The headlines over the past couple of days had me caught between groaning with frustration, breaking into tears or giving way to a feeling that I was caught in Groundhog day, 2001 revisited.
It isn't quite that bad. On the actual issues there is a good coverage in Bernard Keane's article in Crikey,
Refugees that sets out the real scope of the issue. The Canberra Times provided a front page story from an Afghani asylum seeker now undertaking tertiary study in Canberra.
Kerry Murphy in Eureka Street highlights the significance of the situation in Sri Lanka as part of the push behind the current increase in asylum seekers.
What is truly depressing is that the Government is making no attempt to put the issues in a realistic context nor attempting to provide a moral framework within which we can debate the issues. Instead we have "tough talking" that feeds off, while trying to capture the moral panic being whipped up by some sections of the media.
The Christian church, along with all other advocates of the voiceless victims of violence, will once again have to direct their attention and energy to providing a voice, affirming the humanity and working to bind up the wounds of trauma by those who make it to Australia and making it clear that if the media doesn't like "do-gooders" and "bleeding hearts" and the Government is uncomfortable with being addressed in language that presses the moral claims of flesh and blood human beings against the claims of abstractions such as borders then that is how it has to be.
For the churches such action, such a stance is part of its core identity - in following Jesus who directed us to provide hospitality to the stranger, to show love to the enemy, the other, the one who is different.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Life on the Road
An Aussie classic on Christian discipleship has recently been reprinted. Athol Gill’s Life on the Road: The Gospel Basis for a Messianic Lifestyle (UNOH Publishing) has recently been reissued with a new Foreword by Dave Batstone and a new Introduction by Kim Thoday.
This book should come with some such warning as: Some readers may find certain ideas in this book disturbing to the way they live.
This book should come with some such warning as: Some readers may find certain ideas in this book disturbing to the way they live.
Sunday, 11 October 2009
Defence spending
Ben Eltham in an article in New Matilda When defence becomes its own worst enemy draws attention to some issues about defence spending and the problem of cost overruns.
This is an issue where the application of a little economic rationalism might be useful by those who are critical as I am of the extent and character of military expenditure on capital items.
Cost overruns are inevitable in this area. Why?
Problems of a limited number of suppliers, offering unproven technology, assymetry of information between the -purchasers and suppliers, and the temptation by the purchasers to not draw clear boundaries around the capabilities that they want for a given system. There is also the problem of unwillingness of the purchasers to enforce contract conditions and to work away from a purchase if there are delays and overruns. Add to that the revolving door between the purchasers and suppliers. All this is conducted against a background in which the religious appeal to national security makes criticism and questioning of the justification for the expenditure difficult if not subversive.
This is an issue where the application of a little economic rationalism might be useful by those who are critical as I am of the extent and character of military expenditure on capital items.
Cost overruns are inevitable in this area. Why?
Problems of a limited number of suppliers, offering unproven technology, assymetry of information between the -purchasers and suppliers, and the temptation by the purchasers to not draw clear boundaries around the capabilities that they want for a given system. There is also the problem of unwillingness of the purchasers to enforce contract conditions and to work away from a purchase if there are delays and overruns. Add to that the revolving door between the purchasers and suppliers. All this is conducted against a background in which the religious appeal to national security makes criticism and questioning of the justification for the expenditure difficult if not subversive.
Getting arguments out of frustrating grooves
There are a range of issue, particularly those surrounding the beginning and end of life that seem to be stuck in predictable grooves. When the issue hits the media you can generally tell how the argument will be advanced. There is little evidence of fresh thinking and little respect for those whose views differ.
Savi Hensman has some interesting observations on this particularly with respect to end of life issues. In Care and Control at Life's End she observes about the recent debate about assisted suicide that ...
I find it disappointing that so many people who are passionate about this matter (whether for or against legalisation) do not seem nearly as concerned to tackle the violations of dignity which can be prevented at present.
There are exceptions, including disability groups and those who have championed better palliative care. Yet many of those who argue forcefully on this matter seem either fatalistic about, or simply unaware of, the failures in care and respect which can make dying even harder than it needs to be.
Many people who are very sick and frail can nevertheless exercise considerable control over their environment if adequate assistance is available.
The issue she points out is one of resources.
