in service of the
​common good
Shocking attack on Anglican owned hospital in Gaza
“I don’t believe in the God you don’t believe in either” The explosion on Tuesday at the al-Ahli al-Arabi hospital, also known as the Baptist hospital, which killed hundreds of already traumatized civilians must be investigated as a war crime. While Israel claims, as it has in similar circumstance in the past, that Hamas was responsible through a misfunctioning rocket, there is no evidence that this is the case. It is almost certainly the result of an Israeli strike, intended or not. I want to respond to this outrage through the words of a weeping Israeli citizen who lost his child in the brutal Hamas attack on a kibbutz “I am sorry, I can no longer believe in God anymore”. This is the hub of the matter. While this is not in the traditional sense a religious conflict, the facts of the matter are that when an illegal settler is asked by what authority he dares to push Palestinians off their land and resume it for himself, he holds up a Bible and says: “this is the authority”. There would be no conflict if the illegal assumption of Palestinian land, property and rights was not occurring. There would be no conflict if Gaza was not permanently and crushingly blockaded. There would be no conflict if the most right-wing government in Israel’s history was not in provocative and suppressive power. There would be no conflict if the promise of the Oslo agreement of Palestinian nationhood on 22 percent of original Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital had been delivered within the promised five-year time frame. There would be no conflict if the UN sponsored partition of Palestine on a roughly 50/50 percentage basis was enforced in the years following 1945. There would be no conflict if the conservative/religious right which dominates American politics did not back Israel on the basis that God gave Israel all the land and that Jesus will return when they control it all from the river to the sea. Hamas’ attack on October 7 was barbaric and must be unconditionally condemned. But it is simply untrue that it was without provocation. I weep equally for Jews and Palestinians who have lost the lives of their loved ones. I support entirely the kibbutz citizen who poured out his disbelief. I absolutely do not believe in the God you no longer believe in. Let us assume for a moment there is God, I fervently believe this to be the case. This God must surely behave consistently and equally, not simply with all humans, but with the whole created order. If any have a particular place, it can only be in service of the order that this God intends for the whole created order. It is simply not credible to believe that one group of people is given divine right to a piece of land that allows them through acts of apartheid, even genocide, to exclude others. The Bible is reasonably clear about the order that God intends. Justice, mercy, righteousness, humility, hospitality, care of the vulnerable, treating the stranger in your midst as one of your own, are all clearly set out, not simply in the New Testament, but throughout the writings of the Old Testament prophets. To paraphrase Amos: “I hate I despise your religious practice, but let justice roll down like a river and righteousness like an everlasting stream”. Or Micah: “What does the lord your God require of you, but to do justice love mercy and walk humbly with your God”. Zionism, Israeli government policy, is a political movement, but it is a political movement that relies on a quasi-religious historical assumption. Zionism is not the same as Judaism. The world at large has been immensely blessed by Judaism and by Jewish people. Jewish people have, and do, push well above their weight in many fields of human endeavour, including humanitarian fields. Zionism and Zionistic propositions do not represent Judaism. I am proud that Judaism lies at the very foundation of Christianity. But I abhor activity in the name of religion which brings pain and suffering through injustice and oppression. Will this article be called antisemitic – of course it will. Should it be? Of course not. I hope with some humility this article is being written and read in the spirit of the prophets we Christians and Jews share, again paraphrasing “I care nothing for any of your religions, but let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everlasting stream”.
1 Comment
Conservative Christians say No to Indigenous Voice
“Christians for Equality has been launched to promote reconciliation and recognition and to prevent Australia’s constitution from being used as a lever for anti-Christian ideology.” The Shelton-led group has urged Christians to vote against the voice, alleging it would enshrine Indigenous Australians as “forever victims”. In an online pamphlet, it claims voting yes would instead “embed Indigenous spirituality into the constitution”. “It will create an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality leading to resentment,” the group’s pamphlet reads. Lyle Shelton, previous leader of the Australian Christian Lobby and now a politician aspirant on the extreme right, heads Christians for Equality – a new network that seems to be more about politics than faith. It is hard not to despair when such ignorance and stupidity is voiced by a person who seeks respect, even authority, as a Christian spokesperson. First, Mr Shelton is ignorant of the faith he claims to espouse. The earliest biblical name for God is the ‘God who listens’, words uttered by Hagar. Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid, went on to name her son Ismael which is a combination of the Hebrew words for ‘God’ and ‘listen’. Prayer has at its roots belief that God listens, a truth that is reinforced both in the words and rhythms of Jesus’ life. We Christians believe the nature of God is to be imaged and followed in what it means to be human. We are to respect one another through listening. Those who are strong are called upon to listen to those who are weak. Those who have authority are called upon to listen to those who are affected by that authority. It is sadly the case that very few Australians know an indigenous person, their views about First Nations people being second hand and coloured by the prejudice of the person providing the insight. The voice is a generous invitation to recent comers to hear indigenous people with no requirement or obligation, other than to respond with common humanity. In being the human face of God, Christ shows us what it is to be human. Second, Mr Shelton and presumably those who rally around him, show total ignorance of indigenous spirituality and culture. Therse is nothing in indigenous spirituality that threatens Christianity. Unlike Mr Shelton’s Christianity, indigenous spirituality is not best understood through dogma. It is best understood through relationships. Relationship with the land. Relationship with language group. Relationship with elders. Relationship through songlines. Relationship with the past, present and future through story telling. Mr Shelton’s spirituality leads to ownership, individual rights and possession. Indigenous spirituality leads its people to understand what it means to be owned – by the land and the obligations and responsibilities that flow from it. Indigenous spirituality leads their people away from individual rights and privileges to communal responsibility and belonging. Rather than indigenous spirituality being somehow in conflict with Christian belief, there is much within indigenous understanding that will enhance and deepen Christian belief. Third, Mr Shelton is ignorant of the Australian constitution. The Constitution was founded on racist attitudes, reflecting the prevailing views of the time. If it were being written today it would reflect very different views and address different concerns. It is simply nonsense to suggest embedding the proposed voice in the constitution will give one group of people an advantage over other Australians or cause division. It will do what should have been done 100+ years ago, acknowledge the pre-existence of peoples and cultures on this land. Such recognition assumes a voice needs to be heard, not only for the sake of First Nations peoples but for the sake of all who have since arrived. It needs to be said that opposition to the referendum at its most base, is fear that somehow the voice will cost other Australians. Rather like opposition to action on climate change, failure to respond with good because it might cost something is hardly a trait that someone who espouses Christianity should be proud of. The Conflict
