Sunday, January 14, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Send a Message to God: He has gone too far this time

by Heather Mac Donald, Slate

Thanks to JohnC for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.slate.com/id/2112083/

Originally posted Monday, Jan. 10, 2005.

In the wake of the tsunami disaster, it's time for believers to take a more proactive role in world events. It's time to boycott God.

Centuries of uncritical worship have clearly produced a monster. God knows that he can sit passively by while human life is wantonly mowed down, and the next day, churches, synagogues, and mosques will be filled with believers thanking him for allowing the survivors to survive. The faithful will ask him to heal the wounded, while ignoring his failure to prevent the disaster in the first place. They will excuse his unwillingness to stave off destruction with alibis ("God wasn't there when the tsunami hit"—Suketu Mehta) and relativising ("for each victim tens of thousands yet live"—Russell Seitz), even if those excuses contradict God's other attributes, such as omnipresence or love for each individual life.

Where is God's incentive to behave? He gets credit for the good things and no blame for the bad. Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is fond of thanking God for keeping America safe since 9/11; Ashcroft never asks why, if God has fended off terrorist strikes since 9/11, he let the hijackers on the planes on the day itself. Was God caught off guard the first time around, like the U.S. government? But he is omniscient and omnipotent.

So slavishly do his worshipers flatter God that they give him credit for things he didn't even do. Let a man rape and murder a child, and it's the man's offense; but if someone tends to the sick or shares his wealth, it's God's hand at work. The Most Rev. Gabino Zavala from the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese rejects any suggestion that God forsook the tsunami victims, according to the Los Angeles Times, but he credits God with the subsequent charity: "You can see God in the people's response—how they're reaching out."

It is a sad fact of human relations that unqualified adulation often produces from the adored one contempt and a kick in the chops, rather than gratitude and kindness. Apparently, the same applies to human-divine relations.

So, let the human race play hard to get. Imagine God's discombobulation if, after the next mass slaughter of human life, the hymns of praise and incense do not rise up. He checks the Sunday census; the pews are empty. Week after week, the churches and mosques are unattended; the usual gratitude for his not wiping out even more innocent children does not pour forth.

He starts to worry. Has he gone too far this time? Maybe he should've exercised his much heralded powers of intervention, the same powers that his erstwhile worshipers presupposed every time they prayed for him to cure a cancer victim, or get them into law school.

And so, no longer guaranteed an adoring public, he starts to make nice. He calls back avalanches poised to wipe out whole villages; he brings rain to drought-stricken communities; he cures fatally handicapped babies in the womb, or prevents such flawed conceptions before they happen. He presents tokens of his love to malaria victims and children paralyzed by auto accidents. Africa blooms with peace and prosperity.

It might not work. But the "I'm rotten-You're divine" syndrome isn't too functional, either. It's worth a try; there is nothing to lose.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, January 14, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 44 of 44 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #17467 by palebluedot on January 14, 2007 at 1:14 am

I recall the devout believer who lost his son on 9/11. Several weeks passed and no body found. Staring into the rubble, he prayed. The body was found and he said 'It's a miracle, the Lord has answered my prayer and returned my son'.

They just don't get it, do they?

Other Comments by palebluedot

2. Comment #17468 by JohnC on January 14, 2007 at 1:15 am

No, not naive but a light touch, since she hadn't yet declared her hand (it was 2005). My reading is that the decision to write the full-scale polemical assault the following year (and not in her own magazine, but in a central organ of conservatism) was much influenced by Richard and Sam's books. TGD in particular, given the ubiquity of his "coming out the closet" metaphor for atheists that bizarrely made its way into the 10 questions piece (what are these conservatives to make of that?)

I have no intention of repeating my thoughts from that first thread, but would underline that this has been a highly significant development in the US (though perhaps not exactly of the form RD had in mind) since it challenges the nexus of morality and religion in the heartland where this linkage matters most. To hear a leading social neocon deny the connection sows doubt for the first time and starts shutting down the polemical space within which it can be simply asserted.

Other Comments by JohnC

3. Comment #17471 by MarcKeys on January 14, 2007 at 1:45 am

I read the first paragraph and then lost all interest "boycott of god?" certainly this is not a serious article.

