View From The Couch - 04/Oct/2016

Democratised Nonsense

The whole marriage equality 'debate' is rather unfortunate. It's unfortunate in the sense that there really isn't any logical reason to deny marriage equality. The pseudo-arguments being mounted against it by the christian lobby and conservatives of this country are in most part spurious and idiotic, not even worthy of analysis except that we have to pretend to take it seriously for the sake of it looking like there's a debate.

I don't know about you, but I think this is a kind of intellectual malaise. It's the sort of regressive thinking that allows equal airtime to climate change deniers or extreme right wing nutbars who want to loosen the gun laws of this country. Yes democracy means  canvassing all opinions but should the media work so hard to accommodate the unpalatable? Aren't the outlier opinions outlier opinions for a reason? Just as we don't let creationism sneak into science classes, we should not let idiotic ideas receive the spotlight.

Nonetheless the media is full of democratic niceness and gives platforms to these people in order to create more drama and tension where there need not ought to be. A sensible editorial position would be to not let climate change denial have a place in the national discourse. Allowing such topics oxygen subtracts from our polity, not strengthen it, and the inability of the media to discern such distinctions essentially has weakened our democracy.

Of course, a lot of this is harder to do in practice, and there will always be somebody who champions the democratic right of stupid opinions to be aired and disseminated widely, but they do so at the indulgence of better minds, and at the expense of better discourse. As for the plebiscite, it is clear that it is unworkable if it is not binding; and the current government will not make it binding because a significant portion know that a majority will vote in favour of it and that is something they would seek to deny. Given this situation where the government itself is committed to this anti-democratic parlour game, it is worth saying we should not entertain this idea of a plebiscite and we should just push for a vote in parliament instead.

Arguing Against History

It goes without saying that the victimhood posturing made by the Australia Christian Lobby is pretty pathetic. These are the people arguing against legalising gay marriage because doing so would take something away from Christian marriages. Hence the argument they can mount is that the symbolic loss on the part of Christian marriages is something for which the government and the law cannot compensate, and therefore it must be stopped. You know what? Just writing that sentence made my head hurt.

The core of the Christian Lobby's argument is that they don't want it because they don't want it, and all it takes is a little bit of digging to get to the homophobia that resides not too far from the surface of calls for 'religious freedom'. It's a compete and utter joke that this kind of thinking holding up a very simple process which, really should be no skin off tor collective noses, but they carry on as if this is some kind point of principle that cannot be altered. You sort of wonder why these charitable Christians can't find the same passion in protecting the human rights of asylum seekers or the homeless or the drug addicts and mentally ill of this world.

But no, they persist with the deranged notion that somehow this entitled whitbread middle-class is the victim in the process. Pardon me if you think I'm being harsh but this bullshit really ought not to be aired by the media as the counter-argument to marriage equality. It's not an argument, it's a statement of prejudice and an ancient and ugly one at that. (And that's coming from somebody who isn't gay.)
Who would have thought the problems of the Twenty-first Century involved shedding the prejudices of centuries prior to the Twentieth?

The Absence Of Critical Thought Amongst Conservatives

For close to a decade starting from the mid-2000s, we've seen the rise of the late BabyBoomer generation to the ranks of ministers in this country. The Coalition is still firmly in the hands of the Baby Boomers while the ALP has moved on to Gen-X as their front-bench. What is particularly notable about the conservative Baby Boomers is that they are the people who benefited the most from Whitlam making tertiary education free, and then went on to try and raise Tertiary education fees to unprecedented levels. Not only are their policies crap, they seem to be largely unaware of the perception in the community of them as eying the most entitled people putting a wrecking ball to the national consensus.

The fact that things have not improved under Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership is not very surprising given that the paucity of talent amongst the Liberals and Nationals. The paucity of talent is also unsurprising because the kinds of kids who signed up for young Liberals bacon campus were either spoilt brats from Private Schools who never really leaned anything and were protected their parents' money, or people so stupid to think ideology was a good substitute for doing one's own thinking.