What is playing out on the border of Gaza and Israel is awful. Loss of civilian life is inexcusable and must be condemned. Unsurprisingly, and understandably, Biden, Albanese, Trudeau and other Western leaders have condemned the Hamas attack in the strongest possible terms. But is that all they are going to do – double down behind Israel in responding to Palestinians as vicious terrorists who need to be taught a lesson, or worse, eliminated? My question to Biden, Albanese Trudeau and others is what do you want Palestinians to do? For those who live in the Gaza strip do you want them to be for ever caged animals; living in the most incarcerated and impoverished conditions in the world with no hope for countless generations of what we consider to be normal life? Are they to live forever with no employment for their children? What do you expect those young adults to do, behave meekly with no anger? And those on the West Bank, what do you want them to do? Do you want them to meekly accept their lot. What is their lot? It is to have their land arbitrarily confiscated to serve illegal settlements of armed migrants with ideological views that exclude Palestinians from ordinary human rights. It is to be corralled into smaller and smaller areas. It is to be systematically removed from area C, approximately 70 percent of the West Bank. It is to live forever in a cramped refugee camp called Jenin. It is to live in Hebron and be daily intimidated by illegal settlers and permanently blocked from the main shopping street. It is to negotiate endless security checks for no reason other than to be humiliated. It is to access below standard water supplies while illegal settlers water their lawns and wash their cars. It is to have identity papers that restrict access even to parts of their own Palestinian Territories. It is to have no access to Jews only roads that crisscross Palestinian Territories. And if you live in East Jerusalem, it is to be constantly harassed, intimidated and to live under the threat of your home being confiscated. Biden, Albanese Trudeau and others, you are partly responsible for this outrage of violence by not doing your duty in holding Israel to account. Peace is never possible while gross injustice prevails. Peace flows from justice, not the other way around. You find it easy to hold Palestinians to account and no doubt you will continue to do so. But what are you going to do in holding Israel to account? We can only tremble as we await the dreadful revenge Israel will inflict upon the Palestinian people. It will be swift, and it will be unremittingly merciless. What will you all do in response to this? The only redeeming feature possible is that Israel will take direct control of Gaza and in turn the international community will treat the whole area from the river to the sea as a single unit demanding a form of governance that gives equal respect and opportunity to all its citizens in mattes of religion, language, culture, economic opportunity and human rights. If this were to happen, then yes there would be peace. Biden, Albanese and Trudeau, you have the honour of leading nations that were all founded on a Christian tradition of respect, inclusiveness, and a bias towards support and advocacy for the weak and vulnerable. You will negate that tradition if you give unquestioned support to the strong and their suppression of the weak. The seduction of misinformation
“Elon Musk's X has disabled a feature that lets users report misinformation about elections”. While not surprising, this disturbing piece of news illustrates more than anything the absolute madness of the contemporary world, described in the presidential speech by António Guterres at the UN Assembly on September 21 in the following terms: “I am here to sound the alarm: The world must wake up. We are on the edge of an abyss — and moving in the wrong direction…. We face the greatest cascade of crises in our lifetimes… A surge of mistrust and misinformation is polarizing people and paralyzing societies… This is a moral indictment of the state of our world. It is an obscenity. We passed the science test. But we are getting an F in Ethics…. The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a code red for humanity. COVID and the climate crisis have exposed profound fragilities as societies and as a planet… Yet instead of humility in the face of these epic challenges, we see hubris. Instead of the path of solidarity, we are on a dead end to destruction. At the same time, another disease is spreading in our world today: a malady of mistrust.” At all times in our lives, we rely on trustworthy information to inform decision making. Trust is life’s most indispensable ingredient. We do not live isolated lives, whether we are prepared to acknowledge it or not, we are community beings. Even the most informed of us have limited expertise across a wide range of topics and skills necessary for basic daily living. We rely, consciously or unconsciously, on an army of others. When information becomes unreliable and trust disappears, choosing, even in service of self-interest, let alone ethically, becomes impossible. The harmonious functioning of society becomes impaired and more likely - fractured. (Britain’s Brexit debacle is a good example of choices being made based on fabricated information). Increasingly, social media is becoming the platform of choice for information, whether it be local gossip, or information that has the potential to change national and international affairs. We know that what passes for news often has a twitter feed as its source. Trump was banned from the use of twitter because of his false and very damaging claims. Now it is apparently the case that this significant component of social media does not consider falsehood or truth to be worthy of monitoring. Apparently, freedom of speech ‘trumps’ all other considerations. Elon Musk is reported to be concerned about the fractured nature of American society, yet he is determined to set himself up as the greatest contributor to this fracture. I have just returned from my first roster in support of the Yes vote at the local early polling station. While 90% of voters understandably wanted to avoid contact with either Yes or No supporters, some did stop to encourage or heckle. I must confess I find it incomprehensible that anyone could vote no. However, having listened to the heckling, it is obvious that misinformation designed to instil fear or embolden prejudice has done its work in many. I am one of the growing number of citizens who fear for the future of democracy. Democracy is utterly dependent on citizens being provided with trustworthy information upon which they can make their choices. When false is given the same value as true, we no longer live in a society that can claim democratic identity. Part of the difficulty is the principle that both sides, or all sides, of a case need to be given equal time. This is an admirable ideal if falsehood can be readily separated from truth. However, in circumstances which we appear now to have entered in which no such demarcation is considered appropriate, then such principle is no longer desirable. The best example relates to climate change. Science has been settled for decades and if anything, prognostications based on science have been too timid. In reality there is no alternative scientific case to be put, and yet ‘climate deniers’ are still given airtime. At the polling booth a friend came with signs in support of the No vote. He justified his actions on the basis that he believes in democracy. The No vote propaganda states the referendum Voice divides Australia and Austalians. The opposite