Andrew Norton has a post up critical of Marion Maddox’ rather confused position on politics and religion. I’ve been critical of Maddox’ work in the past, because she tends to read Australian culture and politics too much through the prism of American experience, and the two societies are quite distinct in the degree of public religiosity exhibited. Indeed, America is very much an exception to the secularisation rule, no matter how much other Western societies have shown signs of what sociologists often call “a return of the religious”. It’s nevertheless the case that religion does exercise a continuing influence on Australian society and politics, though at a more subtle level than the surface froth about Hillsong might indicate. Many of our cultural patterns are grounded in a worldview developed through the tradition of Latin Christianity – and not just obvious examples such as the law of marriage. The way we regard our lives and their meaning – as marked by stumbling blocks and forward progression illuminated by moments of grace – is very much in debt to Christian theology and practice – much as we might be unaware of the origin of such cultural patterns of meaning making. And at times of perceived crisis – for instance s11 – we hear voices proclaiming that ours is a “Christian country”, even if those making such a claim probably rarely darken the door of a church, and we’re apparently not troubled by the holding of a Christian religious service in the Great Hall of Parliament House attended by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
But Australia’s history – from the early legislative measures in colonial NSW in 1840 to ensure that the Church of England didn’t become an established church onwards – has led to an absence of overt religiosity from public (and often private) conversations. I suspect the legacy of sectarianism and the eruption of religion into political debates in the 50s with the Labor Split, and the prominence of Dr Daniel Mannix in the Conscription Referenda of The Great War – and the scars such controversies inscribe on the body politic – have a lot to do with this. I suspect a careful mapping of politics and society would find that the legacies of these events and divisions endure – in however ghostly a fashion. Social change moves a lot slower than we often tend to think.
So it’s not surprising that politicians would seek out support from religious leaders on some (largely “moral”) issues, and seek to deal with these meddlesome priests on other (largely “economic”) issues. There’s no doubt that the narrow election victory by John Howard in 1998 was aided by Cardinal Pell’s breaking ranks on the GST at a time when the (traditionally Labor) Catholic vote was crucial. And there’s no doubt that the articulation of a religious perspective has influence even in a largely secular society.
One of the most pleasing blog discoveries arising out of the recent LP What Women Want Blog Day post was the fabulous Dervish: Diary of a Muslim Feminist. Yasmin has some extremely interesting reflections on blogging faith (and politics), which I’d encourage you to read. We do need to talk about these issues more, I think.
Let me start by making the outlandish statement that a christian cannot be in politics.
A Christian’ first and primary duty is to God.
Not his/her party not the nation.
That should come to their decision based on principles laid down by God ie the bible.
I haven’t seen anyone ever do this anywhere.
Wilberforce,Thornton and the rest who got into the UK Parliament after the great awakening did do this to some extent however their electorates weren’t exactly free and fair.
I really liked Yasmin’s blog too. I was going to write something about it on the weekend.
Homer… I’m not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate further?
Feel free, Kate, since I’ve only mentioned her blog as an addendum to the post.
Can you elaborate further?
But without puns, please, Homer!
How can a feminist be Muslim? I don’t think it would be possible, given the explicit devaluation of women in the Koran.
to give an example.
If john howard was a christian and decided to go to war in Iraq then he would justify that decsion on biblical principles ( the just war theory being the best).
He is givng his first duty to God.not Asutralian .not his party ,not the electorate.
How popular do you believe that would be?
why do you care, EP? you’ve said you’re anti-feminist
Homer I would have thought ”Render to Caesar…” expressed it best, ie don’t mix the sacred with the profane, but it is an ongoing dilemma for believers in a secular world to find that dividing line.
On Mark’s point, our parliament saying prayers (upheld by the HCA) reeks.
”…given the explicit devaluation of women in the Koran.”
And the absence of women as Apostles is an implicit devaluation EP?
it’s worth noting that the Prophet Muhammad’s first wife was 15 years his senior *and* his ex-boss, and helped manage his business affairs, obviously.
He also kidnapped women and raped them. He was Charles Manson writ large.
The point being that a distinction has to be made between traditional values and teachings of 2000 or less years ago and the actual practice of faith today which varies across nations.
Indonesia, for example, is the largest Islamic (predominately) society is one where I would not class women as being generally ‘devalued’, although there would be areas where some western women would beg to differ. Women are in a separate area of the Mosque but I’m sure that there are some guys in the west who resent some of the ‘liberal’ dress codes at Christian worship.
Despite the large Islamic majority, Indonesia has been successful in maintaining a high level of secularism in politics, more so in my opinion than Malaysia (but I don’t imply criticism there Jason —if people did elect an Islamic party whose policy was Sharia law, who are we to thwart a democratic process?)
Arguably, Indonesia is the most ‘liberal’ in the Islamic world leaving aside TNI inspired provocations. To sit on a hill and look down at a Mosque, Chinese temple, Hindu Temple, Catholic and Protestant churches says it all on the separation of church and state.
There as here, pollies who attend religious services with a camera trained on them should have the onus of proving they didn’t arrange the camera to avoid charges of mixing the sacred with the profane.
why do you care, EP? you?Äôve said you?Äôre anti-feminist
I want the feminists and Islamists to destroy each other.