Other Comments by MarcKeys

4. Comment #17472 by Russell Blackford on January 14, 2007 at 1:51 am

It's a good thought, but I agree that it's naive: although she acknowledges that it might not work, she just doesn't seem to give enough weight to that possibility. It's almost as if she intends the whole thing as a kind of black, satirical joke, rather than as a serious proposal.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

5. Comment #17474 by Dan P on January 14, 2007 at 1:54 am

I agree with the hypocrisy, the Tsunami is Nature as well as every other "bad thing". Suddenly these deluded theists has become the biggest boosters of materialism and naturalism. But wait, when there is a horrible drought followed by rains, the drought is the result of cruel nature while the rain is the grace of god...What makes this utter hypocrisy even more hypocritical is that it isn't even seen as a flaw, it's a built-in feature not a bug.

Other Comments by Dan P

6. Comment #17477 by Russell Blackford on January 14, 2007 at 1:59 am

Btw, I do hope anyone reading my post above has a sense of when irony is intended.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

7. Comment #17478 by fonex_86 on January 14, 2007 at 2:08 am

Why are some of us still surprised at this madness? Even David of the old testament said the same thing in Psalms 91:7. So even if 11.000 living, breathing humans -- man, woman, and child -- are suddenly butchered, it's OK, because at least god managed to save... you! How wonderful! How completely sickening too.

Other Comments by fonex_86

8. Comment #17479 by fonex_86 on January 14, 2007 at 2:12 am

Man, I definitely gotta remember to use this kind of argument... I once silenced my theology(!!) professor using a variation of it, but I keep forgetting to use it... always getting bogged down by the biblical references and loop logic the xians love to use...

Other Comments by fonex_86

9. Comment #17482 by JimMet on January 14, 2007 at 3:02 am

Naive? It amazes me that anyone can read this and not realize that it is satire from an atheist. Nice article.

Other Comments by JimMet

10. Comment #17495 by LBraschi on January 14, 2007 at 5:14 am

Of course it is satirical! And a great fun.

Other Comments by LBraschi

11. Comment #17500 by Russell Blackford on January 14, 2007 at 6:14 am

Yeah, but it's fun to pretend to criticise it with a straight face. I thought I should give an irony warning earlier, because people often don't get my dry sense of humour. lol

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

12. Comment #17501 by NJS on January 14, 2007 at 6:35 am

There was a train crash in London a few years ago (Ladbroke Grove for UK readers) where a survivor was quoted as saying that she was a devout christian and had survived so she'd wondered if the dead had believed and thats what seperated them.

I consider myself a good, moral person but I have to say I found myself wishing great suffering on her just so I could ask her where her God was then.

Other Comments by NJS

13. Comment #17513 by condorfree on January 14, 2007 at 10:31 am

The people that argue and put attributes on God are just as ignorant as the ones that take away some one else's hope. God wants you to heal your selves yet you want to beg questions. I haven't read the rest of the disillusionment on this web site - Pero... expect some real emotion - not your typical sudo brand from the mainstream college professors that haven't taken the time to run it around the block - God is Love and that's an experience that looks like is missed here. sorry to pop your warm fuzzie bubbles.

Other Comments by condorfree

14. Comment #17514 by jeff_n on January 14, 2007 at 10:56 am

condorfree says:
"God is Love ..."

Or possibly a security blanket, a skirt to cling to ...

Other Comments by jeff_n

15. Comment #17515 by Logicel on January 14, 2007 at 11:00 am

God's love is the kind I can do without. However, it seems that despite the bizarreness of G-Love, some still seem to bask in an irrational insistence that G-Love is and feels good.

Here's a great quote from the non-believing 16 year-old-daughter of PZ Myers (http://skatje.com/?p=103#comments) stating the basic reasons why one does believe in God:

"It feels so good. People want to believe in god because they enjoy that feeling that someone is watching over them and that they have a purpose in life. They also like thinking that someone that died has gone to "a better place." That helps with accepting death. It's really all jolly and things, but it's teaching the wrong mentality. Doing things simply because they "feel good" and closing your ears to truth and reason is hurting yourself more than helping. Whether it feels good or not, that doesn't mean it's true."