is true. The inequality that currently besets indigenous Australians and causes economic and social division is the very thing the referendum seeks to overcome. Democracy is not served when misinformation leads good people to vote for the very thing they would otherwise have wished to overcome. There is no easy solution to a problem that appears to be accelerating in its potential to undermine civil society as we know it. Autocrats depend on their version of truth becoming the prevailing narrative. They are jealous to protect access to, and manipulation of, platforms like twitter and TikTok. We are painfully aware of the capacity of autocratic regimes to infiltrate communication platforms. It is hardly surprising that Trump prefers the company of autocrats to the company of democratically inclined allies. Clearly, governments like our own are reluctant to impose restrictions on media platforms for fear of censorship accusations. However, misinformation is a far greater threat to our civil, democratic society than military invasion is ever likely to be. A foreign power does not have to invade us to control us. Long before nuclear powered submarines arrive in 30 years’ time, we have the capacity to be controlled by malign ideas and powers simply because we are too lazy to be careful about the sources of information that feed us. Professor Lynore Gaia responds to Fair Australia
What follows is a heartfelt message from Professor Lynore Gaia, a First Nations Ambassador at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture in Canberra and Professor of Nursing at James Cook University. ‘No’ may have the current momentum, but that is because we have been seduced by the basest of emotions – fear, and have been deceived by wilful disinformation. The truth lies where Lynore’s heart leads us. Listen to what she has to say. “I’m stepping out in my vulnerability and saying what is on my heart - hoping my words reaches your heart. I have not said a lot about the upcoming Referendum on the Voice to Parliament. But I saw this just now and want to respond, and this is a long post. But please take the time to read and reflect. If you are not sure of what the Voice is, then the way to get informed is to do your research so that you are informed. We don’t need to see all the structure of the legislation, that is the job of Parliament when Yes is given when we sit at the table together and begin the dialogue of how it will be. I am voting YES because of the following dot points; 1. Yes - From my Christian faith - for me, the Voice is about God making a way in our nation to come together for the much-needed work of justice and healing of the people and the land, for a better way for this nation. What does God require of us - Micah 6:8 “What does the Lord require to act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God”. Christian family and friends lift your eyes up to God and ask what is God’s thinking and purpose in all of this? Use your heart through prayer as you inform yourself to decide and not rely on the head knowledge of others that say what you have to do. Don’t let doubt and fear lead you, but let faith lead you. 2. Yes - from a health professional perspective. I am coming up to 50 years of being in the Australian nursing and midwifery profession. The gap in Indigenous health is not getting better, in fact it is getting worse. Having a Voice enshrined in the constitution makes a way for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have a seat at the table where law makers make laws and programs for us. A Yes from Australia means we can and will be part of the development of solutions bringing our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge and skills to the highest level of government where law makers and program development can be informed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We see our problems and we want to be genuinely included in finding the solution through partnership and respect. 3. Yes - from my personal Bwgcolman perspective, as an Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander woman from Palm Island. I was born in a community that was established by the Qld Government as a prison settlement for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Our ‘Old People’ always talked about justice and building a life for us, they fought for their voices to be heard by government over the generations to be given a ‘fair go’ by government, to have self-determination and to live with dignity making a better life for our community and the generations to come. I want the same for my community and grandchildren who will grow up on Palm Island. 4. Yes - If you are a new Australian that has made this nation your home, then please know you are welcome to share this land with the oldest nations of First Australians - I ask that you reflect on your lived experience of why you have come to a better place for you and your family? Vote Yes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be acknowledged in the Australian Constitution and the Voice to enshrined, so that we can have a say in making Australia a better place for First Peoples, for me and my family - which also means a better place for all Australians. 5. Vote Yes, because it is the right thing and fair thing to do to bring healing to Australia that is so needed for us all. Vote Yes, because it is the right thing to restore dignity to a people group who have had dignity stripped from our lives since 1788. Vote Yes, to give me and my people a Voice to speak to government about our heart and knowledge. Our collective voice was made silent and taken away from us making us a people of ‘Vox nullius’ (no voice) in 1788 - Vote Yes, to overturn that … just like ‘terra nullius’ was overturned, and the law now says we Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were here and living our lives before the First Fleet landed. Vote Yes so that the law can say, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were here first living our lives and we had a strong voice as well, a whole people - let our voices be heard again! Finally, we stand on the precipice of great change for Australia - a time where we can all experience fairness and celebrate our rich diversity of cultures living on this land. Will you take up the invitation to walk with us, … with me, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander woman with all my hopes and dreams for my people in this country. Will you partner with us for “A better Australia’ … Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Amos 5:24 Even if you don’t know all the facts say YES ! … step out in faith for justice and hope, trust your heart to make a way to build together and not be separated by the fear and doubt. Give Mob … Give me and my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mob a fair go on October 14th. #voteyes #VoiceToParliament #Yes #HeartIssue.” A Beach Walk
Walking the beach each morning I often stop to chat with a Croation-Australian, line in hand, looking for a salmon. Lately he has been bemoaning the state of the world - heat, fires, floods, wars, trumpisms. What the f… is going on, he ponders. All we need is a feed, a place to lay our head, and a nice beach to walk. Do any of the world leaders, including our own, know what the f…. they are doing or why they are doing it? Not an unreasonable couple of questions. Layered on my friend’s pondering I have been thinking about the reason Stan Grant decided to withdraw from active journalism at the ABC, and accept a professorial appointment with Denmark’ Constructive Journalism Institute at its Pacific base in Monash University, Melbourne. Stan says there is no bad blood with the ABC, his decision arose from growing awareness that journalism imbibes the character of the subject matter it investigates – conflict. Journalism’s primary investigative focus is the way in which we human beings try, and fail, to organize ourselves – politics. Taken to its extreme, conflict is manifest in open warfare and violence, but more immediately, we have come to accept that conflict is the seemingly unavoidable path of the democratic process. Are