EP’s demon, a sperm stealing Islamic feminist!
Who migrated here from Sweden!
Some relevant advice regarding women, summarised from the Koran:
A woman is worth one-half a man.
Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death.
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them.
Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves.
Males are to inherit twice that of females.
I bet if we had a Wiccan in parliament it would be headline news.
”Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion”
That was good advice EP, why didn’t you take it?
Because I’m not a Muslim.
Nice effort Mark, by the way. The question of religion in politics – especially the comparative study of same in relation to the US and Australia – is becoming more and more fascinating. More on this, please. And more Mannixian goodness!
C.L. ”He also kidnapped women and raped them. He was Charles Manson writ large.”
We could also discussTorqemada and the Borgias but does that contribute to the thread or anything else?
We could point out that neither Torquemada nor the Borgias were the Prophet on which their entire religion was based.
Homer wrote: “Let me start by making the outlandish statement that a christian cannot be in politics.”
MMMmmm… someone told Fred Nile, Tony Abbott or John Anderson yet?
BTW. thank you all very kindly for the nice comments and plugs for Dervish.
Oh gawd, do you *really* want me to start talking about Muslim feminism EP? Feminists from the three great monotheistic faiths (and apparently in the Eastern traditions as well) have been tackling the difficult passages in their scriptures that appear misogynistic or androcentric for some time. It’s not as if by your quoting a few passages, we’re all going to go: “Oh my God, why did no one tell me about those verses????”
Plus, as I’ve said elsewhere, relying on a recension of a third century text (that’s three hundred years after it happened, folks) for the hagiographical stories of the Prophet Muhammad, doesn’t make for a conclusive argument he was saint or sinner.
Wrong again EP, Islam is not solely based on Mohammad any more than Christianity is solely based on Jesus.
Wrong again Peter — I didn’t say any religion was “solely based” on anyone.
I implied that Mohammed was the Prophet on which the Islamic religion was entirely based.
If you care to contradict that, you’ll have to explain how Islam could exist without Mohammed. Good luck.
I take your point, Maryam.
Yet I have to wonder how many fundamental Islamic teachings you can discrad before your religion is no longer Islam, but something else.
”on which their entire religion was based” I can only go on what you wrote, and that is clear, but the clarification is welcome.
Peter: you’re a TomKat alliance member, through and through!
Well EP most of christianity seems to have moved from Old to New Testament without too much trouble, so it is possible it seems.
Hmmn. I don’t see many modern Christians casting off their poly-cotton blend clothes and refusing to touch women who’ve been menstruating within the previous week. And there’s that whole pigskin thing, as well as the prohibition on eating shellfish.
Religious reform is possible, I suppose.
However, a large portion of modern Islam appears to still be in the heretic-burning (or stoning, or beheading) stage.
I’m not worried about the influence of Hillsong, I was most interested to read that a weekend attendance at the Sydney Sexpo draws a far greater crowd than the last Hillsong dance party.
C.L. Heard that line before, goes something like this:
”If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists”.
I ask the Christians on this thread how they enjoyed the last time they ate bacon, pork or crayfish? The Old Testament has some pretty severe penalties against such vicious behaviour. As, I might add, it does against a whole lot of other things.
Of course non-Kosher Christianity must, by EP’s argument, be ‘something else’.
Me, I prefer to be informed about Islam by people who actually claim to be Muslims, rather than the sectarians around here in the Larva Rodeo. Yeeha.
Peter, in your case it’s more like “if you defend the religious beliefs of the terrorists, and attack the religious beliefs of those who are against the terrorists, then your statements are effectively in support of the terrorists”.
Well christianity had it’s teething stages too. Except that they were lions teeth.
Also, I would think that Islam in Australia has largely left the stoning, burning and beheading behind. I’m not sure about the differences between the sects, but I think it’s the Wahhabis who do the beheading and stuff. Could be completely wrong though.
CL, you in particular should know better. It wasn’t all that early in the 20th century that the Australian political discourse stopped being peppered with reference to Catholics as being naturally disloyal, superstitous, ignorant, cliqueish, obsessed with ascendancy over the political system, and open to having their votes dictated for by the priests.
Sectarianism didn’t die in Australia—like a hermit crab, it just moved into a bigger shell.
Well, if you subscribe to Manning Clarke’s view, as I do, much of the cynicism towards religion in Australia stems from the fact that it (the Anglican Church at least) was nothign more than a transparent mechanism of social control in the early colonial days.
Having travelled a lot, Id have to say that Ostraya is possibly the most genuinely secular society in the world. Irish friends of mine were stunned when I had confess I didnt know anyone – not one person – who ever went to Church more than once a year. And that most never attended. I like it. Makes me want to salute the Eureka flag (not that other lame-o one).
Frankly, Costello’s dabbling with the happy-clappies strikes me as dog whistling. He knows most voters arent even tuned in enough to understand how barmy the jump-for-Jesus crew is; but there’s maybe 3-5% who’ll like him for it.
I would think that Islam in Australia has largely left the stoning, burning and beheading behind.
