From today’s Crikey email:
Howard and Rudd, in a move Catholic News calls unprecedented, will be staging a debate via webcast next Thursday.
Thereâ??s been little reporting of this upcoming event in the national media, but a lot of it in the religious press and online outlets. The webcast has been organised by the Australian Christian Lobby, and will feature questions from â??Christian leadersâ??; churches will â??use the event as a platform to pray for the electionâ??.
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/christianwebdebate.JPG"
Rudd seems to be winning the war for religious votersâ?? esteem, according to recent online qualitative polling conducted by The National Forum. Rudd identified the need for Labor to neutralise the Coalitionâ??s perceived advantage among devout Christian voters early in this parliamentary term, and has obviously made no secret of his own beliefs in a series of carefully timed interviews and articles.
But the research coordinated by Graham Young also found that Christiansâ?? approval of political leadersâ?? beliefs doesnâ??t necessarily translate into voting intentions.
As in many other areas of Australian politics, what we are seeing here is a transposition of American political techniques and an adaptation of American debates. The narrative of the theocratisation of Australian politics is a convenient one for both secularists and the religious. Secularists get to decry the influence of religion on politics, and Christians get to exert influence on public policy out of all proportion to their actual electoral strength.
As I argued recently in On Line Opinion, the recent census figures on religiosity suggest that Australia is still one of the most secular nations in the world, and the trend against organised religion is accelerating very quickly among younger citizens.
Similarly, a cross-tabulation of the census figures on Pentecostal affiliation (a very tiny group numerically, though growing quickly proportionately) with the Family First vote in the Victorian state election shows their vote is very evenly distributed and not highly correlated with active Christian religiosity. Though the many foot soldiers Christians can turn out for campaigning are an asset, itâ??s much more likely that the family friendly message, rather than religious factors, accounts for what strength Family First does have electorally.
Itâ??s intriguing then, that the first time Howard and Rudd will meet in debate this election year is a pitch aimed directly at church leaders.
We’re importing their fucking issues now?
I notice tha tthe Australian Christian Lobby has some strong opinions:
I wonder who’s doing all of this nasty undermining.
And when is there just too much tolerance?
And when does a withdrawal of tolerance augment quality of life. And whose quality of life is being augmented by a bracing dose of intolerance?
I guess the ACL is implying that its enemies are winning so far.
Good. Let the games begin.
Looks like they flip-flopped the pic of K-Rudd. His hair normally parts on the left.
What are we supposed to do as secularists? The extreme Christians and Muslims seem to have little or no interest in the failures of theocracy even as it happens overseas (of course, those theocratists aren’t pale Christians I suppose). I can’t see any other way than to whack-a-mole the religious every time they seek to impose their beliefs on me, in my personal life as well as the broader political scheme. I suppose every time we cry foul, it gives the mongrels a bit more oxygen but I won’t sit silently while they take over.
Thank Christ for compulsory voting.
BBB
The American experience shows that as long as you talk about family values, you can be an intern-shagging, lesbian-parenting, nappy-wearing, prostitute-frequenting, mistress-employing wierdo. I bet both Dad & Kev can talk a good game. Let the games begin, indeed.
And what happened to the division of state and religion?
As an Atheist I’ve got to say that I’m pretty bummed about this to say the least. Unfortunately there isn’t much I can do about it apart from expressing my displeasure at this mixing of state and religion. One more reason to not support either of these parties…..
In what possible way is this a mixture of State and religion, Phil and charles?
The ACL is just acting as any lobby group should, and very effectively. Rudd and Howard have to win the votes of Christian believers. So? Their electoral choices are no less valid than anybody else’s.
hmm, religion, politics, and the validity of “faith” based political lobby groups. It’s time for Pat Condell.
hmmm, LP doesn’t seem to like YouTube embeds. Oh well, here’s the link.
What on earth does “to pray as a church for the election” mean [see bottom of poster]?
I agree with Liam. I am not connected to any religion by any stretch of the imagination, but there seems to be a knee jerk reaction anytime there is anything to do with politicians talking to Christians.
Immediately we have the image of Jerry Falwell (sp?) types having undue influence on poilticians etc.
What would be the reaction if Howard and Rudd talked to a Muslim group? or a Hindu one? They would be seen as enlightened, but once you raise the ‘C’ word then we immediately we see the spectre of reactionary hidden influences.
The fact that Rudd is suspect because he is a committed Christian is ludicrous in my humble opinion. As Mark stated Australians are not big on religion, as many are not keen on politics. If any politician was seen as being unduly influenced by any religious groups it would not be seen kindly by most Australians.
By all means, let’s criticise Rudd if he proposed any anti-gay, or censorship laws etc. But lets not assume that just because he’s a Christian, or is talking to Christian groups he’s evil, politically speaking.
I’d have Tim Costello as PM any day.
Actually Liam, I’ve had a rethink, you’re right. These nutcases should be given as much oxygen as possible. I look forward to hearing their faith based questions on issues of science, womens rights, choice. I’m thinking that Mr Carbon 14 will get another run.
we have a separation of church and state, not church and politics.
Maybe they can put in some time to talk to me and my group of atheist friends, and explain to us why we should vote for a couple of men who believe in fairies.
I’m a bit bummed about the fact that the Christians get a debate now but the rest of us have to wait. In the last election there was just one debate because the Liberal party knows that Howard is a poor performer in these things. Will we get just one in the upcoming election as well? If so its an interesting demonstration of who is valued and by how much. It might turn out that the pretty small group of serious Christians are enititled to as much debate time as the rest of Australia combined.
On another note, I wonder if this is a cheeky move by Rudd. He must know that it is strongly in his interests to have debate(s) and Howard will try to avoid them like the plague. If Howard sets a precedent by attending this one it will help in negotiations for a debate in the election campaign. Giving more debate time to Christians than the general public would be a bad look for Howard who has always been pretty careful to keep the Christian angle low key. Rudd must have known that it would be very hard for Howard to refuse a debate right in front of his most important supporters.
My feeling is that we’ve exaggerated the scope of the strength of the religious vote, which is the point of the argument I’m making. You inflate their importance if you run around saying “help, the theocracy is coming!” – treating them as the tiny and self interested groups they are is much more productive than assuming they have the electoral influence they claim they do. They don’t.
Not an atheist, but this is scary shit man. Why does my eye want to take out the ‘o’ in Make it [a] Count? Sorry. Brain scramble at such an obsequious load of codswallop.
A competition to see who believes in God the most? Who is the most [ahem] Christian? Scuse me while I puke. Sorry I’m lowering the tone here. I can tell. I’ll pissorf now.
Of course they should.
As I suggested early on, these folks know they are losing. They deserve plenty of rope as well as copious amounts ofoxygen.
“You inflate their importance if you run around saying â??help, the theocracy is coming!â?? – treating them as the tiny and self interested groups they are is much more productive than assuming they have the electoral influence they claim they do. They donâ??t.”
Yes Mark, but why then is politics infested with all these Christian maniacs out of all proportion to the apparent secularity of the populace? In the NSW Liberal party we have a rabid bunch of committed christian extremists hell-bent on stacking the party with as many gullible votes as they can get for themselves. Then of course we have Crusader Abbott – a committed Rock Chopper who is absolutely itching to ban abortion and let’s not forget his campaign against the morning after pill and therapeutic cloning or stem-cell harvesting despite a massive shift in public opinion on these issues over the last generation. I notice Kevin Rudd is up there with him on these ones too. Kim Beazley was a committed christian. And even former rock star Peter Garrett describes himself as a committed christian.