Thus the ideologically motivated have become the front-and-centre face of conservatism, and worse still it's an un-reflective, ill-conceived ideology that is masquerading as something more effective than it actually is. This of course gives rise to a Treasurer like WTE Joe Hockey who announces an end to the age of entitlement and proceeds to cut welfare while cutting taxes for the rich. So far Scott Morrison is faring a little better in that he hasn't cut welfare as much as Hockey did, but he too is intent on giving the wealthy a tax-cut because he believes whole-heartedly in the laughable principle of trickle-down economics.It's enough to make you wonder what kind of education these people got - or perhaps what part of their expensive education they heard enough to take away, because there doesn't seem to be much logic or mathematics or economics or sociology involved.

The tremendous electoral success of the neo-liberal agenda based on Milton Friedman has sort of covered up the vast intellectual blackhole at the heart the neo-liberal project. It is no surprise then that after the GFC, the right has scrambled to find a way to explain away the colossal failure of the massively financialised economy and the global banking crisis it brought about. It is even pitiful that some have taken to Ayn Rand as their go-to thinker. It doesn't et more pathetic than that. Even today the reason the Turnbull government struggles to arrive at a compelling narrative is because it can't formulate one from a position of reason. It can only keep playing the ideological position statements as if they can substitute for actual thinking.

But The Problems Are Mounting

The truly compelling global problem is climate change. Somebody is going to have to pay to deal with it and it can't all be put on the general public nor the governments. It's going to have to come from the private sector. The rampant denialism notwithstanding, they're the facts. The added fact that our government can't bring itself to deal with those issues, and instead rolls around in the political mud trying to figure out how to get past marriage equality shows you just how feeble the minds of our politicians have become. Not only are we living in a time of catastrophic climate change, we're living in a time of catastrophic failure of intellect amongst our national leadership.

Another is the issue of the over-financialised world economy which is centred around banking and the issuing of credit to a world awash in debt. If the GFC triggered by the Lehman collapse of 2007 was one thing, we're staring down the barrel with the potential collapse of Deutsche Bank. If Deutsche Bank goes down, so do derivative trades that amount to about the same as the entire world's GDP. Angela Merkel is saying the German government won't be bailing out Deutsche Bank,but when you think about it, DB is the walking talking quacking, waddling exemplar of "too-big-to-fail". Somebody is going to have to dig deep and keep it going or else any number of scenarios that lead to the implosion of the global economy would be on the horizon - just as it was when Lehman bit the dust. Do we hear a peep out of our treasurer in Australia about all this? No. So, once again, not only are we living in a time of catastrophic economic failure, we're living in a time of catastrophic failure of intellect amongst our national leadership.

It's one of the luxuries of living in Australia - we're so far removed from the world's problems. Most of the time, the world's problem don't really affect us that directly. In the past we've sent troops to the Old World just to get ourselves involved in the world's terrible affairs (like WorldWar I!); but in most part we've sat outa great deal of global issues,and that has worked for us. And that's all well and good except with these two problems, we're firmly in orbit of the looming black hole. Honestly, conservatism is intellectually bankrupt. What we're seeing is the process of intellectual foreclosure.

Movie Doubles - 'Exodus: Gods & Kings' & 'Noah'

The Biblical Imagery With CGI

These things come in a cycle whereby special effects become so much bitterroot the point that it makes the older attempts to bring biblical stories to life, look crap. Naturally there's cache for doing biblical stories because if you live in the Judeo-Christian half of the world, the audience is always going to have some kind of handle on it. And let's face it, the imagery conjured by the stories in Genesis and Exodus are pretty extraordinary. It stands to reason that they stand as an inviting challenge for film maker to put to screen, whether it be Cecil B. deMille or Melvyn LeRoy. 'The Ten Commandments' is still pretty out there, while 'Quo Vadis' is looking pretty tired the blue screen front. The fringing is pretty bad in 'Quo Vadis'.