The Dutch probably thought the same thing about the netherlands. But they were wrong:
Specifically, the murdered film-maker was critical of the Islamic attitude towards women.
Sheesh, it’s really surprising reading some peoples’ comments above just how ignorant many people are of other belief systems (let alone their knowledge of Christianity!).
EP,
Have you ever been to an Islamic country? What qualifies you to make “informed” comments about the Islamic world?
Peter Kemp,
The most secular “Islamic” country by definition is Turkey which has an explicitly secular constitution. The mere discussion of religion in the public sphere by a Turkish MP is considered to be illegal. You also have a very idealised view of religious tolerance in Indonesia. Perhaps you might want to look into the plight of the religions of Chinese community in Indonesia?
CL,
On what is your knowledge of Islam based? Ever read the Qur’an, the Hadith, modern scholarship on the reliability of some of the biographical (read: hagiographical) accounts of Muhammad?
Kate,
Good call!
Which terrorists EP, the state or non-state terrorists? Where have I attacked Christianity?
Agree Antonio that Turkey could be the most secular as you said. re Indonesia, note I stated putting aside TNI provocations–ie Prabowo in 1998, and others in the Malukus. With 70%? of the business or some other unequal share the Chinese are relatively well off but vulnerable as scapegoats in times of strife. My 8 years there probably did colour my opinions but I concede others may disagree.
It may enlighten some to learn that members of moderate Islamic NGOs in Indonesia regularly put their bodies on the line to defend Christian Churches during riots. It simply a mistake to attempt to characterise something as broad as Islam. You’ll always go wrong.
Liam: are you denying that Islam is a systemically troubled religion presently responsible for most acts of terrorism in the world? Yes or no? I never criticise individual Muslims or question their patriotism. Ever. I question their religion’s unwillingness to change and their own individual willingness to effect change.
The sex abuse scandal in Australia led to Catholicism being rightly condemned BY NAME. Ridiculed BY NAME. Worked too, because a culture was quickly combatted at the higest, official levels. Adherents of Islam murder people every day – children who after some lollies in Baghdad yesterday – and the Western left says “hey, don’t criticise Islam – racism, the Crusades, Borgias, bla bla bla.”
Complete and utter cowardice.
What qualifies you to make “informed” comments about the Islamic world?
A study of history and of current events, specifically including current events in Islamic countries and translations of Islamic media.
Lots of good info on Islamic countries here:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php
http://www.memritv.org/
http://www.memri.org/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Now, Antonio, what qualifies you to make “informed” comments about anything?
Yes I have Antonio which is why I know it’s an historical fact that the prophet kidnapped women, enslaved them and – ipso facto – raped them. He was also a mass murderer – which is to say he cruelly and deliberately slaughtered enemies whether or not such killing was required by military necessity. He also personally supervised stonings.
I now await something like: Yeah, but what about the Corleone brothers?
I agree that Australia is generally a very secular society in public discourse, but some seem to believe that this means that there are few people who are religiously observant, which is bollocks.
As a christian person, I do not object if there is minimal discussion of religion in public discourse. I do object however if religion is boxed and presented as the equivalent to a social club (which I believe that Costello and other are guilty of doing in presenting Hillsong and others to the media and mainstream) or when a particular expression of christianity is portrayed as speaking for all christian people.
CL, there’s difference between criticising Islam — or rather, certain individuals that commit acts in the name of the religion — on factual grounds and doing the whole “bloody stone age murderous religion” crap that some do. Or the whole “burn all the mosques!” that we’ve heard here all too recently. It’s a fine line.
And I don’t think you can just say “Islam is responsible.” It’s like saying “Judaism is responsible for Israel’s actions” or “Christianity is reponsible for those nuts who bomb abortion clinics.”
There’s a whole world of things between a religion and an act. And, to borrow your analogy, it’s like calling all Catholics child abusers.
I don’t think attempting to have a nuanced understanding of terrorism — or Islam — is a bad thing.
Well, CL, to state the bleeding obvious: funny that twenty years, or even ten, no one in the West gave a sh*t about Islamism. No one was especially worried about Islamism during the Cold War. Hell, we even funded the whacko Mujahideen.
My point: Is there any chance terrorism is more linked to geopolitical developments (eg interventions, bombings, propping up corrupt undemocractic pro-Western regimes) in the Middle East than to “Islam” per se? Islam’s been around since 600 a.d., my friend. There’s obviously nothing inherent to the body of religious thought – or these recent events would be a constant feature of its history. Which they aren’t.
Your thesis is flawed, good Sir.
Ah, the blowback theory! Viz: Islamic children were slaughtered yesterday in Baghdad because of root causes. And maybe for wanting evil Western lollies. Makes perfect sense.
And international terrorism was difficult for Islamists before the West invented explosives, cars, planes, tranes, buses, computers and the internet. That accounts for the centuries-long Abdul van Winkle phase.
“You also have a very idealised view of religious tolerance in Indonesia. Perhaps you might want to look into the plight of the religions of Chinese community in Indonesia?”