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #17516 by flashbaby on January 14, 2007 at 11:03 am

condorfree: god told me anyone who thinks they know what she wants or speaks on her behalf has mental health issues. A bit harsh but that's god for you.

Other Comments by flashbaby

17. Comment #17519 by Logicel on January 14, 2007 at 11:14 am

"sorry to pop your warm fuzzie bubbles."
______

It is Condorfree that is ensconced inside a warm fuzzie bubble.

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #17522 by Roy_H on January 14, 2007 at 11:53 am

YES! I remember many years ago I used to say :Someone is in a hospital bed on the verge of death,but they make a remarkable recovery..."Ah tis a miracle, God be praised!" but if they die it is "Ah tis God's will" To the devout, God never gets it wrong.

Other Comments by Roy_H

19. Comment #17536 by NJS on January 14, 2007 at 3:21 pm

This also made me think of that current case in the US where the kid who'd been missing for 5 years turned up and it was deemed "a miracle" by his parents - where was your God when he was kidnapped morons?

Other Comments by NJS

20. Comment #17537 by down_under on January 14, 2007 at 3:36 pm

In the UK a few weeks ago a little girl slept walked out the window and fell 3 floors onto some old matresses, she broke her arm and fractured her leg as well as some mild head and neck injuries....her parents said "the angels must have been looking over her" (referring to the soft landing i guess)

the angels must have been distracted when she started sleep walking and climbed out the window then?

Other Comments by down_under

21. Comment #17554 by Martha on January 14, 2007 at 5:22 pm

This article starts of with:

"Centuries of uncritical worship have clearly produced a monster. God knows that he can sit passively by while human life is wantonly mowed down.."

Precisely! For centuries, we (in the Christian West)have been taught from birth to passively tolerate people who instinctively resort to violence and abuse of their power over others in order to have their way over the rest of us. That is, psychotic people who were rejected at birth, but who manage to rise to the top of Society (or pecking order) because they are aided and abetted every step of the way by their "minions". In a truly civilised truly society, such unfortunate creatures would be aborted, precisely because they were not welcomed into the world in the first place, as all children should be. But then, we don't live in Utopia. Far from it!

Other Comments by Martha

22. Comment #17560 by Veronique on January 14, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Don't forget John Cleese's comment re: Americans.

'...Americans operate from a low level of mental health.'

He was talking about the reception of The Life of Brian by US audiences. The quote seems. well, still apt...

Other Comments by Veronique

23. Comment #17566 by Homosapien on January 14, 2007 at 7:28 pm

"God is Love and that's an experience that looks like is missed here."

Move on, will you. *Love* is love. Just shed the mythology (or acknowledge it as such) and love for love's sake, man.

Other Comments by Homosapien

24. Comment #17571 by Baz Y on January 14, 2007 at 9:00 pm

'God is Love'.

Wow! two of life's great mysteries explained in one epithet.

Now, about this warm fuzzy thing ...

Other Comments by Baz Y

25. Comment #17608 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 15, 2007 at 5:30 am

...yeah Baz Y. What is that warmy fuzzy thing? Hee-hee-hee!

Gee. God is Love. Aint heard that one before. Perhaps the God of love could explain:

AIDS. Progeria. Cancer. Heart Disease. Ebola. Parkinsons. Senile Dementia. Disease in general?

7/7. 9/11. 7/11. Spanish Inquisitions. Crusades. Intolerance for Gays. Hatred of women - or at least, viewing them as 2nd-class citizens, worthy of painful child birth.

Hmmm. Gee. Thanks God. Shame you couldn't get it right first time, eh? Shame you couldn't be bothered. Some designer. I bet there are engineers in here, whom if designed items as badly as God, would be fetching their UB40's sometime soon.

God really is love. Look at all the murdered people in the Bible. I'm sure they were loved.

I can't get my head around such comments. I'm sure all my fellow Atheists are familiar with such self-satisfying, self reinforcement of one's belief system.