So what is it that gets these christians in? Somehow projecting a respectable front has always been a vote winner – you know family man, no divorces, no skeletons in the closet, committed christian. If they are, do you ever hear of any Liberal or Labor candidates – those politicians in the mainstream – boldly declaring they are atheists? Never! It reminds me of Macchiavelli’s exhortation in ‘The Prince’ I think – to always project the appearance of piety by attending church regularly etc, which apparently gets support from the masses. Despite the separation of church and state and the advancement of science over the last odd hundreds of years, I wonder how much has really changed?
I don’t think that anyone should object to Peter Garrett and Kim Beazley being Christians, St Margaret.
That’s what I’m saying – getting all this in perspective is the best form of defence against religiously motivated political moves. If they actually don’t win too many votes (and look at how poorly the NSW Libs did despite a very tired and shaky Labor government) then there’s no electoral benefit in them or detriment in opposing them. The sky won’t fall in on the members and Senators who voted for the availability of RU486, for instance.
I’m not saying that being a christian in itself is objectionable Mark (at least I hope I didn’t give that impression), especially where MPs are basically upright people in themselves. It’s just that being a christian seems to still be such an electoral draw-card despite the apparent secularity of the public. I mean, people seem to give it an automatic tick of electoral approval. What got me annoyed about the NSW Liberal clique is that yes, they don’t have quite the electoral support, power and influence that they obviously crave but they are still being voted in as MPs and machinating away. Isn’t it about time that the secular public realised that christians do not have the monopoly on all the virtues?
Howard calls himself a Christian? hahahahahaha
So invading and bombing Iraq killing thousands to keep the price of oil low is his way of showing Christian love. Or inflicting WorkChoices, the mechanism to introduce the working poor to Australia [he wanted to abolish the minimum wage altogether in the 1980s]; allows Hick eternal incarceration, allows the torture of Mr Habib; promotes racism, intolerance, xenophobia in order to create fear and buy votes; promotes greed and panders only to business, no matter the expense to the average Australian.
John Howard would have to be one of the worst examples of ‘Christian’ however, if look at the new American template maybe there is a new definition. A religion to justify whateve shit action you want to take.
Gee didnt they just vote him more likely to go to hell than Rudd? I think he orginially came from down there but Satan couldnt stand his two face, deceitful ways – he was corrupting everyone in hades.
Howard would love to create Calvin’s Geneva in Australia, only without the religion, and not so much fun. I can just see him buring a few people at the stake for going against the party’s creed.
Howard might be the only rat left in the ship soon after another senior Lib quits.
I think Mark is right. The influence of Christianity as a political force is not great. Its a bit of a mythology I think, circulated by media visions of Hillsong fervour and a few Family first pollies getting in. This is a secular nation with a healthy disregard for traditional religiosity. As for Howard, he is an opportunist, not a Christian.
Sometimes its surprising to read posts on LP where really intelligent, erudite and articulate thinkers who (rightly) expose and dismantle the religious and racial stereotypes used to inappropriately score points on this site then turn around and reinforce them when it comes to Christianity and Christians. Fairies, nutters etc etc – why recycle these pointers to psychological instability when it is apparent that there are some really intelligent, clever people who are Christian and are anything but crazy. Mark pointed to a few. If you can take away the supernatural beliefs which offend you so for a second, you might see that the philosophy of Christianity is not of itself pathalogical. Embedded within it is a deep commitment of service to humankind. But its lived reality has often been the opposite no?, yet for every one of those failed narratives there is one which holds to the original model that Christ embodied. Christians are not a homogenous entity. They too are entitled to diversity across the spectrum. Not all Christians adore Fred Nile, nor do they agree with people like Jensen or Pell. They are not all Abbott lovers and are more often than not repelled by the machinations of David Clarke and his creature now residing in Mitchell. In short, Christians are heterogeneous, and you can find their faith sitting comfortably with either marxism or captitalism, with pro life or pro choice, with traditional family values or with gay rights, with womens rights – you name it, you can find a christian who can accommodate it or embody it.
Surely the real enemy in all of this is that cold morbid fundamentalism which grows with the sudden access to power and which seems to eventually creep into every human endeavour. At any rate its incorrect to tar all christians with one brush, as it is to tar Muslims, Jews or fairies for that matter.
Whereas Howard parts his in the middle.
That’s well said, casey.
You’re right, Casey, but so often the true ethical values come up against the big ‘C’ christian american brand.
Almost automatically, normally sane and tolerant people recognise the offshoots of southern Baptist, tub thumpin’ hipocrytical christianity in all its glory. And rightly so.
The happy clappies, hankie heads and other US derivatives have a great deal of influence behind the scenes, despite their electoral insignificance.
I’m not an expert in these things, so perhaps someone could point me to a truly humble, pacifist leader in these groups. Someone who embodies respect for other humans, without prejudice, putting themselves last so others can survive, a following based on empathy, sympathy and selfless deeds……?…anyone? What, no Ghandis in Castle Hill?
Casey’s post is good. The saddest part of it, however, is that the behaviour of the Establishment-Christians IS that of the cold, morbid fundamentalism that she (?) complains of. Political power will sup with the Devil whenever possible should that deliver electoral success. How else can we explain the most theoretically-devout nation on earth visiting so much evil on so many innocent people in the last 50 years?
So, for every ‘good’ Christian, we must allow that there are several million relatively bad ones, and most of the ruling political class are, by definition, bad Christians.
My own outlook is that Christianity is, ultimately, self-defeating, for it is an ‘Eternalist’ philosophy that holds that there is an eternal afterlife where the soul might reside, unchanged, for….well…eternity. Not possible, by Buddhist standards, where the universal laws of impermanence and interdependence hold sway. For how can anything be eternal, when this implies that things are unchanging? In order to exist, things must change, and in order to exist, they must depend on countless other phenomena.
I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but no-one’s going to be there to catch you when you make the Great Leap Outward. Where you land is really up to your current actions. Vote well.
It is a sad day when people who may walk past,drive past or even eat in the same places,same sports,same education facilities,same problems with money etc.,find it all too difficult that the Political Leadership will divide them by speaking to one aspect,although maybe important in some way! Whereas it isnt the Christians who are the real problem as can be read here,even by reading the most critical of being Christians,but the political leadership. Just relax,because after all it is likely a few sober but,very pointed questions,maybe fired at both in a manner that makes both of them discover ,that veneers are just that! I dont expect Christians in Australia take fondly to the tv mask!
As someone who was raised in the pre US-influenced Baptist tradition – and then corrupted by those notoriously venal/sensualist Lutherans – I would strongly endorse casey’s post. Believer, lapsed Christian, agnostic or atheist; the church is far more complex than commonly understood.
Tim Costello for PM indeed! And as Trevski insists (though I’d argue the Establishment Church is not the central problem) – vote well…
C’mon, belief in an invisible cloud buddy in the sky? What an odd indicator to use in determining where your vote goes (especially if you don’t buy into it yourself).
I’d certainly like to avoid voting for one of these types and I would prefer that our leaders don’t believe in an afterlife, amongst the other nutty stuff.
Mark says:
Wrong. More children are being enrolled in religious schools, and being brought up in education systems which inculcate religious values, than ever before. THe SMH reports that the parental desire for a strong morals-based education is a crucial factor here:
That is why politicians are trying to get in on the ground floor in the emerging “spiritual values” market.
As Bob Dylan would say, this may be a good thing, or a bad thing. But (mark is way off beam if he does not thing) it is definitely a thing.
TT, above all I’d prefer that our leaders didn’t believe in the primacy of the market, a belief which is demonstrably dubious. Religion trumps economics any day, I say.
Oh pish and posh. As Liam points out, all they are doing is whipping up the vote among a particular pressure group. As they would with the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, the Australian Conservation Foundation and, if there were enough votes in it, Satanic Vanilla Slice Worshippers Anonymous. They’re both hard-nosed professional pollies. Not like they’re gonna make any committments to the holy rollers that don’t have an escape clause.