we to assume human negotiation is inevitably conflict driven? We don’t need examples to prove the validity of the question, but if we need one, just look at the state of debate leading to October’s referendum. Who is responsible for the unpleasantness of the debate? The proponents of the Voice – First Nations people, or those who convey what they think the proposal means and the consequences they believe it carries? So, at what point does the good ship governance leave the rails. Must we conclude the democratic process is itself fundamentally flawed because we human beings are only open to communication that sets ideas or people in combative, binary, opposition to one another? Don’t we like the idea of appeasement? Stan has decided to cease his journalistic activism and end the conflict that has caused him so much personal pain; plain for all to see in the aftermath of the ABC commentary that preceded the coronation. Many articles have been written in recent times about the business model adopted by the Murdoch press – namely that more of their papers are sold if they feed and legitimize the gripes of individuals (mostly white) who maintain someone, or something, or some conspiracy, is to blame for the disadvantaged position they believe they have inherited. In the interesting dinnertime conversation Annabel Crabb recently conducted with Peter Dutton, Mr Dutton admitted he saw things in black and white terms. Is that how life is to be understood. People are either good or evil? Ideas are either right or wrong? Is there no such entity as society, only individuals? Binary ways of thinking, let alone binary judgements, in and of themselves are inherently wrong and run contrary to the wisdom of the ages. So, coming back to my Croation/Australian friend’s pondering, is the reason why politicians appear constantly involved in verbal conflict and not to have a clue what they are doing or why they are doing it, because they lack wisdom? Well, yes, that is not hard to assert, but what is wisdom and from whence can it be sought? Leaving aside that which should not be ignored, the philosophical school of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, I want to proffer what is hardly a new idea, namely, that western thought, having emerged out of a Judeo-Christian mindset, has long since left aside the spiritual wisdom upon which its formulations are founded. This has left western thought and western governance to spiral along without being harnessed to the very wisdom that should be its safeguard. My understanding of Judeo-Christian wisdom is that it is founded on three propositions, namely:
In the Christian tradition wisdom has taken human form. The wisdom outlined above is thoroughly knowable. Jesus is both the wisdom of God and the word of God. According to the Hebrew scripture, echoed in John’s Gospel, wisdom or word is the first born of all creation. There is an order to things, which if embraced is life giving, if ignored is inevitably conflict driven. This wisdom implies every part of creation is connected to every other part of creation. Nothing happens in isolation. To seek advantage for one part of life’s family at the expense of another is ultimately to diminish all. The value of material wealth lies in its capacity to serve social wellbeing. Few if any are happy because they have acquired assets, happiness resides in community, in relationships that are mutually fulfilling. The ultimate community is the whole created order. Understanding and serving, its relatedness (ecology) requires humility - one of wisdom’s characteristics. Knowing that energy (economy) inherent in the whole created order is the source of all human economies clearly escapes the sagacious capacity of most exploiters, developers, bankers, and economists. We don’t create anything, we tap into, exhaust what is. This wisdom assumes inclusivity. Inclusivity implies hospitality. Hospitality is the principle of creating space for everyone and everything at the table. In Australia it is a shameful reality that First Nations people have been denied a place at the table of national life. It is also increasingly clear we have been driving non-human life from a place at the table with terrible consequences. The ultimate result of our foolishness will be no table at all. Wisdom broods like a mother bird over brokenness. There is much brokenness in the lives of First Nations people. How can we not want a path which might lead to healing. What kind of people are we who take punitive action over misdemeanors arising from brokenness, rather than seeking to heal the brokenness which is its cause. Conflict adds layers of brokenness. Do world leaders possess wisdom as they confront the challenges facing us all? Wisdom is not obscure, it is around us, it is visible in the created order, and in that it has a divine origin it chases us down the winding and often narrow streets of life. May wisdom rather than self-interest be our desired treasure, then shall be added all that is needful as well. Voice of Reason
It is difficult to hear a voice of reason in the conflicting babble of noise that passes for our democratic process; a binary political system of government where political triumph is always more important than principle or substance. It is not even about winning; it is more about making it abundantly clear others have lost. This is where political rivalry has taken dialogue on the forth coming referendum. I have just finished reading Megan Davis’s “Quarterly Essay” (issue 90 2023) commending the Yes vote at the forthcoming referendum. It is such an important read. My level of despair has been rising in recent days as the referendum approaches, not only because of the false and conspiratorial claims made by the No campaign, but because those promoting the Yes case are doing such an ordinary job. A few days ago, I linked into a conversation Noel Peason conducted with members of the Christian community. One of the important points he made is also affirmed in Davis’s article – namely that, in the process leading to and following the Uluru statement from the Heart, multiple conversations were held with both sides of politics to ascertain and confirm strategy and wording which might garner bi-partisan support. History reminds us how important this support is in the championing of a referendum which inevitably asks for change to a perceived norm. My admiration for Julian Leeser has grown substantially. He was a key figure in those discussions on behalf of the Coalition. He has upheld integrity in the process. His support is not simply because he believes in the outcome, but also because what is now being presented is in significant part, framed following conversations with coalition members on what they considered to be politically deliverable. That Dutton and his troops have turned their backs is worse than deplorable, it is duplicitous. What has become abundantly and shamefully clear is that the No case is not about opposing a mechanism in the constitution for the furthering of Indigenous empowerment, but primarily about an opportunity for the Coalition to regain political ground over its opponents. This is made transparently clear through the aggressive campaign of its media champions, Fox News and Murdoch publications. Through the influence of my sister Valerie, I have become accustomed to understand that poverty is not best defined through its presenting features of homelessness, incarceration, morbidity, lack of education etc, but through an acknowledgement of powerlessness – not being heard, not understood. Davis explains that it was through this understanding that ‘Voice’ was settled on as the ground on which to stand in seeking to address disempowerment. The depressing statistics of poverty with which we are familiar in our First Nations communities, and which are recited in the regularly disappointing ‘closing the gap’ reports, can only be addressed through empowerment of those disadvantaged. This is why the Voice is so important – and it is why its defeat would be so catastrophic. I was intrigued by the names Davis claimed to have influenced the development of her thinking.