Plus, in the 1950s, the surest way of putting salacious sex and violence and semi-nudity into movies was the biblical story where censors couldn't tell you it was inappropriate. The ancient world is full of decadent looking wardrobe for women in which to prance around.

What's weird is that we're suddenly seeing a couple of the more recent entries; and they're being directed by directors with tremendous amounts of causal capital and track record. Neither of them are anywhere near the emotional confrontation of 'Last Temptation of Christ', but the special effects department sure packs a punch.

God, The Character As A Mental Health Case

'Exodus' has one interesting thing going for it, anti is the characterisation of God as a petulant, demanding boy. Unlike Noah where we are reminded the Creator God is there to communicate with Noah in some strange semaphore and signs, Moses' God in 'Exodus' is pretty upfront about what he wants done, but a little short on 'why'. He doesn't exactly say why he waited 400years for his chosen people to remain in slavery, though hints that he needed Moses to come along - but that fact eats into the claims of the Judeo-Christian God being omnipotent.

In 'Noah', the God of creation is hell bent on wiping out all humanity except for Noah's family. It's not exactly made explicit but the ramification of this unforgiving God is that he changes his mind, and once again is dependent on Noah being Noah for his will to be done. So it strikes out omniscient from the list of God's alleged resume. when you combine both this and the God in 'Quo Vadis' you develop the picture of procrastinating figure who radically changes their mind now and then, and is often not actually paying attention to their Creation until it is necessary for him to intervene. It's a pretty nutty track record when you put it all together.

Both films got plenty of complaints from Christians and non-Christians alike, but it really comes down to the problem that God - in his own book no less - is pretty inconsistent and perhaps a tad psychotic.

Are We Happier When We See Disasters?

It's one of the paradoxes of the Judeo-Christian religion that it wants to impress upon us the original sin. In the case of 'Noah', it really wants us to focus also upon Cain killing Abel, thus implicitly critiquing the violent people and the problems caused by violence as well. And yet both films essentially hinge on a kind of retributive and just violence propel the plot. It also discounts just how violent God is. God's pretty violent in both films.

Not to mention the problem of rooting for figures to succeed against the people with the burden of the original sin - which technically would mean all of us if the Jesus sacrifice routine is to be believed for half a moment just to make sense - and we're all sitting there relating to the main character who wants to save his family from the people with original sin. 'Noah' goes into the problem a long way but comes out with a sort of demented answer that our volition coming from love and empathy voids the issue of original sin. It kind of makes you wonder if this God is just hooked on wiping out swathes humanity or inflicting great harm to his un-chosen.

More to the point, why is God so interested in the spectacle of these things? These kinds of odd theological questions spring to mind when both films are combined. The criticism I've seen from Christian quarters is that these films are not close enough representation of the Biblical text, but surely the bible itself is trying to impress us with the spectacle just as surely as Ridley Scott and Darren Aronofsky are trying.

It really does beg the question, why else would we be watching these movies if we weren't interested in seeing the disaster movie aspect of these films. God's a BIG bastard and that's what we enjoy watching. Think of the perversity in that interaction. Just think about that.

An Unpleasant Patriarchy

Christian Bale as Moses and Russell Crowe as Noah essentially gives two actors known for their intensity and perhaps personal unpleasantness, front and centre playing Old Testament patriarchs. Christian Bale's Moses is surly and tart while Russell Crowe's Noah is just generally mean and specifically murderous. If these are the guys God is choosing, it sure doesn't say much about God and - I'm sorry I keep harping on this point but - his ability to pick people to do his dirty work.

If God wasn't a bastard enough, he picks these surly guttural bastards to do his bidding. Yes, they complain a bit here and there and sometimes don't do as he says, but in most part, they're compliant with the violent bits- an that's good enough of the Bastard-in-Chief-Upstairs. Russell Crowe's Noah in particular wants to kill Emma Watson's character's babies. It's just mean and horrible and we're supposed to decipher the greater glory of God somewhere in the unforgiving, brutal, murderous mentation.