Incidentally can anyone advise me whether I should go interlaced or progressive scan mode when burning a avi file in DVCPRO-PAL format. I’m trying to keep a 6 AV minute piece under 1 gigabyte while retaining the “millions of colours” setting and maxing out audio quality (16 bit and 48,000 megahertz). It has not been easy so far. Bit like politics really.
I’d quite like to drop a Richard Dawkins in between the two of them, now that would make for some viewing!
Nabakov on 4 August 2007 at 1:11 am
I dont think the cynical political opportunism of our leaders is in dispute. Mark is questioning whether the political weathervane is picking up real changes in the cultural climate or giving false readings.
Certain commentators (no names, no pack drill) have argued umpteen times that we are in for a Drier (conservative, integrative and authoritarive) spell, somewhat tracked by cultural and political indicies. Mark is suggesting that this trend is an illusion created by a noisy pressure group.
I dont think “hard-nosed professional pollies” would waste valuable political capital chasing mirages. So I am betting that the politicians pollsters are onto something.
But non-residents of the Strocchiverse are free to risk their shirt betting otherwise.
I think that all parties are interested in the potential of webcasting.
The ACL has stolen a march by organising the first of what may be an important developments in politicking.
The interesting conjunction is webcasting tied to subscriber-only sites.
This serves the interests of ginger groups like faith-based groups. But it won’t be long before webcasting is directly controlled by parties and by other groups not so interested in controlling the nature of the audience.
Phil
Why oh why must you people continually import American political concerns and concepts into Australian contexts?
This country has to more to be concerned about with Theo-Leftists than Xians.
Kina
It is precisely spray like yours, dripping with ignorance as they invariably are, that makes the teaching of Comparative Religion at all schools such a necessity.
Mark
I don’t know how long it has been since you visited a university campus, but today there are more clubs and societies devoted to religion than the Palestinians, El Salvador, or smashing HECS!
Nabs – progressive.
Displaying your usual inability to understand the dangers of generalisation, there, John. One of the reasons why there are Christian clubs on many campuses (and if you bothered to read, you’d realise I work on one) is VSU – they’re well funded from outside as opposed to political clubs which usually relied on student union subsidies.
As to Jack’s point about schools, it’s already been discussed on a previous thread:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/29/religion-social-attitudes-and-politics/#comment-380897
Mark
Oh PUHLEEZ! VSU has only been around for one year!
John, VSU aside, student church groups receive outside funding above the level of most other campus groups, and always have.
Not just money, I might add, but volunteer labour too. The UWA Guild Toilet Appreciation Society had to do it tough – if the Beezer is going to wear a gold toilet seat around his neck for his speech at the Guild Ball, someone has to fork for the spray paint, and my local Uniting Church wouldn’t step up for some reason. Similarly with the Doomsday Bra Bomb – a singular lack of organised religious interest.
FDB
Are you suggesting that the 1980s emphasis on the Palestinians, El Salvador, the Miner’s Strike, Fight Dykephobia with barely a religious group in sight (and certainly no NiqbasRUs) was a reflection of SRC subsidies and no outside contributions?
Whatever, John. This is of marginal relevance to this thread, but I was a member of the Clubs and Socs committee of UQU in the late 80s and there were no groups dedicated to Palestinians, El Salvador or whatever, but some very well funded Christian groups. Groups like Resistance obviously had access to some outside funding as well, but I can tell you from direct experience that most political clubs didn’t. None of this goes to anything regarding the increased salience of religion in Australian political culture.
I’m in!
John – I was being whimsically nostalgic for the fun and crazy campus days of yore, but seriously in the early 90s at UWA the religious groups were conspicuous and clearly well-funded. But as Mark says this is off-topic.
As is this, but whatevs:
The other day I got me and my co-exhibitor (at the Wimmera Regional Careers Expo) our pre-packed lunches, to find a vanilla slice in each bag. A passing country lad was heard to remark “oh, so the exhibitors get a snot-block”. Is this the politics of envy or is that what some people actually call them?
I still ate mine, but the aptness of the nickname was undeniable.
There’s never a bad time to discuss vanilla slices!
I think the separation of church and state is very important. Otherwise, how do all the world’s religion that people practice in Australia get representation? Should you vote for a candidate because they are Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Christian? I think not. People go to places of worship, not the parliament, to practice their religion.
Family First got going in the States before the concept was imported here, but they seek to hide their church affiliation. Preachers tell people who to vote for, and rant on about the supposed evils of some party – notable the Greens.
Costello, Howard and others have popped up previously at Hillsong.
Tim Costello has stated that “Christians need a voice in parliament just like the Greens have.
They will do anything to get votes; they don’t care about the separation of Church and State.
But The Greens ARE a religious cult. Gaia Akbah!
Definitely politics of envy, FDB. I’ve heard the term before. Vanilla slices sound a little too pseudo-soggy for my liking though.
Splittist! What would Don Chipp have to say about you?
Agreed Anna.
You will know the truly soggy left by the way they embrace the matchstick, the beesting and the hedgehog slice and eschew the pink marshmallow and pastry/custard trappings of the chattering pseudo-sogs.
To arms!
Mmmmmm beesting!
Almost as important as the separation between nat and Lib.
mark says:
No, the “online town square” is part of global (post-?)modernity, not some atavistic Americanisation. America is just the first to do this, as in so many other things. That, FWIW, is my crypto-Marxist interpretation.
It is wrong to interpret the Howard-Rudd debate as some sinister attempt by the Religious Right to invade politics. Christians compose approximately 2/3 of the AUS population. Hosting a webcast b/w the self-professed Christian leaders of both major parties does not seem to be “exerting an influence out of all proportion to their actual electoral strength”. It just looks like pluralist democracy in action. Christians vote too, you see.
There is a world of difference b/w the US and AUS religious partisans. THe US Religious Right wanted to disintegrate from secular society (hence home schooling and even cult compounding). They also tend to opposed to social programs helping the poor.
Whereas AUS “Religious Right” are not all that right-wing ie pro-high status. They generally seek policies promoting “c”onservative integration. A strong dose of moral authoritarianism is the best way save the low-status poor and excluded from the numerous pitfalls presented by our pyschotropic society.
I dont see how secularists could find the “theocratisation of Australian politics” a convenient trend. It is going in exactly the opposite direction to their political preferences.
I suppose the sight of politicians sharing the pulpit with priests would fill the likes of David Marr with some kind of ecstatic rage. It gives him the opportunity to don his “End of Freedom is Nigh!” sandwhich boards whilst cluttering up the internet with yet another one of his interminable harangues about the wickedness of the godly. (Are they on some kind of macro down at SMH?)
I don’t see what’s Marxist about that.
The great majority of whom never attend church, and have little or no knowledge of Christian dogma.
I’m sorry, jack, no matter how much you protest, it doesn’t change the fact that we have a lot more in common with Northern European countries in terms of degrees of secularisation and active religiosity than with America. My point regarding the importation of narratives about theocratisation from America is that they’re inapplicable to Australia, and making that point keeps them (and their advocates) in perspective.
Intolerable! Unless of course the godly are Muslims…
Well what
shits megets my hackles up is not so much Christian values as Christian = (capital V) Values.I mean where the fuck do they get off calling themselves Family First? Really.
Values are diffuse through society and Christianity is neither representative, necessary, or sufficient. When politicians start treating them as the one-stop values shop, is when we become that bit dumber as a country.
Mark on 4 August 2007 at 6:25 pm
Then you dont know your Marx properly. Marx was a modernist. And something of a closet Whig, with a dialectical twist of course.
“The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.”