God is love. Ha ha ha! That one has cheered me up no-end. I'm so glad God is on our side. Shame he wasn't on the side of the Tsunami victims. Or the victims of Pol Pot. Or the victims of WWI and WWII. Or the victims of Saddam. Or the victims of Robert Mugabe. Should I go on? No, the point is made.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

26. Comment #17613 by TigerDunc on January 15, 2007 at 5:43 am

Condorfree - Sorry to disappoint you, but God spoke to me and said that he actually doesn't love you at all. He loves everyone else though, especially those who, in his eternal wisdom, he has allowed to suffer, to die horribly or live on in great pain and agony.

Other Comments by TigerDunc

27. Comment #17619 by madpatriot on January 15, 2007 at 6:19 am

NoLongerHaveBelief,

7/11? Why, if it weren't for 7/11, where would I get my Slurpees?

Other Comments by madpatriot

28. Comment #17670 by ridelo on January 15, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I wouldn't send that message. There's still the possibility that He could become even nastier. Don't wake Sleeping Dogs!

Other Comments by ridelo

29. Comment #17681 by Veronique on January 15, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I have been reading Dr Giles Fraser's articles in The Guardian, one of which is mentioned in TGD.

The latest article was published 15th Jan '07 and can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1990370,00.html

He takes Polly Toynbee to task for playing into the fundamentalists hands.

It is a thoughtful and timely warning against stridency.

I would like to hear some of your comments.

Regards
V

Other Comments by Veronique

30. Comment #17689 by Logicel on January 15, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Veronique, Giles Fraser's articles have been discussed at length at this site already, and I found him to be vacuous and full of theodrivel:
(http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=search.php&varType=post)

Kimpatsu, a poster here, aptly summarizes my response with her/his post at the Guardian:

Kimpatsu

January 15, 2007 02:24 AM

For a high-ranking member of a particular superstition, Giles Frazer appears not to know his book of Bronze Age myths very well. The proscription against homosexuality is right there in Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination", Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them", 1 Kings 14:24 14:24 "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel", Romans 1:26-28 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind..."
I could go on, but I think the evidence is clear. In siding with tolerance, Frazer is ignoring the teachings of his own church, and relying on his personal moral intuitions. This is a far healthier way to make ethical decisions, but to then suggest that Xianity mandates such tolerance is at best disingenuous, and at worst a bare-faced lie.
Oh, and when we atheists were counter-demonstrating outside parliament last week, Giles, where were you...?

Other Comments by Logicel

31. Comment #17704 by Veronique on January 15, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Thanks for the link Logicel.

I only came to this site after Fraser's articles and your discussions. I have now read through most of the comments.

I certainly had not realised that Fraser referred to himself as a 'failed atheist'. Rather pathetic.

However it is not so much the previous discussions that (and you are right) show his vacuity.

This article posted today (your time) is in regards to 'media atheists'.

I also recall the tortuous road centuries ago that led to the 'tame' mainstream christianity of today. The bloodshed that led to current tameness both in the UK and in Europe meant that everyone had had enough of the religious wars. Europeans in particular, while walking to the corner shop today pass places that recall those bloodbaths. No wonder they had had enough.

The fact that fundamentalism is on the rise is the result of the 'emasculation' of the ordinary 'vicar' culture that grew in the UK and the secularism of the US Constitution. And remember that Fraser is such a vicar, not as Kimpatsu would have it, 'a high-ranking member'.

RD's excerpt was from an April 13th 2006 article by Fraser. Very different from the October and November articles your link led me to.

There few people I wash my hands of forever because they exhibit thinly veiled religious views. All people sometimes voice vacuous and ill-thought out arguments to propel their particular positions. I know that I have been guilty of ill-considered arguments that ultimately fall in a heap under examination. I don't berate myself or walk away from me. I learn to research and read more and then test my better-considered views on others.

Fraser is merely an exponent of the wishy-washy form of Christianity that developed in the UK over centuries. How I wish it had been retained rather than subverted by the extremists.

On these posts, it appears to me that everyone is taking religion by its fundament and pointing out the revolting passages in the OT as arguments. This is what Fraser is concerned about. His preference is for a sort of godless secular christianity.

I prefer no religion and that is not about to happen, however if I had to choose I would opt for the bumbling vicar.