Though most patients have generally positive experiences of inpatient care, a number get inadequate medical attention including pain relief, or are left hungry, thirsty or in soiled clothing for far too long and if they do not have visitors they may have few chances for conversation or companionship.
In care homes and people’s own homes, care organised by social services or the NHS may be less than adequate, if it is available at all. Relatives and friends may be pressured into doing more than they are easily able and willing to do and it can be disempowering to those nearing the ends of their lives, as well as sometimes putting a strain on relationships.
Though the media has focused on bad attitudes on the part of some staff, many of the shortcomings are rooted in the system and linked to lack of resources or how these are used.
After all she points out, Experiencing unnecessary pain, discomfort, squalor or loneliness, or watching one’s relatives and friends struggling to cope and feeling responsible, are less than ideal way to spend one’s final days and time which loved ones might spend in saying goodbye and coming to terms with the situation may be swallowed up in exhaustion and anxiety. And judgement may be impaired, for instance by sleep deprivation affecting feelings and choices.
That this is the experience of significant numbers of people is an indication that the less glamorous aspects of care do not attract the same attention as high tech research driven breakthroughs in "curative" medicine. Technology offers the appeal that there are "solutions" to all our "problems". Caring for those who are close to death is demanding because it can remind us of our own mortality. It requires dealing gently and carefully with the body, offering the low tech but time intensive care of touch and presence. I remember with gratitude the patient care of my father during his last days of life by the nursing staff.
As Hensman observes ...the relatively low priority given to funding the less glamorous aspects of care is a problem.
Political leaders fear that the general public will not accept higher taxation for the wealthy, or a shift in spending priorities, even if this means they are reasonably certain that they will not go short of bare necessities and basic comforts towards the ends of their own lives. If this is true, perhaps it is because people are more reluctant to consider what it will be like to be in declining health and, in the end, to die.
Perhaps some prefer to dream of becoming rich (however unlikely this is) and protect the assets of the class they aspire to join, or take pride in their country’s military might, even if this does not benefit them and in the longer term creates a less safe world for them as well as others.
They may find it difficult to hear the first-hand accounts of the frustrations of those lacking basic care and control as they approach life’s end, and of those who love them and look on in dismay. Health and social care personnel may be ashamed that they cannot provide the service they would wish to offer.
Faith communities, humanists and others concerned with societies’ values might find it useful to explore why so many people have an unrealistic view of what it is like to be reaching the end of one’s life, or caring for someone in this position, and try to change this. And if more of the champions and opponents of assisted dying could put some of the energy they direct towards this into improving the lot of people nearing the ends of their lives who are not receiving adequate support, the situation might be transformed.
An approach along these lines, focusing on issues of resources for caring where technical interventions are not relevant would not do away with the debate about assisted death. It might however focus our attention on some action that reflects areas of overlapping concern about the human rights and dignity of those who are among the more vulnerable and practically underpin the community fof family and friends who surround them.
Savi Hensman has some interesting observations on this particularly with respect to end of life issues. In Care and Control at Life's End she observes about the recent debate about assisted suicide that ...
I find it disappointing that so many people who are passionate about this matter (whether for or against legalisation) do not seem nearly as concerned to tackle the violations of dignity which can be prevented at present.
There are exceptions, including disability groups and those who have championed better palliative care. Yet many of those who argue forcefully on this matter seem either fatalistic about, or simply unaware of, the failures in care and respect which can make dying even harder than it needs to be.
Many people who are very sick and frail can nevertheless exercise considerable control over their environment if adequate assistance is available.
The issue she points out is one of resources.
Though most patients have generally positive experiences of inpatient care, a number get inadequate medical attention including pain relief, or are left hungry, thirsty or in soiled clothing for far too long and if they do not have visitors they may have few chances for conversation or companionship.
In care homes and people’s own homes, care organised by social services or the NHS may be less than adequate, if it is available at all. Relatives and friends may be pressured into doing more than they are easily able and willing to do and it can be disempowering to those nearing the ends of their lives, as well as sometimes putting a strain on relationships.
Though the media has focused on bad attitudes on the part of some staff, many of the shortcomings are rooted in the system and linked to lack of resources or how these are used.
After all she points out, Experiencing unnecessary pain, discomfort, squalor or loneliness, or watching one’s relatives and friends struggling to cope and feeling responsible, are less than ideal way to spend one’s final days and time which loved ones might spend in saying goodbye and coming to terms with the situation may be swallowed up in exhaustion and anxiety. And judgement may be impaired, for instance by sleep deprivation affecting feelings and choices.