K. Marx
mark says:
I would not read to much into parochial doctrinal ignorance. ‘Twas ever thus.
Declines in tokenistic religious observance are trumped by increases in expensive religious enrollments. Forking out $10,000+ pa in school fees is a pretty good measure of the financial courage of the parents religiously-inspired moral convictions.
No doubt parental class and race preferences are part of this trend towards private school education. (Good Leftys would be wise to steer clear of that minefield!) But you and Katz are blunting Ockhams Razor to suggest that this trend is evidence of declining public sympathy for Christian educational principles, if not observational practice.
mark says:
You can deactivate irony alerts transmitted by the faux contrition. I think you must be arguing this point with another “Jack Strocchi” in some far-flung part of the Bahnisch-verse here. The actual Jack Strocchi in this universe is always at pains to point out the differences b/w US and AUS politico-theo traditions. What part of “There is a world of difference b/w the US and AUS religious partisans” do you find difficult to understand?
You are also somewhat off on the facts. We are substantially more religious than the secular Nordic countries that Mark finds so adorable. AUS is about mid-way b/w the USE and USA in religiosity. Almost 70% of AUS declare themselves to be religious. This compares to my (not very-well weighted average) for Northern USE of ~60%.
But AUS will become more religious the more immigrants we take in from the Southern hemisphere. This trend should worry the multicultural atheist. As comparable cultural trends should worry the multicultural feminist.
But, given his ideological dexterity, I have little doubt that in the future we will all be gasping with wonder at how mark “with one bound, got free” of such political tangles.
mark says:
I am not a big fan of qualitative research. It just seems like offering a blank cheque to both respondents (who adjust halos) and interpreters (who push barrows).
My sense is that religious affiliations, whether nominal or effective, are some kind of proxy for the individual’s support for basic social structures ie familial, parochial and national. A stronger religious sentiment therefore associates with, and reinforces, support for “pillars of society”.
I interpret the sudden outbreak of religiosity amongst our leaders as a sign that the entire cultural spectrum has shifted in a slightly holier-than-thou conservative-integrative-authoritative direction. Sort of like a shift of the whole function, rather than a movement along the function. Probably related to techtonic social status-shifts set in motion by the Culture War.
Therefore the “religous effect” will not have much strong partisan bias, since both major parties have shifted towards cultural conservatism in order to “split the difference”, median voter-wise.
I suspect that the LN/P are more likely to get the nominally religious vote than the ALP. So I dont see how Rudd can be “winning the war for religious voters’ esteem”. It would be nice if we could get a quantitative sense of the effect changes in religious denomination had on voting intentions (and actions), over time.
mark says:
If Gillard had become ALP leader the godly would have shifted en-masse towards the Coalition. But Rudd has quite sensibly, as mark notes, moved to neutralise losses from that quarter.
Of course the minor parties of the secular liberal-Left (GREENS, DEMS) will continue to haemorrhage votes. I will lay big money on that. Any takers?
Well, so was Talcott Parsons. It doesn’t make your statement particularly Marxist as opposed to something else.
As to the rest of what you say, jack, as always you’re cherry picking and distorting evidence to suit your ideological preferences.
You clearly are unfamiliar with the research the churches themselves have commissioned on how little religious commitment mainstream church schools impart, or the studies which have been done on the lack of knowledge of and selective belief in major Christian dogmas. My point about Northern Europe is that there are similar levels of nominal Christianity masking disinterest in and lack of knowledge about actual Christian beliefs and practices.
There probably would be a slightly larger number of those who have a nominal Christian identification holding “traditional” beliefs about the family, etc., than those who are agnostic or atheist, but it would be unwise to assume that all those who tick some Christian denomination on the census form are cultural conservatives.
No way. The ALP would be less popular I’d say, but nothing to do with religion.
What is with Jack’s religious obsession?
Any measure of religious decline will be refuted with private school enrolments! This has to be the lamest measure of religiosity ever, so strongly confounded by issues of private/public eduction completely independent of religion.
Jack just needs something to prove his “cultural dries are winning” thesis, so he’ll grasp at the nearest available straw, no matter how implausible.
Mark on 4 August 2007 at 8:52 pm
I did say “crypto-marxist”. Perhaps “we are all marxists” now, even Parsons, in that sense.
mark says:
You made a factual error. AUS’s nominal religiosity (70%) is about midway between the USE (%60) and USA (80%+). We are neither as paganistic as the Northern Europeans nor as pietistic as the North Americans. I rather think you are defensively projecting here.
AUS has a very strong semi-nationalised denominationl school system which captures more of the market than the largely state school educated USA, I believe. (Stats?) We are much more likely to promote traditional religious institutions than the trendy Scandanavian model that mark is so infaturated with.
mark says:
This is a pretty clear example of what Knopfelmacher derided as the “fallacy of the theologico-deductive method”. You cannot infer much of any use about sociological structure from “ideological” scripture. This goes for churches, parties and so on.
No doubt in Soviet Russia any number of proletarians could quote Marx on the socialist principles. That did not stop them from being tossed into the Gulag.
I doubt whether many contemporary ALP supporters would have the foggiest idea of traditional Labourite philosophy. But social democracy keeps powering on.
You need to stop placing so much naive faith in people’s ideo-theological poses, or lack thereof. In Freudian terms these nominal committments are essentially press statements issued by the super-ego to boost the image of the id.
Academics are always falling into the pitfall of conflating words with deeds, since they essentially deal in symbols, not the realities. “Ideological” postures are at best concomittants, not determinants, of institutional structures and individual natures.
Reading this comment at tigtog’s place, I was reminded of a boss I had a few years back who was completely non-religious, but who only ever hired people in her shop who said they went to Church because she thought they were more trustworthy.
I think there’s a group of people who want others to be Christian, without having to be all restricted by the Good Book themselves. It’s why they send their kids to religious schools, and vote for politicians who make the right noises about faith.
What’s with “AUS”?
The point is that the US has much higher rates of both church attendance and adherence to Christian beliefs (for instance the real existence of the devil, etc) while we’re very close to Northern European countries (not just Scandinavia). Go read a book on secularisation, jack, and come back to the thread.
Aarrgghhh!!!
If believing in the truth of Christian dogma doesn’t contribute to whether or not someone is a nominal or a fervent Christian, I don’t know what else would!
As I said before, you’re just conflating all sorts of measures to justify your own belief that people are culturally conservative. You’ve just destroyed your own argument by admitting there’s no good correlation with religious idenfication.
I think that’s common in US neo-conservatives. They just mean religion for the poor people, to keep them disciplined.
I think you are spot on there Anna. Another example is the trust many show in the Salvation Army, largely without subscribing to the SA beliefs.
As a regular and conservative churchgoer, I can support the above comments about the broad spread of views held by Christians. For instance, there has recently been considerable anti-war, anti-workchoices literature and surveys distributed through Christian channels, and there quite a few true Christian pacifists that show up about the place.
As to the shift to private schools, you need look no further than the Teacher’s Federation for the cause of that phenomenon.
Funny that Queensland does not have a single Category 1 school in the state so all the big money to prop up Scott and Kings college etc. never even makes it here.
Look no further than more attractive funding for private schools and general rise in ‘everything that is public is low status’ snobiness.
I for many years ticked Christian in the cenus [I ticked Buddhist in the last one because I was sick of the lot] but never went to Church, never thought about religion for one moment and didnt believe in God. I ticked Christian simply because thats the family heritage.
I suspect a great number of people who nominated Christian as their religion wouldnt even know what it was except that involved Jesus somewhere.
Having gone to Church for the past 7 years [my wife is Christian] and listening and talking to the members there I discovered MOST of them didnt know why they were ‘saved’ or very much at all about the Old and New Testaments. They all however considered themselves pious Christians. Gee, even I took the effort to study the theology and history of Christianity.