A brief clarification here as this certainly contributes to the idea about ‘Islam’s bloody borders’ as propagated by Huntington. The plight of the Chinese in Indonesia (or Malaysia for that matter in 1969) has more to do with ethnicity and economics than religion. Chinese are not especially religious or open in their religious devotion. The Chinese are targeted in Indonesia for the same reason tha Jews were targeted by Poles, Lebanese and Indian immigrants by Africans in Africa, and Chinese in Catholic Phillipines by Catholic Fillipinos – because they are ‘middleman minorities’ who are disproportionately economically successful.
Not the Corleones CL, how about Genghis Khan?
Kate,
If you follow the wahabist version of Islam then you would go around killing people for allah.
If you die in the attempt you go to paradise and gain 75 wives and you can mediate on behalf of your family.
This is the only guaranteed way to paradise.
Now on my reading of the Koran and Hadiths their version looks pretty accurate.
Warning anyone who reads the Koran it is highly repetitive.
Try the revenge thesis to explain recruitment and you’ll be geting closer CL.
Frankly, you bomb my suburbs in the attmept to get some guy I didnt even vote for, kill my neighbours, and lord knows how many “Islamic chidren” and Ill want revenge: no matter how many stooges you then line up for me to vote for.
This is human nature. The fact that the Western Right cant see this means they have no hope of ever winning the ‘war on terror’. Zero. You cant cluster bomb civilians and then expect no reprisals.
[...] If Mark is right (and I suspect he is) then I don’t see how this differs from the relationship between Christianity and Western States. [...]
The Twin Towers attack was planned and carried out before the Iraq War. Nothing to do with cluster bombs, sorry.
And the educated BRITISH little boys from the suburbs who slaughtered 50-odd citizens last week – did it because of the trauma of cluster bombs did they?
The most traumatic thing any of them ever experienced was a grazed knee from a soccer pitch. Bin Laden has also said Australia is a target for liberating East Timor from the Whitlam-approved genocide planned for it by Jakarta.
And the Iraqi people went to the polls in numbers the Western left always resented. The Western Fiskian left indeed, doesn’t believe brown people in the Middle East should be able to vote.
Its not a difficult point CL. All these attacks took place after Western support for Israel’s ongoing andd expanding occupation of Palestine; the backing of corrupt pro-Western regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iraq (at one time), Pakistan, Egypt .. I could go on. Then you add bombing the crap out of Iraq and Afghanistan, putting the Koran in a toilet…. and you know what? Im not quite so stunned that some whacko extremists are able to recruit more widely these days.
Whats your explanation for it all? If its something like “all Muslims are enslaved to an extremist relgious ideology” you’re just plain wrong. If its “these extremists are psychopaths” you’re right, but missing the point. The question is: How do these evil psycho extremists (and I think thats a fair cahracterisation)succeed in radicalising more moderate sections of the community? Thats the only question that matters. And Im afraid we are then talking, at last in significant part, about Western foreign policy over the last twenty years.
A.L: You honestly believe those boys in London murdered tens of people because of something so dessicated and distant from themselves as “foreign policy”? They wouldn’t know anything about it, nor care. They were, in all likelihood, brainwashed by a cleric or some other pious Muslim mentor.
The Columbine lads didn’t need any coaching (nor were they foreign policy wonks) – now imagine if they’d had some encouragement from a gifted manipulator sympathetic to their adolescent neurosis and self-pity. That’s 7/7.
As for foreign policy, Israel’s enemies vowed to destroy it and the US wouldn’t allow another holocaust. This was a high-point in the history of foreign policy, not something for which the West need feel the slightest regret. And you know what, I don’t think bin Laden gives a toss about the Palestinian rabble.
Well, CL, yes I do. It is terrorists who are presently responsible for acts of terrorism in the world. I’m fairly sure that the Koran—please correct me if I’m wrong—shares, with the Christian Bible, severe injunctions against murder. The teachings of every religion are paradoxical, confused and internally inconsistent, and trying to quote Scripture to explain people’s behaviour makes no sense at all.
Perhaps a demonstration is required.
Australian Labor Party cards carry the following pledge:
Now find me a senior Labor Party member who believes that and I’ll take your claims about Islam more seriously.
I agree: Bin Laden probably couldnt give a hoot about Palestine, except insofar as it aids his cause be giving the West a bad name… And its good the US wont allow another holocaust. I support that. Its a pity they arent equally active in defence of Palestinian rights – we might have a few less headaches. Some Israelis seems to think they have a God-given right to ‘living room’ east of their borders. Remind you of anyone? Come on… Am I expected to support this as well, at the same time? I prefer to be consistent.
As for Islamic extremists – Line them up and shoot them. I couldnt care less. Hell, I’ll pull the trigger. But you havent answered my question: if this is simply about “Islam” – why hasnt it always been happening?
Answer: because it isnt. So you tell me. What’s new? Why now? This is typical of the whole line of Bush, Howard, Blair. You must suspend all critical faculties, all sense of cause and effect, all logic. Then you’ll understand what the war is all about: They just hate freedom!
Spin it to morons on Dill St, mate. Im more interested in stopping it than the unending, escalating war this paralysed mode of ‘patriotic analysis’ must lead to.