Christian Bale's Moses is a bit more caring, but when it really gets down to it, he too is unforgiving, brutal, and murderous. The affirmation of patriarchy that follows in both films, sticks in craw as you watch. You sort of wonder why women want to uphold the Judeo-Christian religious traditions when they really disempower women so much.

The Bad Guys Are More Charismatic

These biblical epics need good bad guys and that means it needs a good actor to really play up the heathen/infidel/goyim villain. The classic of this genre would be Yul Brynner as the pharaoh in Cecil . deMille's 'The Ten Commandments' but also Peter Ustinov's fantastic Emperor Nero in 'Quo Vadis' (the best thing by far in QV is Ustinov's inadequate, ranting narcissistic poet-king Nero).

Joel Edgerton as Ramses is intriguing and has enough charisma to suck you right in. There's something of an accidental everyman in Egerton's pharaoh which is at once both vulnerable and appealing as well as intriguing, even when he's being angry and vicious. Tubal-cain played by Ray Winstone in 'Noah' is equally fascinating precisely because he is at once so aware of the utter absence of God's love upon him, as well as being a utilitarian philosopher about man's place in the universe. believe me, it's a lot more credible than Russell's Noah going on about visions.

With all these films, it's a lot easier to root for the bad guy. At least they're honest. The good guys are scary surly bastards on a dastardly mission from a bastard God.

History's Big Losers

"Legitimate Grievances"? Ha. Get In Line.

Any time I see some idiot wrapping themselves in a flag or burning one on the streets, I'm overcome with the sort of grief at the number of stupid people on the planet for whom a bit of graphic design means so much in their identity politics. Really, a bit of flag both with some patterns and colours is not some kind of magic talisman that empowers you with greater moral authority or privileged position in the world. Nor is burning the other guy's flag going to do anything but symbolic damage - yet the important thing about symbolic damage is that it makes you feel good and the our guy feel offended, and that's the idiotic be-all and end-all.

Let me be blunt. If you identify with any group, you have to accept that identity is a construct and has no real bearing in reality; and that your commitment to such abstractions is fundamentally stupid as abstractions go. If you're a sporting fan and you're a die hard fan of a team, that's one thing. Everybody accepts sports is not an issue to kill and die over. Nationalism and religion on the other hand have no greater actuality than identifying with a sports team but asks you to commit murder on its behalf. It feels stupid having to point out the distinction but yes, it's true. Your patriotism or religious fervour is no better than my fandom of the New York Yankees as abstractions go. It may be much worse if it asks you to go do violent shit on their imaginary behest. I might hate the Red Sox, but I don't hate them enough to to kill or hurt them or their fans. However, if you wave enough flags or bibles or Korans, you're liable to eventually kill somebody at their behest - and that's a problem.

This is one of the reasons why identity politics is at its heart, Stupid with a capital 'S'.

Which brings me to this article about how Muslims in Australia feel.

In a scathing assessment of Australia's efforts to create a harmonious society, he said constant persecution, hypocritical Australian laws, vitriolic media and repeated invasions in the Middle East were pushing young Muslims "to the margins of society" and driving them to radicalisation.

"Denying the root causes is like applying a Band-Aid to an open wound before cleaning and disinfecting it," he told an anti-radicalisation forum at the University of Western Sydney on Wednesday night. 

Mr Trad, a controversial figure who described himself as a "roving imam", said he could understand why young Australians were driven to join Islamic State but he tried to convince them it was not the solution. 

His comments were reflected in a recent study that found one in five Australian Muslims think terrorists have legitimate grievances. 

The nation-wide survey of 800 Muslims, conducted last year by the University of Queensland, found that counter-terrorism policy in Australia was breeding anger, backlash, distrust and a siege mentality. 

Mr Trad listed the Iraq invasions, the war in Afghanistan and the torture of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as grievances for young Muslims. 