That this is the experience of significant numbers of people is an indication that the less glamorous aspects of care do not attract the same attention as high tech research driven breakthroughs in "curative" medicine. Technology offers the appeal that there are "solutions" to all our "problems". Caring for those who are close to death is demanding because it can remind us of our own mortality. It requires dealing gently and carefully with the body, offering the low tech but time intensive care of touch and presence. I remember with gratitude the patient care of my father during his last days of life by the nursing staff.
As Hensman observes ...the relatively low priority given to funding the less glamorous aspects of care is a problem.
Political leaders fear that the general public will not accept higher taxation for the wealthy, or a shift in spending priorities, even if this means they are reasonably certain that they will not go short of bare necessities and basic comforts towards the ends of their own lives. If this is true, perhaps it is because people are more reluctant to consider what it will be like to be in declining health and, in the end, to die.
Perhaps some prefer to dream of becoming rich (however unlikely this is) and protect the assets of the class they aspire to join, or take pride in their country’s military might, even if this does not benefit them and in the longer term creates a less safe world for them as well as others.
They may find it difficult to hear the first-hand accounts of the frustrations of those lacking basic care and control as they approach life’s end, and of those who love them and look on in dismay. Health and social care personnel may be ashamed that they cannot provide the service they would wish to offer.
Faith communities, humanists and others concerned with societies’ values might find it useful to explore why so many people have an unrealistic view of what it is like to be reaching the end of one’s life, or caring for someone in this position, and try to change this. And if more of the champions and opponents of assisted dying could put some of the energy they direct towards this into improving the lot of people nearing the ends of their lives who are not receiving adequate support, the situation might be transformed.
An approach along these lines, focusing on issues of resources for caring where technical interventions are not relevant would not do away with the debate about assisted death. It might however focus our attention on some action that reflects areas of overlapping concern about the human rights and dignity of those who are among the more vulnerable and practically underpin the community fof family and friends who surround them.
Australia - Whose Land?
Peter Adams, the principal of the Ridley College, an evangelical Anglican theological college in Melbourne, in Australia - whose land? A call for recompense (John Saunders Lecture 2009) takes us beyond saying sorry to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people pushes the consequences of this recognition one step further:
If I have hurt someone, it is not enough to be sorry, not even enough to repent. I must also recompense the person, or else my repentance is shown to be a sham. The idea of recompense is not popular today, but it is essential. (p.10)
What might recompense, Peter Adams asks, require of us who arrived since1788?
i. We would recognize that recompense is a duty and responsibility, that we owe it to the indigenous peoples of this land, out of respect for them as our brothers and sisters made in God’s image, and out of awareness of the vileness of the crimes which have been committed against them and their ancestors.
ii. We would recognize that recompense is based on our duty, not the needs of indigenous people. I am not saying that we should not care, but that we must act with integrity and justice.
iii. We would recognize that no recompense could ever be satisfactory, because what
was done was so vile, so immense, so universal, so pervasive, so destructive, so devastating, and so irreparable.
iv. We would ask the indigenous people if they wanted those of us who have arrived since 1788 to leave [Baxter’s ‘Restitution’], or to provide an equivalent recompense [Baxter’s ‘Satisfaction’]. Leaving would be a drastic and complicated action, but, as I have pointed out, it has happened in India, Africa, and Indonesia in the last sixty years.
v. If we do not leave, then we would need to ask each of the indigenous peoples of this land what kind of recompense would be appropriate for them. This would be an extremely complicated and extensive task, but must be done.
vi. We would need to be prepared to give costly recompense, lest it trivialize what has happened.
vii. We would then need to adopt a national recompense policy, in the form of a Treaty. It would need to be implemented locally, according to the wishes of each indigenous tribe.
viii. By negotiation, it could be a one-off act of recompense, or it could be a constant and long-term series of acts of recompense.
ix. We could also implement voluntary recompense by churches in a coordinated way, and should include support of indigenous Christian ministry and training, as negotiated by the leaders of Christ’s indigenous people. Christian churches should lead the way in this, not least in supporting indigenous Christians and their ministries. For churches too have benefited from the land they use, and from
income from those who have usurped the land.
