Rings of Saturn, sculpture by Inge King. Heide Museum of Modern Art, Melbourne. Photograph: R. M.

Turvey

Separation of religion and state

Based on an address to the Unitarian Church, East Melbourne, Sunday 16 March 2008. S. N. Stuart
n this article I will try to cover the following topics. The Australian Constitution, despite a contribution from secularism, has failed to demarcate separate spheres-of-action for religions and the state. The government has shifted responsibility for welfare on to the religious charities. Religion has a number of harmful effects on society. Separation would confer benefits to society; and finally I shall suggest steps towards that goal. You will not be hearing much about quantitative evidence, for and against separation, since very little exists. Nevertheless I hope what I say qualitatively will resonate with your own observations of Australian society. I speak as a Humanist, and do not disguise my distrust of theology. In my estimation Christianity and Islam have some intrinsic features that are psychologically and socially unwholesome and deceptive to say the least. But I wont dwell on them here, or on

the cases of serious abuse of pastoral trust, which, after all, are not intrinsic to the faith.

Secularism
I begin with the idea of secularism in the 19th century. The first avowed secularist was the English social reformer George Jacob Holyoake (18171906), who described his philosophy as communistic in social economy, utilitarian in morals, republican in politics and anti-theological in religion. He was prominent, along with his brother Henry, in the Chartist Movement. In 1842, at the London Mechanics Institute, George claimed that the established Church of England cost the nation 20 million a year and he announced his disbelief in God. That expression being illegal at the time, he was promptly arrested and convicted of blasphemy. In 1846 he coined the term secularism and devoted his life to promoting the ideal. He later described it, as:

that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means.

Chartists including Henry Holyoake brought their values with them to the Australian goldfields and into the Ballarat Reform League. The League shepherded the miners protests at Eureka, and the subsequent trial was marked by a groundswell of public support, leading to the rise of egalitarianism, which in turn resulted in legislative reforms that made the colony the most democratic in the British world. Constitution In the 1870s, secular state education which excluded the teaching of religion was instituted. That was meant as an antidote to the sectarianism which had unfortunately grown from the mixing of Irish and English immigrants. And at Federation it was a secularist, Henry Higgins, who introduced section 116 into the new Australian Constitution. It reads as follows. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or trust under the Commonwealth. Now, most Australians think that that says it all: Australia is constitutionally secular, with no established church in the sense of the UK, where God Save the Queen is still the national anthem. It actually says that the government shall not make laws interfering with religion; it leaves open the path of de-facto collaboration between state and church. It doesnt respect the separation of the spheres-ofaction of civic authority (on the one hand) and private conscience (on the other), as that is found in United States constitutional law, for instance. The High Court of Australia, in the Defence of Government Schools case of 1981, decided that section 116 did not mean separation of religion and state, and cleared the way for government to advance religious institutions indiscriminately. The result today is that government has outsourced more and more of its services to charities and other religious organizations, according to their capacity. This included the restructure of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the organization of pregnancy counsellors and family-law counsellors. The free-market rhetoric, which was used in this retreat from elected responsibility, invoked the customers right to choose: freedom of religion was not violated as long as the government treated all religions equally. Religious organizations now run profitable public hospitals, aged care and disability services. The government, as if admitting that the service-providers are doing the governments job, grants all of them relief from taxation. So the division between the public and the private realm has become blurred, obscuring responsibilities. In several ways religious organizations retain a privileged position over nonAustralian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 2

