967 and hid with his mother in a cave during the conflict. As a grassroots activist, he organized weekly demonstrations to protest the seizure of the village's well by the nearby Israeli settlement of Halamish, established in 1977. The protests regularly lead to clashes, with Palestinian youths throwing stones and Israeli forces firing on protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons. Since the end of 2009, 64 people (13% of the village's population) have been arrested.
Prior to his 2011 arrest, al-Tamimi had been arrested by Israeli authorities eleven times, at one point spending more than three years in administrative detention without trial. In 1993, he lost consciousness for eight days after being shaken during an interrogation, and required surgery for removal of a subdural haematoma. His home has also been designated for demolition by Israel's Civil Administration.
Al-Tamimi is an admirer of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi and believes that armed conflict against a more powerful Israeli opponent will only bring disaster Al-Tamimi states that he advocates nonviolent resistance, telling a reporter in 2011, "Our strategic choice of a popular struggle—as a means to fight the occupation taking over our lands, lives and future—is a declaration that we do not harm human lives. The very essence of our activity opposes killing."
If Talmimi is unacceptable to Australian authorities it is fair to ask, who would be acceptable? Peter Dutton needs to explain how his decision is not discriminatory at best, and at worst, based on racial discrimination.
Why wouldn’t Talmini be exactly the person Australia should welcome with open arms because of his espoused commitment to non-violent resistance? Wouldn’t he help Australians generally to have a better understanding of the plight of the Palestinians? Perhaps that is exactly what the Australian government does not want us to have? It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the current Australian government supports violence and oppression of others if it suits what it perceives as ‘national interests’ and condemns it in other circumstance. Netanyahu was given an almost unprecedented fawning welcome by the Australian Prime Minister. Netanyahu has just announced the building of an entirely new settlement for 2,500 homes on Palestinian land, in flagrant violation of the December UN Security Council resolution which condemned such building. Australia has been typically mute in condemnation of this announcement.
What does Peter Dutton and the Australian Government expect Tamimi and his fellow Palestinians to do? – Applaud the taking of their land and the demolition of their homes? What would anyone anywhere in the world do – resist. That he is committed to non-violent resistance is much to be applauded, not shunned.
Shame on you Peter Dutton. Shame on the Australian Government. We claim we are an open liberal and fair minded democracy. Australians might well be, but clearly in the Australian Government we are served by Ministers who are far from decent, preferring to do deals with ‘friends’ who profit from others misery. Undoubtedly small numbers of right wing Israeli supporters, (this description does not include the middle ground of tolerant Australian Jewry who are appalled by Netanyahu’s aggression), would “react badly to Mr Tamimi’s presence’. But if this is the basis for such decisions, why allow Benjamin Netanyahu, or Geert Wilders, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Rodrigo Duterte, a visa?
In the Christian community we are trained to rehearse the multitude of reasons why we should live a life of thankfulness, when in reality one reason should be enough.
On rare occasions a situation presents itself as the mirror opposite. An idea, event, strategy, or vision emerges, so alien, that it must be resisted. Many reasons for this resistance can be mustered, but one would be enough. Such is the situation with the proposed Adani mine.
The more we learn about the mine and the consequences associated with its development the more horrified we should become. Indeed, horrified enough to engage in legitimate civil disobedience. Civil disobedience should rarely be invoked, but it is a legitimate right of protest when legislation legitimises harm to the community.
The mine presents a tangible threat to the health and well being of the Great Barrier Reef, a world heritage listed treasure that is already under considerable strain because of factors related to global warming. This danger should be enough to stop the mine.
Tourism is arguably the most significant employer of people in central and northern Queensland both now and into the future. Jobs associated with tourism are always going to be greater than even the grossly inflated approximation of jobs issued in the propaganda associated with the mine development. Any threat to these jobs should be enough to stop the mine.
Adani has asked for an injection of 1$B in tax payers money to build the necessary railway link. 1 billion dollars invested anywhere, in anything, will generate jobs. Investing 1 $B of tax payers money into a privately owned enterprise, without which it presumably is not viable should be enough to stop the mine.
It has been revealed that the Adani family have a complex network of funds and trusts, finding their way into the tax haven of the Cayman Islands. It is clear this enterprise will minimise the value of a common asset for the common good, in Australia or India, while maximising the benefit for one very wealthy and powerful family this should be enough to stop the mine.
It has been recently revealed that the Queensland government has inexplicably granted Adani unlimited access to water. This water will be partly drawn from the surface when it is available and partly from the Great Artesian Basin. This news has sent shock waves of horror into the farming community who will necessarily have their water security put at risk; and by those in proximity to the mine, who risk being effected by vast quantities of contaminated water. How such an arrangement could have been made is inexplicable and this should be enough to stop the mine.