I expect that a large percentage of people who nominate Chirstianity as their religious affiliation are simply nominating what they think their heritage is.
Pay attention Mark. Strocchers has already explained this.
You are a Christian if you send your children to schools with other children who don’t know a damn thing about Christianity, like you and your children.
What could be clearer than that?
Funny that Queensland does not have a single Category 1 school in the state so all the big money to prop up Scott and Kings college etc. never even makes it here.
Not sure what your point is – but those elite schools receive only a fraction of the support that “parish” schools receive on an overall basis, or on a per student basis. No doubt there will be plenty of ideologically disabled lefties who think that they should receive no funding at all, but you get that.
Sorry to hear about your ideological disability,I had no idea. All I was saying is that I was amazed that no such schools exist in Queensland.
Timely article in SMH today
Ok I retract a bit of some of my request for a more complex rendering of Xtians. This christian here, is mad as a cut snake. No question. No argument.
Mark
I am afraid Jack is spot on. The increasing volume of religious talk from pollies and in the public sphere generally reflects the decline in the cultural power of the baby-boomer values. As Jack points out record high immigration rates especially from fertile NESB contributes to the dilution of the “sixties” voice.
Where many Leftists went wrong was in thinking that history was progressive and that the aggressive atheism of the 60s and 70s was an irreversible progression. In fact, what we are seeing is that the sixties was more a blip, from which the world is now repelled.
You can make all the excuses you want for the disappearance of Leftist causes on campuses and the explosion of religious groups, but the data remains.
Jack
This is wrong. Americans are EXTREMELY pagan, with Australia less so, and northern Europeans even less. The cult of the celebrity, team sports, advertising, Big Brother are all irruptions of paganism. Remember that Roman Catholicism itself subsumed paganism. It is the dour Lutheranism that banished Catholicism’s paganism.
The new daimones are Oprah Winfrey, Bono, Princess Di,etc. while the new demons are OJ Simpson, Pauline Hanson, etc.
Pentecostelism is very pagan.
Mark’s comment at Opinion Online that while,
is all the more salient when read against Tanya Levins take on membership of these churches:
Tanya Levin’s book on Hillsong is reviewed here and highlights how the mainstream media’s regular pieces on the rise of pentecostalism as a political force should also be mediated by the consideration that the turnover in these churces is extraordinary.
casey
Are you saying that you do not support consumer advocacy groups and other forms of mass mobilisation?
David on 4 August 2007 at 9:33 pm
My “religious obsession” is no more than an equal and opposite reaction to the strange “a-religious obsession” harboured by some intellectuals. Religious schools are, in part, religious institutions. What part of that that self-evident proposition are you contesting?
Parents who spend up to half their wages on a private religious school are making a more important statement about the true value of their beliefs and hopes than those who spend a token hour at church on the weekend. They want their kids inculcated by traditional moral authority (rules, discipline and structure).
No doubt in part because they neglect their children through working long hours to pay the fees. And in part because “seperation guilt” makes them spoil the little monsters.
Katz, mark and david say that all parents who make the switch to private religious schools do so for reasons “completely independent” of their religious character. This measure of “religious incline” is supposed to refute the proposition that religiously-inspired institutions still have plenty of social mileage in them. Count my gob-smacked by that bit of blatant bit of blind-eyed scoping.
No doubt some “issues of private/public eduction” are “independent of religion”. Unfortunately class and race are a factor here. Entrenched economic stratification and ethnic segmentation is an inevitable consequence of increased “diversity”, given the underlying dispartities in the population. But the prudent Lefty will shove that problem into the “too hard” basket for the moment.
Of course professional politicians dont have the luxury of indulging such ostrich-like behaviour. Why do they reach-out to churches for votes? Same reason robbers target banks. Thats where the numbers are.
Katz on 5 August 2007 at 7:48 am
The institutional medium is the ideological message. Anyone who thinks ostentatious doctrinal purity is the be-all and end-all of a religious tradition knows little about religion or tradition, at least in Oakshottian sense. Does the “parable of the Pharisee” ring a bell?
Christianity is as Christianity does. You are a Christian if you send your children to schools that transmit the Christian moral tradition. Which has a strong affinity with the conservative values of social integration and political subordination. The eagerness of professional politicians to tap into this cultural vein indicates it is a rich source of votes.
What could be clearer than that?
What does the last sentence have to do with the rest of this paragraph? Professional politicians have the nose of a truffle hound for anything that delivers votes.
1. What proof do you have to support your hypothesis that the schools you refer to “transmit the Christian moral tradition”.
2. Are you implying that this supposed “Christian moral tradition” is embodied in some way in “conservative values of social integration and political subordination”? If so, that sounds like what all established religious traditions have sought to achieve ever since man invented his imaginary chums in the sky.
3. Is there anything else to Christianity besides this?
I’ve pointed out before as well that many Catholic schools in Brisbane do disturbing (to jack) things like promote multiculturalism, encourage support for asylum seekers, etc. Similarly, Anglican elite schools in Sydney have been subject to criticism from the Sydney Anglican hierarchy for having nothing much to do with Christianity. But, really, John Greenfield sums it all up:
Just because you have learned to use the word data, doesn’t mean that you have any.
Yes very good JG. Katz at the thread on Haneef puts it, definitively, this way:
mad-as-a-cut-snake territory….Apart from Mickey Mouse the advocacy group Andrews is involved with targets Glaxo Simith Kline. so, yeah I do have issues with consumer advocacy groups when one of its members wields power in the cabinet on its behalf, as outlined in the article so:
What funny old nostalgics these promoters of cultural traditionalism are!
1. Greenglass lambasts the rise of the bourgeois soggy left. He bemoans the displacement of the blue collar at the core of leftist politics. Newsflash! The featherbedded industries that nurtured Australia’s blue collar population have almost completely disappeared. A leftis party that relied on this support would be smaller than the Greens.
2. And Strocchers’ mental world Archbishop Daniel Mannix is still striding past John Wren’s tea shop en route from Raheen to some fresh Fenian plotting at the Chapter House behind St. Pat’s.
But credit where credit’s due. At least Greengage’s worldview has made it to the late 1960s.
Mark on 4 August 2007 at 9:57 pm
I admire your chutzpah, if nothing else. To insist as you do, against fact and logic, that higher enrollment in religious schools has â??no good correlation with religious identificationâ?? is an effective way to â??destroy you own [a-religious] argumentâ?? alright. The intellectual contortions you put yourself through to explain (away) the increased enrollment in religious schools as a sign of the decline in traditional religious institutions are painful to watch.
You need to read between the doctrinal lines. I am not so much interested in nominal loyalties or pieties. Religious beliefs are and should be a largely private matter in a liberal civil society. So whether more or less people declare themselves to be religious or can recite doctrine by rote is not all that interesting to me.
I am interested in the social functions and political consequences of quasi-religious institutions. I am not so much interested in the status or success of formal religious denominations, per se.
The issue is not whether people actually subscribe to an ecclesiastic institution or can trot out theological doctrine. It is whether they will support and fund religiously-approved sociological practices and religiously-inspired “ethico-logical” principles.
It is obvious why the massive growth in private religious schools is relevant to this point, teaching being more important than preaching. This is one of many facts that does â??justify [my] own belief that people are [becoming more] culturally conservative.â??
And that explains why hard-headed politicians take such a keen interest in sweet-talking the more or less religious vote these days.
Mark says:
AUS is not all that “close to Northern European countries” in nominal religiosity. We have 10% to 20% higher rates of denominational profession than the USE. Church attendance is not the only index of fidelity to traditional moral institutions.