religious bodies. Through their tax exemptions, all of us are paying a tithe to the main churches. You could say, whats wrong with that? Charities do a good job. Well, they may do a good job, but we need to be sure about it. The Catholic Church and the Uniting Church are the biggest private employers in the country, greatly dependent on the public purse, yet are regarded as working in the non-profit sector and dont have to lodge fully detailed, audited accounts. The profit-making businesses and investments of churches now exceed their charitable activities, yet they remain financially unaccountable. In a country where 30% of people declined to identify with any religion (in 2006 Census), the mutual nexus between christian churches and state will increasingly be felt to be uncomfortable, compromising, discriminatory and undemocratic. Ill effects of church/state interaction What are the ill effects of the interaction of church and state in Australia? The tax exemptions, which I have already mentioned, apply to income, fringe-benefit, payroll and land taxes and property rates, and constitute a steady churchsubsidy worth many billions each year. Surely, taxes should be spent for the public good, not the private. Government encouragement of private schools, which are chiefly religious, aggravates social polarization, with the poorer families concentrated in state schools; if enrolments drop, a state school is closed down but not a private school. Public health is compromised by the Vaticans opposition to secular policies on sexual and reproductive health. The previous Minister of Health, a Catholic, funded pregnancy counsellors on condition they were not to advise abortion doesnt that look a bit like a religious test to qualify for a trust under the Commonwealth (s. 116)? And the Catholic former Senator Harradine made sure that the familyplanning guidelines for Australias foreign aid disallowed abortion. Cardinal Pell has used his ecclesiastical authority to warn Catholic parliamentarians against transgressing in this area. Our democracy is in a bad way if parliamentarians feel beholden to their fellow believers over and above the wider society. The federal government has colluded with the religious lobby and overturned territorial laws that permitted voluntary euthanasia and homosexual marriage; it has quashed modernization of the Queensland Education Act, under which the only school subject stipulated is biblestudy. Government should be wary when it is lobbied by any sectional interest.

The profit-making businesses and investments of churches now exceed their charitable activities, yet they remain financially unaccountable.
Privileging of religion Let me count the ways religions are privileged in Australia. For a start, they are automatically assumed to be charitable. That is an inheritance from the Statute of Queen Elizabeth I, which stated that the advancement of religion was a charitable purpose, in 1601 when English society was still dominated by the church. In modern times it has even

become necessary to define religion. In the Scientology case of 1983 the High Court recognized that religion was accorded certain privileges and therefore its adherence had to pass certain tests. Those it determined were two in number: there had to be a belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle, and there had to be accepted canons of conduct that gave effect to that belief. (The decision freed Scientology from its prior status as psychological malpractice and dubbed it a religion. But sophisticated Christians who reverence a metaphorical divinity had better keep quiet.) Religion is privileged beyond its charitable status. Its public influence is seen in public prayers and in church services conducted in parliament. Government supports religious festivals as if they were community festivals. The churches control pastoral care by chaplains in public institutions the military, schools, hospitals and prisons. A school chaplain may have no secular training, yet is respected as if embodying the authority of the school. Churches have the office to intervene in civil court cases as the friend of the court. Government gives priority to church organizations when awarding welfare contracts. But the most important privilege is in the running of church schools. Non-government schools are allowed to select their intake, whereas state schools are obliged to accept all comers. Non-government schools are aided greatly by government funds, yet dont have to render account for those funds; they can apply for extra government grants for particular needs, which is easier than for a state school to obtain. In addition, the professional standards of non-government schools are not subject to responsible inspection. (Humanists disapprove strongly of religious indoctrination and creation pseudo-science in the curriculum.) The separation of religion from politics is the stated aim of the Secular Party of Australia. This may be a touch quixotic, or even Solomonic, if both religion and politics turn out to be innate propensities of humankind. But there would be benefits in having a generally agreed boundary between religious authority and government authority between God and Caesar, so to speak. If government authority did not cosy up to the clerics, which comprise an obviously sectional interest, our democracy would be more transparent and there would be better equality before the law; Australia would be freer to proceed from a monarchy to a secular republic. If religion were confined to the private sphere of life, schools would produce more clear-thinking, cosmopolitan individuals, ready to face the real challenges of the day. Hence debate over public policy would be clearer and sounder. If government stopped collaborating with every religious group, it would be in a stronger position to deal with ethnic conflict, when it arises. A religiously neutral, secular government would actually be the best guarantor of religious freedom. Obstacles to separation There are some obstacles to separation, of course. Charity welfare complements government welfare; so if charities were discouraged the government would have to shoulder the cost. Would that cost the taxpayer more? Im not sure that it would. But deeper than the vested interests on both sides there is the ancestral pull of group identification. Our variegated society contains within it relics of archaic clan society, with its rights and liabilities apportioned not to individuals but to tribal communities. The deep conviction that the tribe we