Hope on the one hand is an absurdity, too embarrassing to speak about, for it flies in the face of all those claims we have been told are facts. Hope is the refusal to accept the reading of reality which is the majority opinion; and one only does that at great political and existential risk. On the other hand, hope is subversive, for it limits the grandiose pretensions of the present, daring to announce that the present to which we have all made commitments is now called into question. (the “prophetic imagination” Fortress Press 2001 p 110). 2. Theoretical Physicist David Bohm “Bohm talks of the Greek word dialogue: ‘dia’ meaning through, and ‘logos’ meaning word. It evokes the image of a stream of meaning flowing among us, through us, and between us. Bohm says, It’s something new which may not have been in the starting point at all. It’s something creative. And this shared meaning is what holds people and societies together…. Contrast this with ‘discussion’ which has the same root as percussion and concussion which is to break things up. Davis finishes her essay with a wonderful quote from the late Dr Galarrwuy Yunupingu. “What Aboriginal people ask is that the modern world now makes the sacrifices necessary to give us a future. To relax its grip on us. To let us breathe, to let us be free of the determined control exerted on us to make us like you. And you should take that a step further and recognise us for who we are, not who you want us to be. Let us be who we are – Aboriginal people in the modern world – and be proud of us. Acknowledge that we have survived the worst that the past has thrown at us, and we are here with our songs, our ceremonies, our land, our language and our people – our full identity. What a gift that is that we can give you, if you choose to accept us in a meaningful way”. The proposal before us is that we walk together in a new, creative, and respectful way. We have always thought our way to be superior, that our way would lift ‘these poor savages’ out of a much lesser world. The truth of the matter is that what First Nations people mean by sovereignty and treaty is no threat to other Australians, but an invitation for us to enter a more connected way of being. Of course, our world, particularly its science, medicine and education, have much to offer. We can and will all benefit from shared lives. A No to walk together is unthinkable and will entrench enduring racist attitudes. A Yes is a yes to a shared life of respect. There are still songlines to be carved across this ancient land, may these lines be ones of listening, companionship and shared story. Oppenheimer and the hand of God
This week has seen the release of two box office hits: Oppenheimer and Barbie. Both films touch on existential threats to humanity. The first intentionally so: the impending and omnipresent cloud of nuclear disaster keeps the hands of the doomsday clock frighteningly close to midnight. The second reminds us of human narcissistic obsessions with the banal and unimportant, whilst living with blind indifference to what is important. Residents of North Africa, North America and Europe suffering oppressive heat and fire must be pleased and comforted that economies are built on encouraging ever increasing consumer desire for the expendable, thus making this climate experience the new normal. Has humanity’s tombstone already been quarried, lacking only an epitaph to be inscribed? This was the dark musing of one of this week’s media commentators. To forestall such ignominy, is dependence on technology as humankind’s saviour the sensible way forward? Coming home from watching Oppenheimer and remembering what it was like as a child growing up in the 1950’s, worrying about nuclear war, suggests this is not a smart option. Those responsible for the latest technological advancement – Artificial Intelligence – while appropriately proclaiming it’s obvious and seductive benefits to education and medical science, warn us negative outcomes of the technology could have the capacity to completely overwhelm us. Where to from here? I want to promote a counter intuitive and easily ridiculed alternative as we contemplate humanity’s future. Rather than looking to future technological discoveries for salvation, let us look again at past, but enduring wisdom. (Thinking of ridicule, the political right loves to make fun of any attempt to measure wellbeing as an appropriate gauge of a nation’s state of health). Over centuries mighty empires rose and fell – Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman. Numerous ethnic groups were made subject to these mighty powers. People known as the Israelites were one of these groups. At one stage or another they were subject to them all. Approximately 2,500 years ago they were taken into Babylonian exile. Whilst in exile they demonstrated an amazing and abiding truth about humans, namely, we learn more from adversity than we do from triumph. This should be a salutary reminder as we contemplate our present predicament. Here in exile, an unknown scribe (he is known to us as Deutero Isaiah) penned a soaring piece of theological insight. “Is there any god beside me? There is no other rock; I know not one”. Isaiah 44:8. – a declaration of monotheism. Their God was not in fact ‘their’ god. There can only be one God. If God is God, God must be sovereign of the whole created order, including Israel’s oppressors. The passage is set within a broader piece which refers to Israel’s role as servant(s) of the good that God intends. This is where their blessing lies, not in being patron of the divine with entitlement to special consideration. Prior to this monotheistic statement, and sadly subsequent to it, divinity was/is an expression of tribalism. The most dangerous form of tribalism is national tribalism. Putin’s current use of the Russian Orthodox Church is a flagrant attempt to manipulate divinity in support of Russian nationalistic ambition. Genuine monotheistic belief has consequences. At this time of monotheistic awareness, what we know as the first creation story, Genesis 1:1 – 2:4 probably reached the form we recognise today. It stands in contrast to the second creation story (Adam and Eve and their descendants) which became and remains linked to the tribal emergence and history of Israel. In the first creation narrative humanity is conceived universally. Adam, earth creature, is the whole of humanity, integrally part of the whole created order. What is proclaimed as ‘very good’ is the harmony and beauty of the whole created order. Identity is inextricably bound within a web of relationships. Each is celebrated in its own place. Each contributes to the flourishing of the whole. Modern humanity likes truth to be defined, quantified. However, foundational truths are too big to be defined, let alone reduced to data or information. The only way to properly encompass such insight is within story or narrative. This is why Jesus taught in parables. The creation narratives are destroyed as vehicles of truth when made instruments of history. They are not stories of the past but narratives through which to interpret and understand the present. They neither prove nor disprove the big bang. They neither support the theory of evolution nor are they enhanced or reduced by it. Because monotheism is belief that God is sovereign, we can assume it is a grave mistake to assume we are – sovereign. The dominion humanity is endowed with in this narrative