So glad to hear Maurice Blackburn hasn’t caused you and your colleagues to do anything silly, Liam.
Sorry, Lefty Elitist: I meant L.E. not A.L. (Confused you with Anonymous Lefty!).
I’m bowing out because these debates are pointless and I do think there’s other stuff in Mark’s post worth discussing.
It’s the new goody-goody me!
Fair enough CL. Probably is pointless.
And you know, we can probably find common ground even after all this yabbering. What footy team do ya like?
(correct answer is St Kilda)
Currency, you’re spot on. The London bombers give the lie to the usual excuses trotted out for Islamic terrorism and the increasingly desperate attempts to sheet the blame home to Bush/Blair/Howard. The fact must be faced that Islam has a serious problem with ultra-violent extremists, to an extent far beyond that of any other major religion. I had a disturbing moment in a cab last Thursday night, when my cabbie, unprompted, told me he was from Lebanon and then asked if I was aware of a Muslim sect (Allawhi?) that believed that Muhammed’s nephew Ali was an incarnation of Allah. His next words: “I don’t really believe in genocide, but why should such people live? It’s ridiculous. They must be put in camps and shot. They believe blasphemy. You think I’m joking? I’m serious.” When I pointed out that Christians believe Jesus to be an incarnation of God, he told me that it was very foolish to think such things of a prophet. I was too amazed to think of taking his number, but if any Brisbane readers are treated to a similar diatribe in a Yellow Cab, that’s probably your man.
It will be interesting to see when the points that Liam and Lefty Elitist just made so succinctly becomes part of the UK scene. So far, only Galloway seems to be speaking on these causative linkage points with forpol.
it actually took off in a big way when the US left a base in Saudia Arabia. Unlike christians Muslims have holyn places and the great Satan shouldn’t be there.
A look at Usama shows him talking about that all the time.
It is then exacerbated with the US infidels in Afghanistan and then Iraq!
Anyone who thinks that Islamist terrorism is about Iraq is a nut.
Fanatical Muslims were bombing and slaughtering non-believers long before the invasion of 2003. They are motivated by religion, not by geopolitics.
As for Galloway, that paid apologist for Saddam Hussein has no credibility with any rational person.
Sheesh who can keep up with such a fast moving thread, but I think Gilbert’s Brisbane cabbie example is important. It is because that sad man is so misinformed about his religion that he would make such statements. Next time you get in the cab, corner him and ask him if he prays five times a day! Bet you he doesn’t. Not to say that there aren’t praying idiotic extremists, there are, but your cabby is typical of prejudiced and ill-informed Muslims whose knowledge of the central beliefs of their faith is minimal to nil.
For example, with the given scepticism of the hagiographical material as I mentioned before, there is a perfect example of interfaith relations where the Prophet offered his mosque for a group of visiting Christians from Najran who had nowhere to pray. They actually performed their Sunday worship in the mosque, and presumably *they* believed Jesus was God incarnate too. But I will bet you a slab of well… can’t bet or pay for beer… but I’m pretty certain Brisbane cabby didn’t know that little gem of a story.
And why should he? Becoming informed in religious studies, leading to a career in say, being an imam, is only offered to the village idiot these days. All the best and brightest minds go off to become engineers and IT specialists – blech! (Sorry all you engineers and IT specialists out there).
Yeah, Maryam, same deal with conservative politicians in this country. All the smart ones go earn real money in the corporate sector; the public is left with the dregs. This is why they’re so big on overfunding private schools: they know they wouldnt last 10 minutes on merit based criteria.
Hahahahah, I knew there had to be a reason to explain the Liberals (sic)
I’m sure you’re right, Maryam. Interestingly, all of the Muslim women I’ve met and worked with have been lovely people, but about 20% of the men have expressed some very worrying ideas. I hope that was just bad luck on my part.
Becoming informed in religious studies, leading to a career in say, being an imam, is only offered to the village idiot these days.
That explains a lot about Islam.
I really do wonder what drives these young men who become suicide bombers. They are often as not educated and intelligent — the ones from London were home grown, and none of them were, apparently, overtly political:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cleanskin-driven-to-suicide/2005/07/13/1120934304349.html
Is it the same disaffection that drives Anglo-Australian young men towards suicide?
Uh, no.
People who commit suicide don’t usually murder as many others as they possibly can. Though there are a minority of murderers who commit suicide to evade punishment.
These suicide bombers are driven by a fanatical religious ideology. Their primary mission is not to kill themselves, but to kill as many unbeleivers as they can by sacrificing their own lives.
see some links here
http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=1016
On the motivations of religious fanatacists, consider that their peers are in a position to stop them from doing anything. A couple of days ago I posted on this concept (sorry for the self-linking).
Still, the way this thread is going I’m tempted to follow CL.
Thanks Jason, the CIS link is interesting, I will read it later.
Lordy, I stay away from LP for about 6 hours and there’s about 150 comments on various threads to catch up on!
You ought to charge people to comment here, you know Mark. Make ‘my two cents’ really have a value of 2¬¢ a pop, indexed to CPI.