Other Comments by Veronique

32. Comment #17706 by Veronique on January 15, 2007 at 3:23 pm

BTW has anyone read Michael Burleigh's book Earthly Powers?

I heard an interview on ABC Radio National Summer on Saturday. First time I had heard of him. He's written a lot!

JohnC - you may have read Burleigh.
Which reminds me, annonymous or not as these posts are, how many Australians are they apart from JohnC, Aussie and me? I get an Australian flavour when reading some of the posts here.

Other Comments by Veronique

33. Comment #17714 by Logicel on January 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Veronique wrote: "The fact that fundamentalism is on the rise is the result of the 'emasculation' of the ordinary 'vicar' culture that grew in the UK and the secularism of the US Constitution."
_________

The taming of religion until Europeans reached a collective state where they cease burning each other at the stake, subjecting each other to torture, and slaying each other in countless numbers happened gradually and because of various influences. Are you saying that is all what humanity is capable of, and we need not dismantle the remaining and 'tame' shreds of religious superstitutions because us doing so has resulted in us fanning the flames of the 'dormant' religious fervor that us humans just can't shake?

Are you saying because of the secular nature of the American constitution, because it did not have a state religion as England had, that is why many decades down the nation road, America finds itself overrun by well financed and loud religious fundamentalists?

If so, I don't agree. The supporters of religious superstitutions who are moderates are the very ones that keep fanning the dying flames, who provide a safe haven so the more unbalanced supporters of religious superstititions can and do go full hog. The ordinary vicar in England is not succeeding at drawing his flock closer because he is not succeeding--no one is sabotaging him, he is able to continue what he has been doing. It is not working at present because it does not fulfill people's needs. Hence the institution of such changes as female vicars, etc.

If America did install a state religion back way when, would it had also become 'emasculated' as the British version has become, and thus cause the very same situation that a secular consitution has apparently caused? Must we always tiptoe around the ridiculous nature of religious superstitutions, hoping if we do so, they will remain tame? It is clear that approach has not worked.

Has Feminism--which some considered to have 'emasculated' man--caused a backlash in the regard that men are now even more anti-woman? And if so, should feminism tame itself because of that?

Other Comments by Logicel

34. Comment #17725 by Veronique on January 15, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Thanks Logicel. It's weird to realise that I am writing at 1pm on 16th Jan in the middle of the cricket.

I agree that 'moderate' religion underpins the growth of fundamentalism because it does not denounce its own nonsense and can therefore not denounce the very dangerous nonsense of fundamentalist religious doctrines.

I agree that ALL religion is based on horrible 'statements and stances' attributed to any god by any of his supposed biographers, saints &/or prophets.

The religious wars of past centuries were hard to take and moderation and a more mature tolerance resulted.

No, I am not saying that atheists 'fan' the flames of militant fundamentalism. It is, however an unwinnable situation. To keep reiterating the rubbish of the OT and Revelations to a mind set of people who appear to be incapable of reason (who then subvert what is being said to them) and react like Anne Coulter & friends is dangerous. Yes, they have the money and influence, because we no longer have a monitoring system to keep things in check. Now there's a discussion.

Yes, our countries' weak leaders pander to those votes and the lucre they can bring to bear.

You seem to imply that because moderate religion is not fulfilling people's needs, the changes made (ie female vicars, tolerance re: homosexuality etc.) together with the concommitant argument and dissention within the moderate hierarchy and its ranks has led to the growth in fundamentalism.

You may be right.

It's not that I recommend tiptoeing around religious superstition. I just don't think head butting is efficacious. It certainly appears that way.

Feminism has NOT emasculated men. Feminism has been accepted as fair and equitable in modern, normal 1st world societies and beyond.

Radical, antagonistic 'feminism' which distorted the feminist cause has resulted in their becoming marginalised. I see it in my own community. I would hate to see that happen to science and reason.

Regards
V

Other Comments by Veronique

35. Comment #17733 by JohnC on January 15, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Veronique, the argument by Giles Frazer ("in their struggle for secular values, commentators such as Polly Toynbee are effectively handing fundamentalists the title of official opposition") should be taken seriously become it arises quite often, and it's dead wrong.