It would be difficult to agree to do this, complicated to negotiate, and costly and demanding to deliver. The alternative is to fail in our moral duty, to admit that, for Australia, in Martin Luther King’s words, ‘the bank of justice is bankrupt.’ We owe the indigenous people of Australia not only their full rights as citizens of our nation, but also recompense for the damage we have done. Recognizing citizenship and recognition of Native Title are just the first steps in a long process of appropriate restitution and recompense.
The idea of recompense is not alien to our society. As one well-known example, James Hardie has had to provide recompense to workers harmed by working with asbestos. There is wide-spread feeling that this is right. If this recompense is right, then it is also right to offer recompense to the indigenous people of Australia.
Ernest Gribble, a son of John Gribble, and also a worker among indigenous people said:
"We have a three-fold debt to pay to the Aborigines. We owe them a debt for the country we have taken from them. We owe the race reparation for the neglect and cruelty... We owe them... the gospel of our Lord."
It is time to pay our debts: for, Paul, writes, " Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet’; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."
Love involves duty, as well as charity. We have wronged our neighbours. It is now time to pay our debts, to confess our sins, to give the recompense that we owe. We who know God’s great love in Christ should be the most active in loving others. May God strengthen us to love the Lord our God, and so to love our neighbours. (pp.11-13)
Peter Adams has reached these conclusions with reference to such radical sources as the New Testament, John Calvin and the puritan theologian Richard Baxter. For the full text contact CACE.
If I have hurt someone, it is not enough to be sorry, not even enough to repent. I must also recompense the person, or else my repentance is shown to be a sham. The idea of recompense is not popular today, but it is essential. (p.10)
What might recompense, Peter Adams asks, require of us who arrived since1788?
i. We would recognize that recompense is a duty and responsibility, that we owe it to the indigenous peoples of this land, out of respect for them as our brothers and sisters made in God’s image, and out of awareness of the vileness of the crimes which have been committed against them and their ancestors.
ii. We would recognize that recompense is based on our duty, not the needs of indigenous people. I am not saying that we should not care, but that we must act with integrity and justice.
iii. We would recognize that no recompense could ever be satisfactory, because what
was done was so vile, so immense, so universal, so pervasive, so destructive, so devastating, and so irreparable.
iv. We would ask the indigenous people if they wanted those of us who have arrived since 1788 to leave [Baxter’s ‘Restitution’], or to provide an equivalent recompense [Baxter’s ‘Satisfaction’]. Leaving would be a drastic and complicated action, but, as I have pointed out, it has happened in India, Africa, and Indonesia in the last sixty years.
v. If we do not leave, then we would need to ask each of the indigenous peoples of this land what kind of recompense would be appropriate for them. This would be an extremely complicated and extensive task, but must be done.
vi. We would need to be prepared to give costly recompense, lest it trivialize what has happened.
vii. We would then need to adopt a national recompense policy, in the form of a Treaty. It would need to be implemented locally, according to the wishes of each indigenous tribe.
viii. By negotiation, it could be a one-off act of recompense, or it could be a constant and long-term series of acts of recompense.
ix. We could also implement voluntary recompense by churches in a coordinated way, and should include support of indigenous Christian ministry and training, as negotiated by the leaders of Christ’s indigenous people. Christian churches should lead the way in this, not least in supporting indigenous Christians and their ministries. For churches too have benefited from the land they use, and from
income from those who have usurped the land.
It would be difficult to agree to do this, complicated to negotiate, and costly and demanding to deliver. The alternative is to fail in our moral duty, to admit that, for Australia, in Martin Luther King’s words, ‘the bank of justice is bankrupt.’ We owe the indigenous people of Australia not only their full rights as citizens of our nation, but also recompense for the damage we have done. Recognizing citizenship and recognition of Native Title are just the first steps in a long process of appropriate restitution and recompense.
The idea of recompense is not alien to our society. As one well-known example, James Hardie has had to provide recompense to workers harmed by working with asbestos. There is wide-spread feeling that this is right. If this recompense is right, then it is also right to offer recompense to the indigenous people of Australia.
Ernest Gribble, a son of John Gribble, and also a worker among indigenous people said:
"We have a three-fold debt to pay to the Aborigines. We owe them a debt for the country we have taken from them. We owe the race reparation for the neglect and cruelty... We owe them... the gospel of our Lord."