It is accepted by environmentalists, scientists, economists and many in the business community that the age of coal is over. Coal will continue to make its contribution for decades, but will decline in significance as transitioning to a low carbon future accelerates. Now is not the time to commence a massive enterprise based on 20th century technology that for its viability needs to envisage its life decades into the future. The planet simply cannot take the added density of green house gases that this and other fossil fuel enterprises generate, without severe consequences. It is morally reprehensible to commence one of the largest fossil fuel projects in Australia when the mine’s potential contribution to global warming and its attendant costs is well understood. This should be enough to stop the mine.
The poor of the world must be empowered. Readily available energy is a significant component to this empowerment. Australia’s ballooning power prices should be enough to demonstrate that providing coal to a multi-national company, or cartel, is no guarantee that the poor will be able to afford the power connected to them in this manner. The poor need to be able to access and control their own energy production. Various sustainable energy technologies give the poor this capacity, as I know first-hand from the life of my sister in Ethiopia’s Danakil desert. The poor can enjoy many of the benefits of 21st century’s digital economy through simple, low cost renewable energy technology, over which they maintain control. This should be enough to stop the mine.
The Adani mine proposal is a very serious breach of trust. Its potential to misuse public resources in the present, let alone contribute to a far more dangerous future is enormous.
It is my contention that this proposal will harm Australia, its people, our environment and contribute to the destabilising of life on this planet. For this reason I advocate that it is morally appropriate, even a moral imperative to engage in actions of civil disobedience in relation to the mine’s development, should it finally be given the green light, as long as those actions do not put life in danger.
Strange how fairy tales contain so much hard hitting truth! Two years ago Margaret and I took ‘selfies’ beside Hans Christian Anderson’s statue in Copenhagen. His best known fairy story about the tailor who tricked the emperor into believing his new clothes were of the highest quality while in fact they were nonexistent is hard hitting. Seldom has this fairy tale been more apt than in its application to the nonexistent Australian Federal Government energy policy.
It has been clear for at least a decade that like the industrial revolution and the digital revolution we are in the midst of an energy revolution which was initially being driven by environmental concerns, but which is now also being driven by the market and its inability to invest without clear policy One of the costs of energy production is pollution. A failure to cost pollution has seen Australia’s energy market living in a la la land of stagnation. It is clear that for the sake of the planet energy needs to be harvested from the bountiful solar resources available every day, not from solar energy stored over millennia. It is also clear that technology that enables this harvesting is now and will increasingly be cheaper than 20th century technology based on fossil fuels. Talking about clean coal is like talking about dry water.
Why are politicians so incapable of enacting policy that will enable this revolution to serve both the environment and the economy, swiftly and efficiently? An obvious answer is the fractious and conflictorial state into which politics has fallen. When one side of politics proposes the other side automatically opposes. This is not how the Westminster system is supposed to work. Governments and Oppositions are not supposed to automatically shoot down the proposal of the other, but to hone proposals so that they serve the best, or ‘common interests’ of the citizenry. While this trend has many parents, there is no doubt that Tony Abbott accentuated this race to the bottom, both as leader of the then Opposition and then as Prime Minister.
Another reason why policy is so absent is because the energy revolution is challenging a sacrosanct fortress-like neo-liberal capitalist view of the world. The revolution will enable thousands, indeed millions of people to generate their own energy and not be dependent upon large stock market listed companies to deliver energy for them. It will enable groups of people in a street, suburb, or locality to share energy between one another. As we are seeing in South Australia it will enable a State to go it alone without dependence upon the Federal Government to enact policy, or the national grid to deliver it. Privatisation will begin to take on an entirely different meaning. Rather than meaning someone producing a product to sell to someone else, it will mean ordinary people capturing the energy of the sun for their purposes in a similar manner to the way we capture oxygen through breathing.
It has been clear for some time that the normal capitalist approach of privatising everything does not work in relation to energy for two reasons. The first is that energy is an essential commodity that lies above and beyond the right of any institution or company to have total ownership or control. South Australia is right to have decided to take public control of a gas fired power station to ensure that public interest within the State is secure from profit gouging in emergencies. The second reason is that privatisation is about profit, not about service. As we saw recently in South Australia, in an emergency a company will look to its profit bottom line in deciding how to respond to an immediate need, not to the public good. Energy is an essential service, not just another product.
It is becoming abundantly clear that the now unstoppable energy revolution will contribute to the enhancement of human life, not return it to the Stone Age as those on the right of politics have tried to scare us into believing in order to sure up greedy profiteering in 20th century technology.