For sure AUS is less religious on any measure than the USA. But I would not take all that stuff about American devil-fear and miracle belief all that seriously. Its mostly localized in the South and is mostly for show.
OTOH, if the USE is so unreligious what are all those Christian Democrat parties doing running or manning the offices of state though much of Continental Europe? Figments of the strocchi-verse imagination?
Mark says:
Please donâ??t lecture your Weberian grandmother on how to suck secularisation eggs. The philosophers of modernity were forever warning that the fortunes of churches were not identical with supernatural beliefs or more prosaic moral authorities.
A sociological realist puts a heavy discount on the cognitive value of theological pronouncements, whatever the source or modality. It is you who should be “going back to Weber” before believing every doodle that gets jotted down in the margins of “qualitative research”.
There are plenty of non-observant agnostic Christians out there (me included). These non-religious traditionalists may occasionally sympathize with, and vote for, a “Christian” party or leader. And fork out big bucks to ensure that their kids imbibe “Christian” moral principles. But they are off your rather poorly-tuned research radar.
Mark says:
You spend a lot of time scratching your head about the contradiction b/w the alleged decline in authoritarian moral traditionalism and the apparent eagerness of modern politicians to court the religious vote. At least this seems to be the case going by your puzzled final comment that â??itâ??s intriguing then, that the first time Howard and Rudd will meet in debate this election year is a pitch aimed directly at church leaders.â??
Your bewilderment deserves no sympathy for this problem is an entirely self-inflicted intellectual wound. It will continue to haunt you because your foundational assumptions are false.
You lay down as an axiom that â??a dam of social liberalismâ?? is being held up by race-card playing, dog-whistling, god-bothering Howard and Co. Then you notice as a fact that say, super-conservative Howard has been winning many elections comfortably, or that Rudd is ostentatiously Christian, or that secular minor parties have been losing political ground for a decade.
How to reconcile the cherished ideological axiom with the inconvenient empirical facts? I know, churn out a bunch of soft qualitative research and then impose an ideologically soothing interpretation. This is the opposite of science.
If they’re Christians that can’t be arsed going to church for an hour, it would seem fairly obvious where Christianity lies on their beliefs and hopes scale. Perhaps they worship in their hearts?
I think this is a good opportunity to introduce the word ‘twaddler’ into the English language.
jack, you’re just repeating your same points but with even more words this time.
Talk about mistaking the measure for the concept…
If that your “definition” of Christianity, everything you say is a waste of time because it’s just a big tautology.
Memo to all the Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims who send their children to Christian schools – you are actually Christian. You may think you know your own beliefs, but Jack knows better…
ZOMG!! It is you who will explain away practically every quantitative measure. It’s no secret that your only measure – schools – is the one most obviously confounded by economic issues.
I believe I’ve quoted figures here before in a similar argument with jack (who doesn’t allow any contrary evidence to shake his certainties) showing that in most states between 25% and 40% of students at Catholic schools aren’t Catholic.
between 25% and 40% of students at Catholic schools aren’t Catholic
Yes, and they might not belong to another religion either.
As an 18 year old I know who’s been in Catholic schools since Y4 said to me the other day, “I’ve come to the conclusion that all religion is about controlling your mind.”
A lot don’t – as in my young brother who went to St James in Brisbane. He was hardly alone in not being religious at that Catholic school, which had kids from a lot of different backgrounds, including quite a few very recent immigrants.
Oh noooo but what you fail to see is that the very act of going there is a sign of support for religion, even if they don’t realise it…. (* insert sarcasm).
David on 5 August 2007 at 6:23 pm
David,
You are missing the point with your usual pin-point innacuracy. This is because you are, like most of your political persuation, hypnotised by symbols whilst ignorant of substance.
It is a basic principle of realist behavioural social science that analysts should always attempt to generalise from revealed preference or observed behaviour. And not rely on subjective ideological classifications or ideological press releases. So if you want to test for basic socio-institutional committments you should not get too hung up about nominal self-identifications and doctrinal incantations.
As I said, I am not so much interested in the success or not of this or that formal religious denominations. I am interested in the nature and strength of underlying social associations, political subordinations and moral orientations.
I repeat, to the extent that Hindus, Jews, Muslims send their children to Christian schools and those children are inculcated in Christian values then to that extent those children are “functional Christians”. Whatever their self-identification or doctrinal positions.
Your point about the impossibility of religious fusion is ahistorical. Religious institutions are not mathematical axioms. Pretty much all religions are mish-mashes of previous disparate religions or folk tales. One can, for example, be a bit Judaic and a bit Christian at the same time. Ever heard of the Judaeo-Christian tradition…hmm?
More importantly, trivial counter-instances aside, the vast majority of private school attending children are nominally Christian. You have had to turn Ockhams Razor into a blunt instrument to “prove” that Christians attending Christian schools in greater numbers actually implies a decline in Christian or traditional moral values. No doubt, for your next trick, a proof that water runs uphill.
You have also evaded my more fundamental point, that massive increases in the religious schools enrollments signifies that some forms of traditonal, institutionalised moral authority still commands great respect and adherence in the community. Which explains why professional politicians now make more than ritualised gestures in that direction.
Much to the disgust of Wets deluding themselves about some mythical “tide of social liberalism”, always on the verge of, but never quite, breaking over the shores of Howard’s AUstralia.
Or are Australia’s most successful politicians deluded residents of the “strocchi-verse”? Along with the million or so high fee-paying parents who were only kidding when they say they expect some moral authoritarian bang for their bucks, I suppose.
Talk about pot, kettle.
You get carried away with so much useless jibber jabber, Jack.
No crap. How about measuring the most direct religious behaviour, ie. religious attendance.
Time and time again this has been refuted. There is a trend towards private schools. The reason they go to religious schools is merely because these are the schools with the established infrastructure. Gradually, this will change. I think you will find a relative growth of secular private schools compared to religious private schools.
Everyone :
Howard and Rudd together …. Two Parties, One Faction.
How come most of the real Christians are silent and have left all the running to gangs of rich and manipulative foreign heretics?
Jack Strocchi:
The reason so many parents nowadays send ther kids to church schools is the hope that they will come out with the skills and contacts that will help land them a good paid job …. it is probably only the devout who send their kids there for religion alone.
Rhetorical posturing.
Commonplace.
If thatâ??s all you mean, you should really find a new term â?? because that is quite contrary to everybody elseâ??s definition of Christian. Your social science isnâ??t merely finding a way to measure the concept, itâ??s actually changed the concept. Itâ??s like saying crossword puzzles are good measures of intelligence (we always have to get an abstract concept into behavioural observation, of course) and then declaring that crossword puzzles ability *is* intelligence.
Oh really? Just as well I never made that point… But a devout Hindu who has no interest in Christianity but sends his/her kid to a Christian school because it gets the best grades in the area is not making a substantive religious ‘fusion’. The religious component is trite and irrelevant. If the established local private schools happened to be Secular Liberal Humanist Institutes, theyâ??d probably send their kids thereâ?¦
Truism.
Woah… truism.
Subtle, elegant imagery. Problem is that I never used more students attending Christian schools as evidence that Christianity was in decline. I actually refuted the validity of that measure, and used separate measures to demonstrate that Christianity is in decline.
Blah, blah, blah.
We are obviously not getting all that far with this debate. I dont wish to get into another slanging match. I am simply no match for David’s rapier like wit, with his devastating put-downs of the kind, “Whoa”, “No Crap”, “Blah, Blah, Blah” and so on.
So I will endeavour to summarise main factual points that are not in dispute, which have become apparent over the Howard years:
1. Religious denomination and observation, particularly Christian, has significantly declined.
2. Religious school enrollments, particularly Christian, has dramaticly risen.
3. Parents, in response to detailed polling, have variously justified their preference for private religious over public secular schools by pointing to better facilities and teachers (technophila) and strong emphasis on traditional values and disipline (moral traditionalism).