must be understood as service, or at the very least as stewardship of the good that God intends. It is more likely we face the erection of our species’ tombstone sooner rather than later if we think we are sovereign, or we are entitled to act in any way that serves our short term wants and desires. While most technologies have greatly enhanced human wellbeing, especially those that have advanced human health, the reality is that they have also been used to advance negative human sovereignty, both over the nonhuman world, but also in competition with, and to the diminishment of, other humans. The first creation story concludes with an account of Sabbath. This is not to be understood as one climactic ‘day’ in a cycle of seven, but a description of how the ‘six days’, or life in all its fullness, is to be celebrated. It is almost certain that ‘sabbath’ began as ritual associated with the new moon, specifically the three-day period between the waning of the old and the birth of the new. This period of ‘rest’ was deemed of such significance that the principle inherent in it became applied to all aspects of life and expressed in the creation narrative itself. No part of the created order should overreach itself. Every part should be respected and honoured for its uniqueness. To quote the late Bishop of Winchester, John Vincent Taylor, the principle of ‘enough is enough’ is a divine intention that cannot be abrogated without serious consequence. Unfortunately, the whole economic system upon which the health and prosperity of nations is supposedly based exists in aggressive opposition to this principle. We are told that enough should never be enough, that our wellbeing depends on more being spent, more being owned, more being used. Being in awe of the sheer abundance and beauty of the world we experience and being deeply grateful for it, is not part of the common lexicon. We are used to the fact that physical laws govern the universe. We have become oblivious to the truth that relational laws also stand beyond abrogation. Enough is enough. We cannot occupy the space of another without reducing them and ourselves. In the created order of which we are part, sovereignty can only be understood in the service of good. What is good is necessarily also common. What is wrong with humanity? - The spirit of Entitlement
What is wrong with Western Christianity? – Moralising has taken the place of ethical behaviour These last weeks have been filled with sickening items of news. The following serve as a cross section: the invasion of the Jenin refugee camp by Israeli forces; the continued killing of Ukrainian civilians by Russian drones; the outrage that is Donald Trump; the duplicitous theft of taxpayer money by PWC; continuing reluctance to deal responsibly with damaging carbon emissions; the scandal that is robodebt, the torture of refugees for up to 600 days in a small airless hotel room; growing opposition to the proposed indigenous voice to parliament based on the Uluru statement. Looking at the diverse issues named above, one theme links them – a passive or active spirit of entitlement. To feel entitled is to misunderstand life. Life is not about things or objects, but about interactions or relationships. People of faith face only one challenge - choose life. To choose life is to choose to be a blessing in life’s interactions. To choose life is to act ethically. The moralizing of Christians always misses the point. We are not here to condemn or judge, we are here to enable all and every person to choose life. Clearly humanity has a major problem. But as a Christian, the problem for me is more painfully acute. It is manifestly and shamefully clear that some high-profile Australian political leaders who publicly attest their ‘Christian allegiance’ either do not see the above issues as a problem, or, worse, have been active promulgators of them. Conservative Christian leadership is quick to moralise about personal human behaviour but seems utterly incapable of seeing the bigger picture of systemic abuse. It is little wonder the world at large has long since rejected Christianity as a base for society’s renewal. The catalyst for the Jenin incursion is not Palestinian militarism, but the entitled behaviour of Zionism and Settler activity. Since 1948 hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have lived as refugees, some in their own country. Jenin houses one such camp. The inhabitants of the camp are expected to accept their lot. Denied basic human rights, caged without freedom to travel, denied an economy or employment and facing further summary loss of land, homes and livelihoods by the spreading illegal settler community, they are expected to quietly submit. The Lions Den, targeted by the Israelis comprises 18+ year olds who simply refuse to accept this must be their lot. Why should they? Why should Zionist feel entitled to what historically and legally is Palestinian? Why is the international community so quick to condemn Palestinians as terrorists, but does absolutely nothing to challenge its cause, the entitlement of illegal settlers. Those aligned to the Christian right support Israel’s oppression on grounds that God intends Israel to occupy all the territory. IS THIS WHAT JESUS OF NAZERETH WOULD DO? That Donald Trump is considered a serious candidate for reelection as president of the US is beyond astonishing. He lives a life of absolute entitlement demonstrated in keeping national documents, not paying taxes, lecherous behaviour towards women, encouraging or initiating anarchy, threatening national security etc. Trump’s electoral base is the Christian religious right. IS THIS WHERE JESUS OF NAZARETH WOULD STAND? The behaviour of PWC is quite shocking. But what is perhaps even more shocking is that over a period of two decades self-interested and self-serving consultancy took the place of the public service in the monitoring and implementation of public policy. The lobbying power of consultancy firms is enormous, as is their rapacious self-interest. The spirit of entitlement is staggering. Telling the public service their fearless advice was not wanted, but that they would do what their political masters demanded was instruction from Prime Minister Morrison. This attitude of party-political entitlement led to the robot debt outrage and many Australians taking their own lives. Stuart Robert and Scott Morrison, high profile Pentecostal Christians, were central to the conception and implementation of this scheme. WHERE WOUD THE PRIORITIES OF JESUS OF NAZARETH LIE IN RELATION TO THE NATION’S MOST VULNERABLE? Opposition to the Voice referendum has become a cause célèbre to the right of politics and by extension to the Christian right. Why? The arguments are self-contradictory. Some who oppose say the Voice does not offer enough, others that it offers too much. There is inability to accept or understand that indigenous sovereignty is not about control, as it is for us second comers, it is about spiritual and cultural relatedness. HOW WOULD JESUS OF NAZARTH VOTE? As recently attested by Mostafa Azimitabar, treatment by the Australian Government of individuals found to be refugees has been cruel and shameful. Locked in small hotel rooms after arriving from offshore detention for months on end, this was torture. Why was this done? “To protect Australia’s borders”. Did boat arrivals increase when the men were eventually released into the community – no, of