I’ll also make the observation in passing that little of the discussion has been on what forms the majority of the post – that is to say, the influence of Christianity on culture and politics in Australia. I suspect Liam is right – sectarianism now manifests itself as suspicion of Islamic people – just like Catholics were once perceived – seen to be a potentially disloyal mob controlled from outside Australia.
I’ve already suggested to EP that we could have a paypal button hiding RWDB comments to enshrine their user-pays ideology, Liam, but he didn’t seem to like the idea for some odd reason.
If I had to pay to comment, I just wouldn’t bother.
And then all your posts would have less than 20 comments.
I should charge you for increasing your comment traffic.
Wrong way round, EP – users pay to read RWDB comments. Lefty comments are free.
users pay to read RWDB comments. Lefty comments are free
This is an example of the market in action — prices are set according to value.
No EP, the costs of pollution cannot forever be externalised.
Oooh beat me to the blog. Too much to comment on in both the post and the thread.
Generally agree about Maddox….
And I think you can’t talk about the way religion has influenced Aussie politics without looking at S.A.’s experience which to my uninformed brain has been markedly different (even if now much dissipated)
Other recent (related) articles:
Pentecostals have very little influence
Pamela Bone.
Oh and Homer, I am not even going to ask, and I don’t even want to know. But I thought Christians followed Christ not biblical principles.
Hmm with so many people of faith on this thread, not even a passing nod to sin when it comes to terrorism. Redemption anyone?
I’ll get more serious when I’ve recovered from the pub.
Hmmm,
So much to respond to. I have to wonder what the eventual purpose of these debates is. People like EP & C.L. reinforce their own ideology with reference to sources that already broadly espouse their pre-existing ideology. (Fallacy ad petitio principii???) They do not read Arabic, (apparently) have not read the Qur’an or (apparently) any modern critical scholar of Islam yet they claim to espouse well-informed though processes.
EP, I am a PhD scholar in Religion. My area of speciality is philology. I read Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, German, French, Japanese, Basic Hebrew & Basic Arabic. I have travelled to Islamic countries in South-East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East. I have a number of Muslim colleagues and friends of varying ideologies and ethnicities. I would like to think that I am friends with Muslims, that I try to understand Muslims & that as appropriate – I am critical of Muslims and “Islamic” ideology. I would like to think that by seriously trying to study Islam I can try to actually understand Muslims.
Jason Soon,
Don’t project your experience as a Chinese person in Malaysia onto the Indonesian Chinese experience. My fieldwork experience of Indonesian Chinese is that many were strongly encouraged to become Muslims in the Suharto era in order to succeed in business. Post-Suharto, the riots & attacks were focussed on Chinese Buddhists and Christians rather than Chinese Muslims.
But seriously, I now TOTALLLY understand Mark’s frustration with debating vocal but ignorant combatants. It’s like debating conspiracy theorists. The whole tenor and structure of the debate is set up pseudo-scientifically with the terms of reference being the limited experience and understanding of your ideological combatants. You cannot convince them because they gain psycho-social sustenance in their ignorant characterisations of the “other”. They refuse to debate the issues de rigeur because they are afraid of admitting imperfect knowledge.
Quite simply, EP & C.L. are debating a religion (“Islam”) in the guise of the social history of a sectarian movement (ie. what “radical, Islamic fascists” have done). Granted that it’s poor logic and bad history, however it’s impossible to argue against these people unless you accept the premise that “Islam” is fundamentally a fascist, terrorist ideology.
The “truth” of course is that Islam is a diverse, multi-faceted & historically-conditioned world religion. Only by understanding these historical conditions can we hope to understand the billion or so human beings who profess belief in Islam.
Stereotyping, bigotry and ignorance on these forums really becomes boring after a while. Surely there are other areas of the net to show off your Emperor’s new clothes?
Saint my old Mate are you saying following Chrrist and biblical principles are two different things?
If you are I would suggest you have another drink.
In the biblical context these people have murdered people born in the image of god.
What then are they saying about God?
hence capital punishment is the only punishment fit the crime however in this case it is irrelevant.
So, Antonio, we have to accept everything you say as Absolute Truth because you are an Expert.
It doesn’t work that way.
I’m afraid you’ll have to provide evidence and rational arguments to back up your position, just like the rest of us.
EP, I have never claimed to be an expert or absolute truth. I was merely responding to an accusation as to my credentials.
If you actually read the content of my posts you will find that I do (attempt) to use evidence and rational argument to demolish your assumptions and prejudices. The problem is though that you continually seem to be content to ignore factual evidence. As David Bowie would say “you don’t want knowledge, you want certainty.”
Interesting parallels can be drawn between your ideological absolutism and those of your enemies. That’s why these conversations continually go around in circles because you argue by emotion and as we all know, there is no counter-argument to an emotional outburst.
Antonio, you were the first to start accusing people about their credentials.
And while you did provide some evidence that Islam is not an “inherently violent” religion — which in view of some of the early Islamic empires I am willing to concede — you offered nothing to deny what we see today in the systematic use of violence by many Muslims.