4. Some parents my not identify as religious but strongly approve of a traditional moral authoritarian education.
5. Many of the children enrolled in religious schools are not formally religious themselves or are of a different religion to the school establishment.
6. Some religious schools promulgate a Soft Left ideology, largely at formulated by Teachers Unions and the educational bureaucracy.
7. The leadership of both major parties have taken great pains to court the religious, and/or moral traditionalist, vote.
8. The secular minor party (DEMS, GREENS) share of the vote has dramaticly slumped.
9. The religious minor party (FF) share of the vote has increased.
The main point at issue are:
A. How religious or traditionally moralistic are private religious schools?
Mark, Katz and David imply that religious schools are hardly religious or traditionally moralistic at all. Their “religion”, such as it is, is now a dogs breakfast of Soft Left culturalism spiced with Hard Right financialism. Most fee-paying parents are simply being ambitious for their child.
Jack argues that private religious schools still transmit a strong traditional morality, largely transmitted through the medium of institutional authorties. Most fee-paying parents like this.
B. What is the significance of the religious trend in Australian politics?
Mark, Katz and David argue that this religious trend is the result of a noisy god-bothering pressure group that has the ear of cynical and opportunistic Coalition, combined with a weak and spineless Opposition.
Jack argues that political parties are responding rationally to a large previously underutilised niche in the market, the growing pool of voters who have a preference for traditional morals and mores.
The key weakness in MDK’s position is the counter-intuitive notion of inferring an attenuation in religious or traditional moralistic belief from an increase in enrollments to religious or traditional moralistic schools. They also persistently ignore or downplay the collapse in the secular minor party vote.
The key weakness in JS’s postion is equivocation over the strength of the religious/moralistic factor in private religious schools. He downplays the influence that the Coalitions pro-active religious subsisdies have played in the revival of the religious vote.
I thought you rejected qualitative polling out of hand. Where’s the link, Jack? My recollection was that it was a press release from Brendan Nelson or something.
Not so. I’ve pointed that you have no evidence to assume that all religious schools are “traditionally moralistic” and nor have you defined what that may mean. In your continued quest for social scientific behavioural realism, or whatever your term de jour is, you may wish to consult the definition of construct validity.
As far as I’m aware, this is the first time you’ve mentioned this on this thread, but I suppose we’re supposed to be familiar with every element of your “cultural dries” argument. Please justify that with psephological figures. And please do so in a way that doesn’t impose your assumptions on the figures.
Why are you implying that the points made in those back to back sentences are inimical? Smart about money and equipped and willing to assess and surf changing cultural and social waves sounds like a excellent grounding for the spawn of the A/Bs to succeed in a 21st first world culture.
Nabakov also wonders:
- why Jack is now referring to himself in the third person, which does rather reek of terminal soliphism; and
- what the fuck is your point now?
That our basic traditions of morality are good? Who’s arguing against that?
That your “Wet” tide which apparently hijacked the Western World over the last few decades has led us into a vortex of intercine strife that’ll trigger the decline and fall of Western civilisation? We’ve generally never been richer, plumper or more placid in the West. The only threats on the horizon involve around access to energy resources, sustainability and various geopolitical (eg: crazy dudes from the Middle East) and economic (eg: the sub-prime mortage caper) fuckups, none of which can be traced back to some cabal of pomo lesbian academics chanting “It’s all relative” over a taxpayer-funded cauldron.
Jeez, get a life why don’t you? And get a smaller and better fitting one for Mini-J while you’re at it. One that doesn’t revolve around linking your sense of self-esteem to proving that some W. Heath Robinson theory will actually fly – but if only you blow hard enough into the right pipe while pedalling furiously, feeding golf balls into the hopper attached by old suspenders and clenching the rudder between your teeth.
Mark on 6 August 2007 at 9:59 pm
Your recollections are as faulty as your thesis is flimsy.
I reject tendentious interpretation of qualitative polling, of which there is alot about in the MDK-verse. The key research I have relied on is “Why parents choose Private or Public schools“. I have already given you the link here.
The research strongly supports my key contention, that the strong increase in private religious school enrollments is associated with a revival of moral traditionalism within the broader community.
You have denied this, and you are factually wrong to do so. I have boldened the most findings most damning to your case, saving the best for last.
Unless you can provide some harder evidence to the contrary your interpretation of the increased religious school enrollments is falsified.
mark says:
No evidence at all, apart from a millenial tradition which does not evaporate into thin air, the vows of their teaching establisment and the preferences of the parents. It is counter-intuitive and evidently counter-empirical to insist that religious schools are not somewhat more traditionally moralistic and conservative than the alternatives on offer. Doubly so to insist that an increase in their market share does not portend somesuch trend.
“Traditionally moralistic” implies adherence to the moral traditions of Christendom. It thrives on the tension b/w institutional authority of the community and individual autonomy of the conscience.
The institutional medium is the ideological message. So private religious schools tend to encourage social conservatism over social constructivism, integration over differentiation and authority over autonomy.
mark says:
Be glad to. The secular minor parties GREENs/DEMs commanded about 14% of the vote in 1996. That slumped to 9% of the vote in 2004. A decline in the region of 30%. (And lets not mention One Nation or Family First.) And the Wet vote will go down further the next election, with any luck.
Of course major parties have throughly rejected the fashionable Left-liberalism purveyed by Keating-Hewson in the early nineties. The Dry mini-mes Howard-Rudd are light years away from all that soggy nonsense.
Read the study objectively, jack.
“Traditional values” aren’t equated to moral or religious values which are only one part of the construct. Wearing a school uniform or school tradition isn’t a proxy for the stuff you’re talking about. You’ve gone and added an enormous amount of ideological baggage of your own to the findings which isn’t part of the survey itself.
I can’t be bothered looking at this time of night, but the selective presentation of those figures suggests to me that the trend may not be uniformly down between 96 and 04. Am I right?
As usual, it’s specious to suggest that the only or even the important factors explaining the variation in the minor party vote is “cultural dryness” or whatever. Would you assume that the US became more “culturally wet” because the largely secular Democrats got 57% of the vote in the Senate last year where a majority of the states in play were “red states”? You’d have to on your assumptions, but of course you’d be wrong.
JK Rowling, take a curtsey here.
Jack does that a bit.
Just a tad.
To just call in the cats, I wonder what the Howard/Rudd debate is going to be all about? Since they are both christians talking to a presumably mainly christian audience it will probably be all about being good and family values with such stupefyingly edifying exchanges like:
“I can prove that I am so fucking christian, I bet that I am more christian than you”
“No you can’t”
“Yes I can”
“No you can’t”
“Yes I can yes I caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
My ears are tuned for the mother of all election campaigns……
Actually St M I can see it going like this.
“I forgive you Kevin.”
“No, I forgive you John.”
“No, I forgave you first. Now I turn the other cheek.”
“But I turned the other cheek first! Still I forgive you for bearing false witness”
“Well I forgive you for breaking the fourth Commandment.”
“What? Eating tiger prawns with a very decent SA chardonnay backstage?”
“No, keeping the Sabbath holy.”
“Hey, you’re here too.Talk to your schedulers old man.”
‘Respect your elders you whippersnapper.”
“Oh yeah? Well your mother wears stockings made of mixed fibres!”
“You know what happens if you don’t follow the Fifth Commandment?”
“Whaddya gonna do about it…Samson? The temple’s falling around you.”
Pastor/Moderator: “Please gentleman, can I ask you both to observe the most important commandment of all in the House of the Lord?”
Rudd and Howard in unision:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me!”