belong to is good and right tends to drive us to impose on the others. Rising into consciousness, it forms a sense of nostalgia for a simpler past, worth fighting for. Religion clearly offers itself as custodian of this feeling, as seen in the evangelical Christian sects of today. They are reacting to the rapid mobility and now globalization of modern life. Perhaps the same can be said of the rise of militant Islam. We sense a fear that multiculturalism will swamp the mainstream culture. How can the state prevent honour killings, an important means of tribal justice? What if an organized group were to campaign for schools to offer segregated teaching on demand, say, or for halal certification to be supervised and paid for from the public purse? We shall have to reassess group rights. For it is difficult to accept that just as a partnership or corporation has no definite right to life, or to continuance, neither does a tradition, a state or a religion. Steps towards separation What steps can be taken towards bringing about a separation of religion and state and its attendant social benefits? Education is obviously needed for this. The more people are aware of the virtually black-market commerce between the two orders of institution, the more they will want it to be regulated. I have here two books which are informative, published by the Australian National Secular Association: Separating Church & State Keeping God out of Government (Conference proceedings), and The Purple Economy by Max Wallace. With this awareness, undue religious influence on public policy would be recognized as improper. Charities could be made accountable for spending public funds, say by the setting up of a national Charities Commission, as in New Zealand. All religious schools could be subject to inspection of teaching, and lose their licence if sub-standard. The teaching of comparative religion would enable children to see beyond the traditions of their particular family. Today [16 March] happens to be Harmony Day, when we are reminded of our duty to get to know the other that helps. At a higher level of reform, the very definition of charity could be modernized. Organizations working for public health, welfare and the environment could be recognized as charitable. If the old advancement of religion were struck out, as suggested by Max Wallace, the business arms of churches and charities with deductible gift recipient status would become accountable. Wallace considers separation so important that it ought to be entrenched in the Constitution. That is what the French Republic did in 1905: its Constitution forbade the government from giving any subsidy to religion. This question would arise in Australia when the republic debate is rekindled. But, whether we go that far or not, it is clear that Australia can do a lot better than it has done to date. Summary I have considered the contribution of secularism to Australias heritage; the failure of the Constitution to separate the spheres-of-action of religions and the state; the governments responsibility for its citizens welfare divested to the charities; the financial unaccountability of the charities; harmful effects of religion on society (including tax exemption, social division, interference with health policy and other legislation); privileges accorded to religion; benefits to society of separation (including improved equity, democracy, education and community relations, preparation for republic); some obstacles to separation, and steps 3 Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

towards the goal (including education, and reform of regulation and the law). S. N. Stuart is President of Humanist Society of Victoria and former CAHS Treasurer.

The unbelievers
Excerpt from James Jupp, Belief and Disbelief in Australia, Dialogue v.27, 2/2008, pp.6-15.
[Reprinted with permission.]

Since a change in the Census wording in 1971 there has been a steady rise in the numbers claiming No Religion, with the highest level and absolute numbers being in 2006. The Census does not indicate the level of religious activity, but other sources suggest it is fairly low.
he Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) General Social Survey in 2002 showed that 23 per cent of adults participated in religious activities in the previous three months. Women outnumbered men and those over 65 years had the highest rate of participation. The National Church Life Survey, which is conducted parallel to each Census, shows a level of below 10 per cent for Christian church attendance on a representative weekend. This is still a large number, greatly exceeding the combined membership of all political parties and approaching that of the trade unions. At least half of those attending church regularly are Catholics. These substantial numbers do not, of course, satisfy religions like Christianity which aim to universalise their support. The smaller denominations have higher levels of activity and Islam and Pentecostalism also have high attendance figures. While the category Not Stated is a dustbin from which little can be retrieved, that is not so for the positive statement No Religion, which does show consistent patterns for some social characteristics. One is the preponderance of those with university qualifications. With over 600,000 nonbelievers holding degrees or above, this religious grouping is larger than for any formal religion, with the Catholics well behind at 422,000, the Anglicans at 391,000 and the Uniting Church with only 143,000, of the big three with over one million adherents when added together. What is remarkable is the high number of graduates among the two Asian religions of Buddhism (80,000) and Hinduism (61,000). This reflects the high number of students from China, India and Malaysia and the impact of shifts towards skilled migration under the Howard Federal government (19962007). While some of these may return home in due course, there should be continuing changes in the religious composition of the professional classes in the near future. These large numbers of non-believing but well educated Australians are not, on their own self-description, necessarily hostile or even actively interested in religion. The numbers claiming to be agnostics, rationalists, atheists or humanists are quite small at about 63,000. Christian fears of New Age growth are also unduly anxious. The combined strength of Paganism, Wicca, New Age, Nature Religions, Pantheism Animism, Satanism and Druids was only 35,000, with Paganism and Wicca in the lead. This was a fragmented and individualistic collection, found mainly in the major cities and with only informal institutions. Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 4