course not. The treatment was dehumanising and cruel. The main craftsman of this policy was Scott Morrison. WAS THIS A POLICY CONSISTENT WITH THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH. Human behaviour has changed little over the centuries. We are all capable of greatness, but more often our lives are marked by the lowest levels of human behaviour. As St Paul said: “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do”. However, what has changed is that personal damage is more than ever likely to be experienced systemically. Institutions, including the Church, can be quite damaging as members of the LBGTQI community readily testify. Damaging treatment of the indigenous community for 200+ years has been systemic; this damage has been possible because of willful ignorance, shamefully continuing in the no campaign. The same is true of most of the other calamities mentioned in the opening paragraph. Where are Christian voices of justice? I am sorry to say they are drowned out by the moralisers. It would be preferable that no practicing Christian hold public office if they have no capacity to understand ethical issues lying at the heart of policy made, or policy ignored. Popular sections of contemporary Christian teaching proclaim prosperity as a reward for faith. The many scandals in which Stuart Robert has been embroiled appear to confirm that this is what lies behind his Christian faith. None of us are blessed for our own sake, we are blessed in as much as we are a blessing to others. On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending our local NAIDOC celebration. It was a privilege to be there. The ceremony was resonant of the Christian faith that I know. Release of energy, choosing life, honouring elders, singing the songs of the plants and animals, being aware of the Spirit’s movement. The Voice Referendum
Influence family friends and communities to vote Yes What follows is an historical overview of bad faith, ignorance, failed policy, and lost opportunity that has preceded the upcoming Voice referendum. To fail First Nation people again is unthinkable, worse, it would be the cause of anguish and loss of respect from which, not simply First Nations people, but all Australians would struggle to recover trust. Having read this material, surely it would be morally impossible to do other than Vote Yes. If not now – when, if not us – who? June 10 1838 28 women, old men, and children of the Gamilaraay nation were butchered, their bodies piled up and burnt, at Myall Creek, Bingara, NSW. It was not the first nor the last massacre of First Nations people. But it was the first and perhaps only massacre following which colonists were arrested, charged, and prosecuted. Seven were hung. However, popular public opinion favoured the stockmen murderers. In its editorial, the Sydney Morning Herald wrote: "The whole gang of black animals are not worth the money the colonists will have to pay for printing the silly documents on which we have already wasted too much time.” Also: ʹthe colony did not want “savages to exist". "We have far too many of the murderous wretches about us already.” The paper encouraged the shooting of Aboriginal people. It is shameful to have to admit that while not as extreme and violent, a racist attitude towards First Nations people remains within some spheres of the Australian psyche. The journey forward, from this appalling inhumanity, to decency and shared humanity, was going to be long. Need it to have been so long and so strongly resisted? Is it still to be resisted? In 1924 The Australian Aborigines Progress Association was founded in Sydney by Fred Maynard and Tom Lacey. It called for the right of Aboriginal people to determine their own lives, the restitution of land, an end to the practice of removing children from their families and the abolition of the New South Wales Aborigines Protection Board In the 1930s, articulate First Nation activists began emerging from the missions and reserves of N.S.W. and Vic., among them: William Cooper, Bill Ferguson, Margaret Tucker, Doug Nicholls, Jack and Selina Patten, Tom Foster, Pearl Gibbs, Jack Kinchela and Helen Grosvenor. 1932 William Cooper, a Yorta Yorta, man circulated a petition across Australia calling upon the Government to improve living conditions for Aboriginal People, and to enact legislation that would guarantee Aboriginal people representation in parliament. The petition was sent to Joseph Lyons, P.M., in August 1937, with the hope that it would be forwarded to King George V1. The petition was signed by 1814 Aborigines. Joseph Lyons acknowledged the petition, however it appears not to have been forwarded onto King George. It was marked “no action to be taken”. 26 January 1938, Aboriginal men and women met at Australia Hall in Sydney and moved the following: “We, representing the Aborigines of Australia, assembled in conference at Australia Hall, Sydney, on the 26 of January, 1938, this being the 150 anniversary of whitemans seizure of our country, hereby make protest against the callous treatment of our people by the whiteman during the past 150 years, and we appeal to the Australian nation of today to make new laws for the education and care of Aborigines, we ask for a new policy which will raise our people To Full Citizens Status and Equality within the Community” This resolution of indignation, protest was moved and passed at 5 o’clock. A large blackboard displayed outside the hall proclaims “Day of Mourning”. The group that met on 26 January were members of Australian Aborigines League and the Aborigines Progressive Association. Both organisations became the driving force calling for a constitutional referendum that would take place in 1967. 31 January 1938, an Aboriginal deputation that included Jack Patten, William Furguson, and Pearl Gibbs, met with Prime Minister Joe Lyons, his wife Enid and the Minister for the Interior John “Black Jack” McEwen. They asked for Commonwealth control of all Aboriginal matters, a Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, an administration advised by Aboriginal representatives, full citizen status and civil equality with white Australians, including equality in education, labour laws, workers' compensation, pensions, land ownership and wages. 1 May 1946, 800 pastoral workers from 27 stations in W.A. walked off the job for better pay and conditions. This strike became known as the “1946 Pilbara Strike”. The strike lasted until 1949, paralysing the sheep industry 1953 nuclear tests began at Emu, S.A., moving to Maralinga S.A. in 1956. Maralinga, means “thunder”. This name was taken from the now extinct Top End Aboriginal language called Garik. The social, physical, mental and environmental impacts resulting from the testing and its fallout continue to have ongoing effects on the local Pitjantjatjara and Luritja Peoples today. In 1957 a National Aborigines Day Observance Committee (NADOC) was formed, which continues to this day as NAIDOC. 1965 A group of students from the University of Sydney went on a 15-day bus journey “Freedom Ride” to draw attention to the appalling living conditions of NSW Aboriginal People, and their experience of overt racism. Rev. Ted Noffs of the Wayside Chapel assisted in co-ordinating the ride. Charles Perkins, a student at Sydney University at that time, was elected president of the group. During the fifteen-day journey through regional NSW, the group directly challenged a ban against Aboriginal ex-servicemen at the Walgett RSL and local laws barring Aboriginal children from the Moree and Kempsey swimming pools. They also took up living condition issues in several other NSW towns. At the end of the journey a full report was written and presented to relevant authorities. 