STROCCHIBINGO!!!
Your prize, a year’s supply of wet-wipes, awaits thee, sir. Though you really ought to spare a square for David, who performed the heavy lifting on this one.
Miss Teschmacher, please reset the Strocchicounter.
Hmm, so Pell is ordering that Catholic actually should have CATHOLIC students in them.
According to News Limited today, Dr Pell and his group want preference given to children from a school’s parish, followed by other Catholics, then other Christians and then finally to students with other religions.
The schools have been urged, in an edict reportedly signed by Dr Pell, to â??re-examine how they might maximise enrolment of Catholic studentsâ??.
and so, after Christians flocked in their tens to their churches tonight to hear the two leaders, the Australian Christian Lobby is on Lateline pronouncing its new influence in the political sphere. mmm.
Christians in Australia, the the head of the ACL says, unlike the States – line up most naturally in the centre and the ACL is not aligned with any side (one might suggest there are no sides). Interestingly world poverty and persecuted christian goups were raised as considerations in voting intentions. Oh and marriage – between men and women, that is. So, lets lobby for the poor, and persecuted christians and happily continue the practice of exlusion towards gays. Sucks really.
I do not forget. Mr Howard he ignore our priests when they said do not attack Iraq and he ignore again when they say to help the refugees Mr Howard can say he is a Christian but as John wrote, make words flesh and Mr Howard never does.
What did y’all make of Saint Kevin’s round the nation hook-up with churches, last night?
Just be glad they are not lobbying for some of the psycho things they are in the USA…
David, in a way the tepid responses that some Christians give in Australia – to Iraq, to the Aboriginal intervention, with Haneef, the children overboard saga leaves a more bitter taste in my mouth that the loony right in the States. I think some of them wont do anything uncomfortable which is a very Australian kind of Christianity. And I do think there is some kind of psychosis going on with the right wing christian obsession with gay exclusion in every way shape and form.
Indeed, the ACL cited that as an issue of importance in Christian voting intention. And it such a side issue in the old and new testament. What bits are mentioned could have been ignored, as is mixing your wool with linen, as a quaint cultural artefact of another age – but no – its seems to be the trigger for all sorts of intolerance in Christ’s name. Now that can be dismissed by most people who arent christian, which is fine, all the better. But the tragic outcome of that for gay christians is that they are vilified and othered and some of them are devastated by this teaching. What rubbish that christians cite this anachronistic thinking, along with the other soft targets of world poverty and persecuted christians as issues of importance. Of course world poverty is an issue. Of course Coptic Christians should not be persecuted. They could try using their influence in a way that their professed founder would have done – by pointing out, for example, that using Aboriginals as a political football doesnt cut it in heaven.
Well Maybe they arent as fundie as American cousins, but their lack of response to issues of importance, which is their professed role by the way, is more offensive in the terms laid out by Jesus himself, than the right wing fundie christians who actually believe in what they are doing. I would like to see the ACL be guided by some of the deeply symbolic and material dissent of someone like Ciaron O’Reilly for example. For once, it would be nice, if a christian lobby group could take its cue from what their founder actually did and do what what they always bleat on about doing in church. But that’s not going to happen, because this lobby group is totally committed their bourgois interpretation of a christian philosophy which supports their affluent lifestyle by citing, ad nauseum, as Howard did, the parable of the talents. Oh give me a break.
Removing self from soap box now.
I’m pretty sure their tepid response is more due to changes to the Charities Act brought in by Howard where organisations who spoke ill of Govt Policy would face financial penalties in regards to further funding.
Honestly, Im not sure about that Frank. Because if the professed philosophy was being taken seriously, then the concerns of funding would not take precedence over conscience. This is what they are damn famous for, burning at the stake for their beliefs and all that, which was my point. But because christianity is interpreted here through the concerns of a bourgois capitalist sort of thinking, then it necessarily follows that they reflect this dilution in their voting concerns. Its a shame. Christianity has a great dissenting tradition which could have brought pressure to bear on the politicians of this country. As it is Howard thinks providing an internet nanny will placate the deep spiritual yearnings of this constituency. Sweet.
Sorry if this has already been posted, but Hawke, Whitlam and in the states, Carr, were all openly atheist. As far as I can see, none ever tried to disguise it. We’re definitely not in American territory here; in the US being an atheist pretty much guarantees that you will never reach public office.
But that said, the disproportion of Christians federally representing a far less religious populace is a matter of concern in my view. Personally, anyone making decisions on my behalf that are in any way based on their superstitions, rather than on reason, is very disturbing.
Jack:
Rubbish.
9% of Australians go to church each week. Only 17% go each month. Automatically writing in a census form, “Catholic” or “C of E”, because that’s what your parents were, doth not a believer make. Source: National Church Life Survey. (These are 2003 stats. Given the trends, the numbers currently would be lower.)
Justin linked an interesting article from the ABC Religion Report on another thread, about churches as the new progressives.
Thought it was worth reproducing in this thread.
Funnily enough i saw the Hillsong pastor on cable a few weeks ago, and was intrigued to hear him saying charity was good and had its place, but that he felt it was time Hillsong should turn their emphasis to the seeking of justice in the community.
Casey, that’s certainly true of the Non-Conformist bandwidth within the broader spectrum of Christianity, at least in some instances under certain circumstances. But I don’t think that the Church in all of its manifestations necessarily behaves this way, at least not with any consistency.
Case in point (and I’m not targetting Lutherans here – they simply provide an example): I had a high-school teacher – a Lutheran pastor who had the misfortune of spending his childhood in Hitler’s Germany – who would literally spit when discussing the complicity of the German Lutheran Church during the 1930′s. Made quite an impression on me as a teenager.
Of course the paradox of this example is that – having seen the duplicity of an organised Church in providing tacit support to a monumentally evil government – my teacher nevertheless chose to attach himself to that theological tradition (albeit very much on his own terms).
The lure of incorporation into the mainstream of political power can at times outweigh the imperative of answering Christ’s call to live the life. I’ll leave it to you to ponder more contemporaneous manifestations.
Yeah I have read Hillsong is suddenly having a social justice kick. Probably smart business to deflect critics and in response to a changing political wind.
Casey, I agree with pretty much everything you say, especially the absurd hypocrisy among Christians, that so bizarrely jars with the anti-materialist anti-power radicalism of the New Testament. Every time the New Testament mentions money or political power it does so in a negative way. Compare the number of those kind of quotes to the anti-gay kind, which a historicist reading could easily get rid of. The theme of the New Testament is you got to do what’s right, too bad if you lose your house and tear apart your family. This compares to those narky aspirational class/middle class ‘family’ Christians whose prime concern is ‘oo what happens if my home loan goes up a bit and therefore can’t afford as many plasma screen tvs’. Sometimes I wonder if they actually read the Bible. You get them in conversation, and they try to get rid of all the inconvenient parts with interpretations so bizarre that they outdo postmodern literary critics in the ‘creative reading’ stakes. This from ‘Bible believing’ Christians.
Nevertheless, I do think there is a world of political difference between the complacent silence among Australian Christian and active advocacy of US Christians on various social oppressions. Australian Christians may be ok with anti-gay, but they are not passionately in support of it like US Christians. For US Christians, these kind of issues (abortion as well) trump ANYTHING else. This means an automatic Republican base who will passionately lobby for the party no matter how evil their policies are. Australian Christians aren’t like that, and do place more emphasis on things like advocacy for the poor, which US Christians couldn’t give a toss about. This means we can get their votes on some matters of social justice (eg. poor), and then screw them over on other issues (eg. gays).
Also, there certainly are Australian Christians who are unhappy with the bad things the Howard government is doing (including to gay people), even if they don’t make the lobby groups.