He cited the case of Northern Territory unionist Matthew Gardiner, who recently returned to the Northern Territory after reportedly fighting with the Kurdish forces against IS , as an example of hypocrisy in Australia.

Yes, good grief and grievances. How do you account for this stupidity? Identity politics. It's one of those illusory abstractions that allow Australian muslim youths to identify with Iraq or Afghanistan or those tortured in Guantanamo Bay. In this case the illusory abstraction emanates from one of the great religions on the planet and so they feel solidarity with the Iraqis and Afghans and those tortured in Guantanamo Bay (not that you see this crowd rally around the detestable David Hicks, but hey, what's a little chauvinism on their part?).

They live in Australia and benefit from living in Australia materially, but no, identity politics puts them in the corner where the Iraqis and Afghanis and G'itmo Detainees are their spiritual brethren. I'm sorry, but it should make you bloody wonder in cognitive dissonance rather than feel like you have "legitimate grievances".

*Ugh*.

That's the essential problem with identity politics: it always seems to gravitate around the dirty sinkhole of bad ideas that is argued from grievances. That somehow you are being hard done by because somebody with the same faith is being actually physically hard done by in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay, and you - in the comforts of living in Australia - make the conscious choice that you will align yourself with that idea against the people and things around you. I understand alienation - I've felt it all my bloody life. Living in Australia and not being 'anglo' is truly a Gorillas In The Mist experience. But if you live amongst the metaphorical gorillas, you should show understanding and empathy for the gorillas. Not, go around siding with spiritual brethren over an idea as feeble and idiotic as religion. Because that way lies the truly stupid phenomenon to grace this planet ISIL and you dying in a suicide bombing attack for them.

I write this with a fairly clear head about identity politics and the pitfalls of stupidity in which it can fall. It won't make me popular with the religious or flag-wearing or flag-burning, but it's still manifestly true all the same. From where I see it, those people are far better off taking a real appraisal of their lives and stopped identifying with stupid abstractions. It would do them a lot of good.
I'm sorry to shit upon your identity politics, but if your identity politics is about identifying with Iraqis and Afghanis and Git'mo Detainees, it's a shitty, shitty thing that is stunting your intellectual growth. There's just no two ways about it. You can grow up just a little bit by disowning that stuff.

Crusader Complex

A Fool, Even in Thought, Is A Fool

Here's an article about the moral crisis allegedly affecting Australia and the western world.It's interesting because it shows there's a philosophical sense of crisis being addressed, but with inadequate tools.

''Sometimes Western civilisation is treated with outright hostility,'' read the invitation letter. ''Cultural relativism has led to our education system often undervaluing the achievements of Western civilisation.''

''The rise of the nanny state is undermining our freedoms of association, of speech, of liberal democracy.''

John Roskam, from the institute, said the evening tapped into a debate about values, where they come from and what they are grounded in - Western civilisation.

''It's rounder than the concept of a threat, it's under challenge,'' he said.

This is some pretty paranoid thinking. I am hard-pressed to think of anybody who is a cultural relativist who thinks that the values of Western civlisation are not worth preserving. Even Johnny Rotten in his rotton-est hour would concede that Western civilisation is pretty cool in parts. The single hallmark of John Howard's time as Prime Minister was his utter defensiveness about these things, and his language that almost reeked of a victim's complaint when it came to things to do with say, Aboriginal Reconciliation and Feminism. You have to take a somewhat culturally relativist position (but not much really) to let Aboriginal Reconciliation happen and be a good thing and let feminism advance. Indeed it's arguable that these kinds of things are good things that are the fruits of Western tradition.

But no, John Howard is worried.

Howard spoke off the cuff. According to those present, he argued that Australia has a secular tradition with no established church. But, while that tradition must be respected, it was his personal belief the Judaeo-Christian ethic has been the most profound moral and cultural influence in this country and it should be preserved. Other religions could be embraced and welcomed without in any way diminishing the Judaeo-Christian influence.