23 August 1966 saw the walk off from Lord Vestey’s property, Wave Hill Protest events held prior to 1967, include The Warbuton Ranges Controversy 1957, the Yirrkala Bark Petitions 1963, the Freedom Ride 1965 and the Wave Hill walk off which began in 1966. The 1967 referendum put the following Question to the Australian people: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled, “An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to people of the Aboriginal Race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in the reckoning the population.” This amendment deleted part section 51 of the Constitution and repealed section 127. 90.77% of the Australian population voted “Yes” in the referendum. 1968-69 saw the introduction of equal wages for pastoral workers. September 1967, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission removed the racially discriminatory clause from the Federal Pastoral Industry Award and equal wages for Aboriginal pastoral workers were phased in from December 1968, in the Kimberly region. In earlier decades, Aboriginal station workers were usually given no wages, but instead received food, clothing and tobacco rations in return for labour. When the equal wages decision was handed down, hundreds of Aboriginal people were forced to leave the stations, moving into towns or onto reserves. September 1973 Whitlam Government announced the idea of a National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC). The NACC quickly asserted its political muscles during the Whitlam Government, clashing with DAA head, Barry Dexter and the minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Jim Cavanagh. DAA was established in 1973. 16 August 1975 Gough Whitlam transferred leasehold title of Wattie Creek (Daguragu), 90 square kilometres, to the Gurindji people which led to the passing of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (N.T.) 1976 May 1977, Ian Viner, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser Government, replaced the NACC with a new body, National Aboriginal Conference (NAC). The NAC members were selected by Indigenous People. April 1979 the NAC recommended a form of treaty between Aboriginal peoples and the Australian Government, using the word “Makarrata” to describe this. Makarrata is a Yolngu word for the restoration of good relations after conflict. The NAC was eventually abolished by the Hawke Government in 1985. In Geneva, Jim Hagan chair of the National Aboriginal Conference, addresses United Nations Human Rights Commission Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. (At this time there were protests against oil drilling on Aboriginal Land of Noonkanbah.) Hagan’s speech, on 3 September 1980, was reported internationally: “The Noonkanbah community have sought justice, and have been given obstruction. We have sought peace and have been given violence. The Australian Government’s acquiescence in this continuing breach of human rights must be condemned in the eyes of the world”. Hagan is the first elected Indigenous Australian to address a UN committee. The Hawke Government’s ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) legislation was introduced into the parliament in August 1988. April 1989 John Howard strongly expressed opposition to the ATSIC proposal, stating that it would divide the Nation. In the six months following the introduction of the ATSIC Bill, over 90 amendments were made to the legislation, making the Bill the second most amended piece of legislation since Federation. ATSIC Act 1989 was passed in November 1989. Section 3 of the ATSIC Act 1989 sets out the following objectives:
May 1982 a group of Meriam, led by Eddie Mabo from the Eastern Torres Strait, lodged a case with the High Court of Australia for legal ownership of the island of Mer. Over a period of 10 years Meriam people generated 4000 pages of transcript of evidence. The evidence presented included proof that eight clans of Mer (Murray Island) have occupied clearly defined territories on the island for hundreds of years, and proved continuity of customs on Mer. 3 June 1992, six of the seven judges agreed that the Meriam held traditional ownership of the land of Mer. The decision led to the passing of the Native Title Act 1993, providing the framework for all Australian Indigenous people to make claim of Native Title. This decision altered the foundation of land law in Australia and rendered terra nullius a legal fiction. Paul Keating gave his Redfern speech on 10 December 1992. August 2007 Northern Territory Intervention (N.T. Emergency Response) was introduced following the “Little Children are Sacred Report” The intervention was a $587 million package of legislation that made a number of changes affecting specified Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. It included restriction on alcohol, changes to welfare payments, acquisition of parcels of land, education (linking income support to school attendance), employment (the ceasing of CDEP) and health (compulsory checks for all children). In doing so, several laws were affected or partially suspended: Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Aboriginal Land Rights (N.T.) Act 1976, Native Title Act 1993, N.T. Self-Government Act and related legislation, Social Security Act 1991, and Income Tax Assessment Act 1993. Since the introduction of the intervention in 2007, many social problems facing communities have become worse, (as reported on NITV), namely:
2009 K. Rudd supported the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 of the declaration states that: “Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” K. Rudd PM, implemented the Basic Card, it later changed to the Cashless Debit Card 2016 the Cashless Debit Card, (CDC) was trialled in Ceduna, East Kimberly and Gold Fields in WA and the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region in QLD. The CDC has been operating in the Cape York region in QLD and across the NT since 2021 17 December 2020, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (continuation of cashless welfare) Act 2020, came into being. The Act supports the continuation of the Cashless Debit Card for a further two years. 2017 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nations gathered at Uluru for a National Constitutional Convention to make “The Statement from the Heart”. Referendum on The Voice will be held in 2023 ******************************************** The Uluru Statement from the heart identifies three objectives: Voice to Parliament Treaty Truth Telling The Voice to parliament would be advisory, it will have no powers to overrule parliament. First Nations communities will be able to bring matters relating to their social, spiritual, and economic wellbeing, via Local and Regional Voices, to the twenty-four-member National Voice which in turn would give advice to parliament. This would empower government to enact best case policies and laws for the flourishing of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Rather than igniting racism, it will hopefully remove remaining vestiges of disempowerment and inequality. Vote Yes |
|
Proudly powered by Weebly