It is time to pay our debts: for, Paul, writes, " Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet’; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."
Love involves duty, as well as charity. We have wronged our neighbours. It is now time to pay our debts, to confess our sins, to give the recompense that we owe. We who know God’s great love in Christ should be the most active in loving others. May God strengthen us to love the Lord our God, and so to love our neighbours. (pp.11-13)
Peter Adams has reached these conclusions with reference to such radical sources as the New Testament, John Calvin and the puritan theologian Richard Baxter. For the full text contact CACE.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Two sides or two stories? Talking about the Israel and the occupation of Palestine
I have spoken about Israel/Palestine to numerous groups in the U.S. during the past five years. People frequently ask me at these presentations, "Well, aren't there two sides to the Palestinian story?
Let me ask a question before trying to answer that question. Would you have told Gandhi that we have not yet heard the British side of the story before deciding whether we think colonialism is a good or bad idea? If not, then why do people continue to tell me that there are two sides to our Palestinian story, when it comes to the Occupation? (PALESTINE REFLECTION: Not two sides, but two separate stories by Tarek Abuat) http://www.cpt.org/node/7900
Let me ask a question before trying to answer that question. Would you have told Gandhi that we have not yet heard the British side of the story before deciding whether we think colonialism is a good or bad idea? If not, then why do people continue to tell me that there are two sides to our Palestinian story, when it comes to the Occupation? (PALESTINE REFLECTION: Not two sides, but two separate stories by Tarek Abuat) http://www.cpt.org/node/7900
Thursday, 1 October 2009
The ABC's treatment of "religion"
Paul Collins in an article in Eureka Street "ABC's Mainstream Religion, tested found wanting"
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=16731 scored a good few hits on the severe limitations of ABC treatment of "religion" in their mainstream news services.
The promise by Mark Scott, the ABC General Manager that the demise of the Religion Report would be covered by substantial treatment of religion in ABC's mainstream news services has proved to be a snare and a delusion.
Collins points to Scott's defense of his approach as reported in the Australian recently. According to Collins:
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=16731 scored a good few hits on the severe limitations of ABC treatment of "religion" in their mainstream news services.
The promise by Mark Scott, the ABC General Manager that the demise of the Religion Report would be covered by substantial treatment of religion in ABC's mainstream news services has proved to be a snare and a delusion.
Collins points to Scott's defense of his approach as reported in the Australian recently. According to Collins:
The Australian reported that Scott told a prayer breakfast in Adelaide that the media has trouble covering issues of faith, often framing religion in a political context rather than as personal belief.
He said: 'We train our journalists to be skeptical, to seek out answers, look for documentation and to not accept things on face value ... And part of the challenge about faith is that some of the things we hold to be true ... are not visible, cannot be proven.'
This suggests that Scott defines faith in terms of personal conversion and belief, rather than engagement with the broader community context where faith encounters culture, society, ethics and political reality.
This is a troubling view for the ABC GM to take. Of course belief can't be 'proven', but it certainly can and should be examined. That is what theology is about, faith seeking understanding as Saint Anselm said in the 11th century. But it seems Scott is not conversant with mainstream theology, and this provides a clue as to why he axed The Religion Report.
Journalists might well interpret "religion" in a political context but contra Scott that in itself is not a problem - religion and politics cannot be easily disentangled - never have been, never could. The problem is that the reporters rarely have enough background to tease out the deeper connections and find the people who can comment on their significance.
Then there was Benedict XVI's encyclical letter Charity in Truth, which was covered by Sunday Nights with John Cleary but was missed in the mainstream. And when will we get an analysis by the mainstream ABC of Barak Obama, Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd's very public church going?
Can we expect the 7:30 Report to explain the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr on Obama ('one of my favorite philosophers') and Rudd and Brown's strong Christian socialist backgrounds? Back in April in London both Rudd and Brown spoke in St Paul's Cathedral decrying the 'false god' of 'unfettered free markets'. ABC Board member Janet Albrechtsen was apoplectic in The Australian, but there was no explanation anywhere else on the ABC.
There is more to be said about the character of "religion" - a term much more problematic than it looks - but that will have to wait for another time and a consideration of William Cavanaugh's latest book The Myth of Religious Violence that I just picked up today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)