It is also the reason why all stops should be pulled out to stop the Adani mine in the Galilee Basin. It is clear that this mine will do immense harm to the Australian environment not least potentially the Great Barrier Reef and for what gain? Yes there would be jobs in the construction phase, but we are going to put 1Billion of tax payers money into the railway and the Adani family are going to put all the money into the Cayman Islands. Let’s put those jobs into tourism and the renewable energy revolution.
It will not be very long before every new house in Australia will be constructed with enough solar energy generating capacity and storage to be self sufficient. Nor will it be long before people are fuelling their cars from electric energy produced in their own homes. That this is a frightening thought for large profit gauging companies is not a matter over which most of us, or the governments nationally or regionally, should shed too many tears.
On the 6th March an article appeared in the Australian Financial Review purporting to have been written by the high profile indigenous leader, Warren Mundine.
Read more: http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/jews-are-the-first-peoples-of-israel--with-a-right-to-exist-20170306-gurkqg#ixzz4ag0n6lro
The article is either written with an appalling knowledge of Israel Palestine, the history and culture of its peoples’ or it is written with the explicit intention of promulgating a ‘fake narrative’, a perspective linking the struggles of the indigenous peoples of Australia with the ‘struggles’ of the Jews; whom the article would have us believe have the right to claim they are the ‘indigenous’ peoples of Palestine, to the exclusion of others. The article is so appalling that I cannot believe that Mr Mundine wrote it. I assume it was written by a person from within the powerful Israeli lobby who sought the ‘imprimatur’ of a respected indigenous Australian.
The indigenous people of Palestine are Semites, those who speak a Semitic language, and have an unbroken link with the land over many generations. Some Jewish families are indeed in this category. However with the benefit of census data in the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century we know the majority of these people, Muslim and Christian, are Arabs. Many of these people trace their ancestry back to groups such as the Phoenicians and Philistines who occupied this land prior to recorded Israelite history and whose current descendants have never lived anywhere else. Those who are definitely not indigenous are middle class Jewish illegal Settlers who have taken up villas in settlements across the West Bank and who have come from places like Sydney, Melbourne and Manhattan. These settlers and their ancestors have long lived in other, often western, nations throughout the world.
To link Jewish settlers with Australian indigenous people is awful from another perspective. In Australia we still have a long way to go to address the wrongs of the past and achieve appropriate acknowledgment, recognition and reconciliation. However we are on the road. On the other hand Israel’s behaviour towards the indigenous Palestinian population can be likened to the behaviour of white settlers towards the Australian Aboriginal people in the 19th century. Land is summarily confiscated without redress, olive orchards are bulldozed and livelihoods destroyed. Those who protest such privation are thrown into gaol. Yes Mr Mundine, there are acts of violence from Palestinians towards Israelis, as there were from Aboriginals towards the white settlers; violence that cannot be condoned. But the violence done to Palestinians, including Palestinian children goes mostly without censure, as it does in your article.
Whoever wrote this article for Mr Mundine should I suppose be congratulated for their cunning, but Mr Mundine should have been far more astute before allowing his name to be used in this way – presuming this is what happened. If Mr Mundine did author the piece himself, one might ask what his motivation was; and would he now accept an invitation from the Palestinian community to live with them in Palestine for 10 days or so to gain an understanding of their plight, who is responsible, and what responsible action from the international community might look like.
The article is mischievously misleading in other ways. Let me touch on one more – the recognition of Israel. It is true that the military wing of Hamas does not and will not recognise Israel’s right to exist, in the same way that a significant percentage of senior Knesset members are on record as saying Israel will never allow one inch of historic Palestine to become a Palestinian state. However all the peace talks since the Oslo accords of the 1990’s assume the existence of Israel and the recognition of its right to exist by Palestinian authorities.
What the Mundine article mischievously ignores is that Israel no longer simply demands recognition of its territorial rights, but that it is recognised as Jewish State. This new demand is obviously difficult to accede to for those non Jews who live in its boundaries, let alone for the Arab population of greater Palestine. Israeli citizens of Arab descent already have 40+ restrictions upon them that do not apply to Jewish residents. There is no single Israeli passport, travel papers, such as they exist for non-Jews, do not protect the traveller in the same way or even provide the same right of return.
England may well be for the English or France for the French, as Netanyahu argues to support his case, but no citizen of either country is discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity; under law all have the same rights. Israel cannot expect to be treated as a modern liberal democracy while it insists on the right to implement discrimination on the basis of race, nor can it expect respect as a civilised country when its actions against the Palestinians show all the signs of an apartheid strategy.