You try to characterise this debate as one of intellect (yours) versus emotionalism (ours). I think that’s wrong. This is a debate of theoretical knowledge (yours) versus observed phenomena (ours)
Right, EP, but on another thread, you and yr RWDB colleagues are apparently experts on the history of Indigenous people because you’ve read a few articles in Quadrant by Ron Brunton and Windie’s books.
And you blithely dismiss somebody who’s done extensive primary research into the issues.
Oh, hang on, I forgot, Antonio, Naomi and I live in a reality-based community. That’s so pre-American Imperium! All hail the faith-based blog commenters! I’m sure with Karl Rove’s imminent fall, you’ll be headhunted as Bush’s new chief strategist.
As I’ve said many times, Mark — politically biased academic research is not to be trusted.
I won’t accept that something is true just because some left-wing academic says so, or because some left-wing journalist says so. In fact, to me that’s a prima facie indication that the claims could be dodgy.
This is the Internet. Here you can’t rely on authority — you have to make a case.
And the cases made by left-wing authorities are much less convincing when people are able to put up counter-arguments.
Yeah, but EP, at least Windschuttle knows he has to do some research (however much it might be questionable) to counter what he sees as politically biassed academic research. You just rely on assertion and right-wing talking points. I’m contemplating a post on the correlations between things like Akerman and Bolt’s columns and RWDB comments (not so much yours but a certain other frequent commenter). The parallels are astonishing! I’m always happy to confront arguments. I get bored with endless repetition of right-wing talking points (again, you’re by no means the worst of the bunch – except on sperm theft issues…)
I could say the same thing with regard to left-wing comments and left-wing talking points.
And you rely on assertion and left-wing talking points just as much as I do. There is a remarkable synchronisation in the issues that come up.
It’s arrogant to believe that your side is the only one containing any members who have knowledge of the subjects under discussion. The debate clearly shows that the facts are on our side.
I don’t believe that EP. But I do think your dismissal of people who’ve really looked into something is unwarranted. In my experience, people working in university research often get results which don’t conform to their preconceptions. That’s what makes it interesting.
Swan weighs in.
Ahh and I thought this might be an interesting discussion of the interaction between religion and politics in Australia, but it seems to have degenerated into a discussion of the question – whether islam is a violent religion more prone to creating terrorists.
I think that the tendency to tar all of islam with the terrorist brush seems pretty hard to follow. Over the course of history we have had criminal and terrorist factions aligned with particular religions or races, but we have (at least in my assessment) done a better job of holding the extremists separate in our understanding from the majority of that religion or race.
I am thinking of Basque Separatists, Columbian drug traffickers, the Mafia, the Jewish Mafia and even the Klu Klux Klan for that matter.
Ahh and I thought this might be an interesting discussion of the interaction between religion and politics in Australia
As I noted way back up on the thread, that was my hope. Another time perhaps.
Maybe if I work Hayek into the post?
I think your worship of people who have done some formal academic research is unwarranted.
All the research in the world is useless if it is directed and interpreted by a prejudiced mind.
As Windschuttle proved, academics can and do get it very wrong. A systematic falsification of history by multiple professional academics took place, which included fabrication of evidence, and was not prevented by internal review mechanisms — all because the researchers shared the same political agenda and desired outcome.
This is far from being the only example of dodgy academia. Any perusal of the blogosphere will reveal dozens of examples of dodgy research and even outright fraud in politically motivated academics. Ever heard of Ward Churchill? He’s still teaching.
Universities, like the media, have largely discredited themselves. Advocacy research has replaced real research to the extent that many are questioning why we need universities at all.
Only in your mind, EP, only in your mind.
Ah, the sweet sound of denial.
I repeat.
Shorter EP: No, you are.
EP’s right. I look forward to the day when history, literature and the arts (at least) migrate out of the universities and into the community where they really belong. Windschuttle is a pioneer in that regard.
This migration has already begun, Rob, and I suspect it will prove as big as the public exodus from the mainstream media.
Some community-based (in)validation of sociological and educational theory would be welcome as well (actually happening of course in the latter case).
I suppose you mean yr mate, Dr Donnelly. I thought his shtick was just bashing gays.
Anyone who discusses politics on Friday at Cocktail Hour automatically loses the argument. Righties don’t know how to relax and enjoy themselves.
Politics is or are relatively unimportant. Cocktails are less so. Work that out.
Brain power failing due to cocktails.
What, already? It’s one for Cretan Chris.
Don’t worry, Rob, if tim Blair ever needs a fill-in blogger, we’ll all write you a reference. Your comment displays the same originality and wit we’re used to from tim.
Sorry, Rob, snark for snark, shouldn’t bite.
I’m bewildered by your snark. It was a genuine joke question: Are cocktails less important than politics? It’s related to the ‘All Cretans are liars, said the Cretan’ thing.
Ah well. So much for humour.
Perhaps humour translates poorly online. I thought you were having a go at cs.
Only because of the Cretan connection. See, if politics are relatively umimportant, then something that has less of that condition is either more unimportant or less, depending….. oh, feck it.
MMmmm, well heck why bother with critical peer review of an academic’s research, when all you have to do is look at a comment thread to reject it out of hand. When you’ve read Naomi’s research and assessed her hypotheses, research methodology, the presentation of the data and whether the conclusions drawn from interpretation of the data are warranted, THEN I’ll start taking you seriously EP.