Howard, who never wore his faith on his sleeve, gave examples of where he saw erosion caused by a combination of factors such as post-modernism and people who think the values of Western civilisation are not worth preserving.

Really now. Again, I seriously doubt people on the Left from the champagne socialists out to some hardcore communists in Australia think that the "values of Western civilisation are not worth preserving". The extreme wing of the environmental movement probably want the West to renounce heavy industry but it's seriously questionable if they want the West to renounce, say, Socrates or Pascal or Kant or Freud.

What's really funny is that this meeting is somehow a meeting of people trying to preserve the Western civilisation and they're actually raging against the Enlightenment, so to speak. note especially John Howard's call to have more taboos. If that's not a backward step into the medieval darkness, I don't know what is.

Then you have Cardinal Pell, he of the kiddy-fiddlers-anonymous Catholic Church:

Pell went further, saying he felt suicide today was being ''celebrated''. Faith and values, he said, meant you're living for some reason other than yourself. He lamented that a secular view is legitimate but a religious view should not be heard in a public place, and that is was deemed permissible to speak openly of a green god but not a religious God.

Beyond religion, Julia Gillard's proposed national history curriculum was singled out for a belting, because it supposedly does not place enough emphasis on British and European influences.

Howard cited the recent push for a human rights charter in Australia as a consequence of a lack of understanding of our system of parliamentary democracy and an independent judiciary.

Both he and Pell acknowledged the flaws and blemishes of Western civilisation and the ''black spots'' these had left in Australian history.

But Pell referred to China, where he said an erosion of values was also occurring as capitalism took hold. ''This radically different culture is now searching for the secrets of Western vitality to provide a code for decency and social cohesion compatible with sustainable economic development.''

He quoted the Chinese economist Zhao Xiao's ''fascinating comparison with the selfism of Western radical secularism''.

''These days, Chinese people do not believe in anything,'' Zhao asserted. ''A person who believes in nothing can only believe in himself. And self-belief implies anything is possible - what do lies, cheating, harm and swindling matter?''

This is just too rich.

I've never heard the Catholic Church in Australia champion Confucianism. Ever.  Cardinal Pell lamenting the passing of the old values of Confucianism is therefore a new development. You sort of wonder how he reconciles that with his Catholic beliefs, after all Confucius clearly states that belief in the mysterious, the strong, the chaotic and gods is not a rational course of action. i.e.  a proper person does not run to cults and religions.

That China is losing its old ways as a result of capitalism is sort of interesting, as it is China's attempt to reap the fruits of Western civilisation without taking on board the core values of the west that provided for them. Like, good old liberalism. Indeed, it is the free-marketeering profit-above-all-decency kind of economic rationalism that is enabling the contemporary economic animal of China, that is being so disparaged here. Not so long ago, these were the exact western values people like John Howard and Cardinal Pell were peddling to a God-less, communist China. Surely they can't be too shocked at the results! Not if they had any continuity of thought. But of course if you listen to these people it's the fault of 'cultural relativists'.

And that's just the bit that pertains to China's modernisation. It strikes one that perhaps the biggest problem with John Howard and Cardinal Pell talking about  Western civilisation is that they don't understand its historical significance and only want to keep the bits that suit their personal political positions and agendas ("no, you don't say, art!"). This is why they're willing to admit there are 'black spots' in its history and yet they don't really want to deal with those black spots too much. Doesn't this show that the very malaise in the Western civilisation they're talking about with much alarm  is also showing up in their own discourse in their inability to recognise the faults of their own system?

Then there's the complete  muddling of religious doctrine with philosophical and historical traditions of the so-called Western civilisation. It is true, that historically the Church has played a large part in the history of Western Europe and the colonial states they have spawned. It is also true that the Judeo-Christian faith has provided the largest framework from which thinking on ethics and philosophy has been undertaken. Nonetheless, it is totally fallacious to claim that all of this has been good. We only need to look as far as Gallileo's or Darwin's experiences in having to explain scientific findings to the retrograde faithful. The Church and Judeo-Christian thought cannot lay claim to all of Western civilisation, just as Western civilisation cannot lay claim to just the good bits and not the 'black spots'. It certainly can't own all of science and therefore modern technology. It can't even own epistemology these days.