If the vicar of Putney used his high-profile media platform to attack the fundamentalists rather than Toynbee he would resolve both problems in a single stroke. In the face of a serious challenge by fundamentalists, the best the "moderates" can muster is some muted dribblings in the Church Times while the lunatic fringe is actually pumping out press releases and demonstrating in the streets. And he then has the gall to blame "media atheists" for the high profile of the fundamentalists.

If the moderates really want to claim that their brand of superstition is compatible with a rational, secular society then they need to do a lot more to take on their co-religionists and actually fight for their values rather than simply clucking about them over tea and scones, while denouncing in hurt tones the courageous resistance of people like Toynbee and Grayling.

Other Comments by JohnC

36. Comment #17739 by Veronique on January 15, 2007 at 9:25 pm

JohnC

Fraser is not that high profile. He's a media mouth. He won't attack the fundamentalists; he can't; he believes in the basic doctrine after all.

I have just watched excerpts and comments of the Jesus Camp videos on YouTube and yes, I am horrified. These people are instilling in children the same sort of 'jihad' as the Islamists. I watched these children brandishing pretend swords.

I don't know how to combat this stuff; I haven't your journalist skill; I haven't any forum except this one.

But head butting won't solve it. And Fraser is what he is - lazy, frightened and unable to address the issues. I wouldn't have the gall to compose an article for public consumption (and criticism) about what I think is happening.

No-one seems to engage eachother in any meaningful dialogue in the media. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others do and suffer the consequences. They are focussed on reason as the antidote to believe. I applaud them.

You are right, but the Frasers of the world will never stand up. Their moderateness is all they can call upon and it's better than outright war, because you know what that can mean.

I apologise for being so new at expressing my thoughts on paper (muddled as they may be). I am not Socratically trained. I am trying and any help is appreciated.

Your use of language is great. Don't give up on me yet.

Regards
V

Other Comments by Veronique

37. Comment #17742 by Russell Blackford on January 15, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Veronique, I am not posting anonymously, either here or on my own blog ... and I'm as Australian as they come. :)

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

38. Comment #17763 by Veronique on January 16, 2007 at 12:53 am

Hello Russell Blackford.

I only really feel Australian when we win the cticket or the gorgeous opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics. The wonderful larrikanism of Aussies swells my heart!!

I was brought up in Singapore until the Chinese threw us out in 1958. So my compatriots were Malays, Indians and Chinese. It has taken a long time to adapt to being Australian (I was born in Adelaide).

In other ways I can say I would rather live here than anywhere else. I don't have to lock my car or my house. I have been robbed once (by children who undoubtedly needed the money I left on my desk). I have had one person only make the sign of the cross at me (I thought him weird anyway).

Australians are in a better place than most of the rest of humanity and I think we tend to forget our immense luck of birth and take so much for granted.

Pity about Howard and Costello though! And Rudd ain't going to shape up any better. It's all politics and lies though. Why should we be surprised? Nice to meet you.

Regards
V

Other Comments by Veronique

39. Comment #17770 by Russell Blackford on January 16, 2007 at 5:36 am

I'll vote for Rudd, for want of a better option. However, as far as I'm concerned, he's demonstrated himself to be just another irrationalist by voting against the recent legislative amendments in Australia to legalise therapeutic cloning within regulatory limits. Fortunately, the irrationalists lost that debate.

Yes, I guess we are lucky. Not that long ago, we even had a very good (IMO) prime minister who was openly a religious sceptic (I refer to Bob Hawke). That would never happen, in many parts of the world.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

40. Comment #17775 by JohnC on January 16, 2007 at 7:31 am

Russell, there is a profound difference between political discourse in Australia and the US. When was the last time you heard a frontbencher of either political party utter, let alone invoke, the word "god". I cannot remember an occasion. And that's the case with even the most publicly Christian of our conservatives, Tony Abbott, whom I have known for 30 years. He succeeded me as president of Sydney Uni SRC in the 70s and 15 years later he turned up as a leader writer for The Australian when I was foreign editor, and now of course he is health minister. But despite his scummy right-wing politics and well-known Catholic convictions, have you ever heard him invoke the god-word in his polemics? It is so very different in the US, where even politicians we suspect are non-believers feel the need to drop the G-word into their public discourse at regular intervals. Here is John Howard, our Prime Minister and a Christian, whom I loathe, in 2004, being put on spot by Compass, about the only thing that passes for a religious TV program produced in Australia:

Geraldine Doogue: Because using God as a credential for office. It's pretty American isn't it?
John Howard: Yes well I don't do that. We are quite different from the Americans in that way. There are things that an Australian political leader, no matter what his or her private beliefs are, there are things that an Australian Prime Minister would never say. I mean for example John Curtin was an avowed non-believer. I didn't agree with him but I respected his views, and I think you have to in our society respect that.

And John Curtin was prime minister in the 1940s!

Other Comments by JohnC

41. Comment #17794 by Russell Blackford on January 16, 2007 at 1:26 pm

^JohmC, I agree - it really is a profound difference, and that's the point I was struggling to make. When I said "many parts of the world" I was especially thinking of the US.

But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, even here in Australia, religious morality has an impact on actual policy formulation, as seen in the debates about embryo research, euthanasia, etc. We can't afford to be complacent - not that I'm suggesting you were! I'm just reminding us all that we don't live in a completely benign environment, here in Australia, when it comes to religious influence on policy.

I also think that the relatively benign environment we do have makes a lot of progressive thinkers less willing to take the problems of religion seriously. I obviously don't mean you, given your participation here, but a lot of people whom I deal with from day to day seem to think religion is warm and cuddly, much like Terry Eagleton's picture of it.

On the other other hand, I taught some philosophy of religion tutorials at Monash University last year, and found that my 18-y.o students were mainly hostile to religion, so much so that I had to look after the minority of religious ones, despite my own views. Now, that is certainly not a problem that I'd expect any academic to have in (most parts of?) the US. It's a good problem to have.

Cheers, mate. I'm off to the Australian Open.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

42. Comment #17827 by condorfree on January 16, 2007 at 9:07 pm

Well well well, seems to be a dilemma! There is a God, that doesn't want to do it your way - and too many people want it their way. To top it all off each side assigns attributes to God that God knows nothing about. The warm fuzzies? How do you rationalize your way from it - no different that the ones that want to make their vision of God work for them - the only problem with the two sides is that praying isn't petitioning, hoping nor expecting to wonder how this will all end. It is fervent prayer - fasting of the ways that hold us back - and doing the will of the Father without the self pity and indulgence of some mixed up delusion of how God should have been without respect of the ways we work out the salvation that we may heal and be healed. God is love, the sooner we know what it is - the sooner we will know why we require it without asking forgiveness for our own selfishness. God might be that lady or gentleman that wants a life where there is faith hope and understanding with the intelligence to know how to ask and when to. Still looking and serving a God no one knows - wont find them here - but I know where they are. So I guess you missed me.
Thanks for your time. Gods Grace is still yours for the simple request of becoming a person your father and you are both proud of - if your Father didn't know, then ... your wisdom will honor both.
More to say - more to do - more to live and more to heal. Love has no boundaries, we can all live together – or just as we have done for eons; die together.
Its funny that we don't want to learn the way to get better – we would rather complain and stay the same.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Shouldn't we keep our options open and find the way to be more Christ like? It would be way to easy to keep the fuzzies and just deny instead of Loving our neighbor and then griping about those who don't know God instead of instructing in our own live – thus a challenge.
Show in your life where doing everything without God is more productive than believing – And I will continue to heal in the name of Christ Jesus as a new person arises showing he or she was there all along – spread the word – the gospel of Christ is "Health and life"
Instead of finding ways to reject God's healing – then use the intelligence given you buy the spirit , to heal. Science is the measurement not the solution, the science of mind - is the overcoming of walls presented by years of indulgence in selfish behaviors.
First we cast the log from our own eye – then we see how to get the splinters from others.
Heal yourselves and heal a wounded world.
A lot of work to be done -

Other Comments by condorfree

43. Comment #17835 by tatsie on January 17, 2007 at 12:07 am

of course she was joking. It was well written and beautifully sarcastic.

Other Comments by tatsie