Getting published is pretty easy when you own the Macleay Press.
I’ll include you, Rob, into my standing invitation I’ve extended to EP for a guided tour around my university. Not only will you find (shock!) liberal voters and non-lefties, you’ll also probably be surprised to find that we’re quite definitely a part of ‘the community’.
Rob gets published in Quadrant, I understand. I read about it at Evil Pundit of Doom!. The “ex-Leftie” is an entree into certain prestigious publishing circles, I understand, edited by one – P.P. McGuiness.
Though I imagine that the community of Quadrant readers, though perhaps a faith-based one, is not co-extensive with the “broader” community. Oh no, heresy! Australia Council subsidised “little magazine” is not the voice of the capital P People! Read by workers on the train to start their 7am factory shifts! Really! The poetry particularly goes down well at One Nation meetings, I believe. The ones where Professor Flint, that anti-elitist ordinary Australian battler, speaks, I think.
Probably the voice of capital C Capital, though, now that I contemplate it more deeply over my second pinot. Sorry, used the C word. Goes with that other unmentionable – Class. Forgot that there’s only elites and good sound salt of the earth big B Battlers now. My bad. Must move to Sweden for my sins!
Hey, don’t knock Q’s poetry, Mark. It’s the best thing about it. And its literary editor, Les Murray, is quite possibly the world’s greatest living poet.
Hey, Mark, I used to read Quadrant at 7am on the bus on the way to uni, and in my break at the supermarket. Does that qualify? I suppose not. And I can’t imagine any of the One Nation members I knew (and living in a variety of rural communities, that’s plenty) reading anything in Quadrant, particularly not the poetry. In fact, I would challenge you to find anything remotely doctrinaire or ideological in any poetry published in Quadrant.
I think most of it’s crap, meself, but I’m no literary critic.
It was a joke, Tony, and Rob’s just outed himself as part of the poetry loving elite. Perhaps someone needs to write the Ode to the McMansion.
Seriously, I used to read the rag in question when Manne was editor. Stopped when P.P. McGuiness took over – not immediately, but the intellectual quality really slipped – with some exceptions, of course.
“Joke”, what is this “Joke”?
I’ve been reading it for probably 25 years now – the Bob Manne episode was only one aspect of its interesting history. Quality waxes & wanes, and I think is now on the upswing again.
It’s a bit of a spillover from this thread, Tony. When I say “joke” I don’t mean “the magazine is a joke” but “I was joking”.
Sophie wrote some great stuff for Quadrant on The Passion of the Christ. My next piece will be on the deathless legacy of Wilhelm Furtwangler, to give me a break from polemics and post-modernism.
I geddit, Mark – sorry, I was being obtuse.
Rob, I always like Sophie Masson’s work – she’s another person who can seem to just write with effortless ease & grace. Damn them all!
Yes, Sophie’s a terrific writer. Not popular with some of the commenters here, though. She put up some great posts during the famous Troppo culture wars that were a bit much for the literal-minded. She’s not posted much since then. I don’t think she realised that some people comment with their football boots.
(No offence, folks – just sayin’….)
I look forward to it, Rob, since I’ve never heard of Herr Furtwangler and/or his legacy.
Furtwangler was the greatest conductor in the history of recorded music. Possibly he was the greatest conductor ever, although, of course, we don’t know how great were those who conducted before the invention of recording. His Wagner, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Schubert and Bruckner readings have never been surpassed, nor will they ever be.
He was controversial in his own time for refusing to leave Germany when the Nazis gained power, and many saw him as irretrievably tainted by his association with the regime, although he never subscribed to its policies. His wartime concerts with the Berlin Philhamonic are arguably his finest body of work. His 1942 Beethoven 9th is so intense that it’s almost impossible, psychologically, to listen to more than one movement at a single sitting.
A giant in the Romantic repertoire, he recorded very little Baroque music, although his Handel was surprisingly good, if old-fashioned to our ears. His Bach was pretty bad. But in his core repertoire – German Romantic – he was unparalleled. No-one else even came close, although the recently deceased Carlos Kleiber does, alone of all modern conductors, deserve to be spoken of in the same breath.
Check this out.
Rob
I’ve got a number of Furtwangler’s recordings of Beethoven symphonies and highlights from Wagner (whom I do like in small doses). There was also a pretty good movie made about him many years ago which I saw though I’ve forgotten what it’s called
Istvan Szabo’s ‘Taking Sides’, was it, Jason? I didn’t get to see it for some reason although I meant to. There’s some great footage of the man himself on the ‘Art of Conducting’ DVDs. He had an extraordinary conducting action, almost as though he were dancing. He found it very difficult to begin the first downstroke of a performance and there’s a famous story of an orchestral leader who looked up at his trembling baton and called out, ‘Courage, Maestro!’
rob
yes that’s the one. it was set during the US military admin. after the war. there was a US soldier of Jewish ancestry who was sympathetic to Furtwangler’s claims that he was forced to deal with the devil and Harvey Keitel played the solider’s senior who was deadset opposed to giving Furtwangler any concessions.