Indeed, the mere fact that we're even talking about Darwin today as a controversial figure in certain circles suggests that the Catholic Church still has not come to terms with science, let alone the enlightenment, and that the true fear of the cultural relativist is actually a fear of the Church's own irrelevance to thought.

What's really frightening is that people like this have so much influence in our society.

What Is This? A Religious Putsch?

The SMH also had this stupid little column, with this hysterical closing bit:

Secularism is certainly not neutral and those who wish to expunge Christian values from our schools and public institutions should more fully explain the worldview from which their alternative values derive.

In the mean time, if we are going to continue to recognise and celebrate our Judeo-Christian heritage, the state government should not dilute the influence of Scripture classes because they are the one opportunity in life the majority of young people have to understand what it is all about.

I don't know why religious types think that they have a monopoly on thinking about goodness. It is the single most repugnant thing about the article. A lot of Christians I know would probably balk at the degree of intellectual hubris of this writer.

Here's news for some people. Ethics is a difficult thing for religious types precisely because it seeks to address and critique morality; and morality is often defined by things like scriptures such as the Bible or the Koran. You can't have ethics unless you're willing to get objective about morality and where it comes from. It's not a big claim, it's just logic.

The simple version of ethics comes down to questions like "religion X says it's okay to do X, but religion Y thinks not. How do we address the goodness and badness of doing X"? If X is male circumcision, nobody bats an eyelid. If it's female circumcision, we all get uptight about it and rightfully so. The question then becomes, what makes it "rightfully" so? That very question is where ethics sits.

So, it's probably important to address what is considered moral under the Judeo-Christian framework of morality, but to do teachings of ethics correctly, you must critique whether thee claims to goodness or badness within the moral frame work stand up to analysis. For instance here's an ethics question for Catholics, was it good for the Pope to have covered for pedophiles when he was a Bishop? The Pope is currently trying to say, it's okay because he ended up as Pope and how dare we question the representative of God? Is this really 'good'?

What's really disturbing is that columns such as the one the SMH put up shows a clear attempt to muddle the water between what is ethics and what is morality so as to shoe-horn religion - in this instance Christianity of this particular dudes' particular denomination - back into the middle of discussions. Once again, this is such a backward step that even if you weren't a strident secularist, you have to combat it by saying how 1) misguided it is 2) how politically motivated it is in its misguidedness 3) and how deliberate it is in its confusing argumentation because it deliberately seeks to muddy the waters.

The long and short of it is, 'secularists' are not trying to sideline religion because they think it's bad. They're trying to sideline it from discussions of ethics because ethics can only begin when we stop harping about morality, and we cannot go there while the religiously motivated keep on trying to bring ethics back to "My God is Better Than Yours" routines of religious thought.

So, Mr. Jim Wallace, please stop trying to corrupt the youth of today with your opiate for the masses!

Apprehend That Pope!

Which brings me to this interesting article today.

Two leading atheists are investigating the possibility of arresting the Pope for "crimes against humanity", lawyers have confirmed.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are paying lawyers to investigate whether Pope Benedict XVI should be arrested when he visits Britain in September.

Mr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens believe the Pope should face charges for the alleged cover-up of sex abuse in the Catholic Church, The Guardian reports.

The Guardian reports that a letter written by the Pope in 1985, when he was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, urged that a paedophile priest in the US not be exposed for the "good of the universal church".

Mr Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, told The Times: "This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence."

Mr Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, added to the London-based paper: "This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded pay-offs, but justice and punishment."

Well, right. Somebody's got to be held accountable for all this grief. I say, book him, Danno.