Several broad generalisations can be made about nonbelievers, apart from their relatively high level of education. They are more likely to come from Protestant societies such as New Zealand, Britain, the Netherlands, the USA and Germany. They are very unlikely to come from Catholic or Asian societies with the exception of China. In terms of ancestry, which includes the locally born, by far the lowest levels of non-believers were Lebanese, Filipinos, Slavs, Indians, Sinhalese, Greeks, Maltese, Italians, Turks and Vietnamese. This is quite ironical as these are the very ethnicities often seen as least likely to fit into Australian society or to accept its values. Most come from societies where religion has been socially and politically important, even vital, as a basis for social and individual identity. Western democracies, including Australia, where this is not so, are well on the way to secularisation already. The occupational and ethnic background of nonbelievers is reflected in their choice of residence. Over Australia as a whole there is little difference in the level of non-believers, with the exception of New South Wales, which is hard to explain. Elsewhere the level ranges from 24.2 per cent in South Australia to 18.6 per cent in Queensland, which is also the national average. Clearly Adelaide the city of churches is no longer what it was and neither is Queensland the Deep North. What Queensland still has is a concentration of fundamentalists. It has the largest numbers for the Anglican Catholic Church, the Apostolic Church, the Christian Outreach Centres, the Mormons, Church of the Nazarene, Full Gospel Church, Jehovahs Witnesses, Lutherans, Wesleyan Methodist Church and (rather strangely) Spiritualism. What is unique and contrary to the usual stereotype, is that New South Wales has a level of only 14.2 per cent of non-believers.

Melbourne and Adelaide are much more godless than Sydney, which challenges one of the oldest social stereotypes.
This is very odd except in terms of the large settlement in Sydney of Middle Eastern and Asian immigrants or more fancifully by the strong conservative leadership of the

Catholic and Anglican churches and of Pentecostalism. The low level of non-belief is apparent in Sydney and Newcastle as well as in the provinces. Melbourne and Adelaide are much more godless than Sydney, which challenges one of the oldest social stereotypes. At the local government area in the major cities, immigration has had a much greater effect than in rural and provincial Australia. Non-believers are uncommon among many immigrants, as argued above. This has meant that the level of non-belief in working class suburbs is much lower than in the more affluent areas. This does not necessarily mean that manual and industrial workers are more religiously active than the middle classes. Such information is lacking and runs counter to long term observations on religious behaviour going back well into the 19th century. But it does mean, for example, that non-Christian religions, other than Judaism, are much stronger in working class, Labor voting suburbs to the west of Sydney and Melbourne and the southeast of Melbourne. The impact of nonChristian immigration has been less marked on other cities, but there are smaller concentrations of Muslims and Buddhists in all the metropolitan centres. Superficially, at least, these districts appear more religious than the conventional middle class suburbs in eastern Melbourne or the Sydney North Shore. This has led to the paradoxical situation that nonbelievers are found at above average levels in two locations: gentrified inner suburbs near universities (which is not surprising) and affluent conservative strongholds (which is). This corresponds to the high levels of non-belief amongst the university educated, who either live near universities if young or in affluent areas if older and established. Among Sydney local government areas with more than 20 per cent non-believers Leichhardt, Sydney City and Marrickville are all influenced by two universities; North Sydney, Willoughby, Manly and Pittwater are impeccably middleclass or even rich. In Melbourne the highest non-believing area in Australia is Yarra (30.8 per cent), a gentrified inner suburb with many graduates, teachers and professionals, and adjoining Melbourne City containing two universities. Otherwise disbelief is over 20 per cent in Stonnington, Maroondah, Bayside, Knox, Whitehorse, Booroondara, Banyule and Casey all of them middle class suburbs mostly represented by Liberal politicians; in Nillumbik, an outer area favoured for alternative lifestyles, and in Frankston with the largest British migrant population in Victoria. On the industrial side of the city disbelief is only half as significant, with many Catholic and Labor strongholds and important Buddhist, Muslim and Orthodox populations. In both cities there are strong Pentecostalist churches in outer areas with large families. In both cities Catholics now form the largest denominational following in nearly all municipalities. The old divide between the social classes and the two main religions has largely disappeared. Dr James Jupp is Director of the Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. ________________________________________________

$10 per copy, including postage within Australia. Make cheques payable to CAHS. Send requests to AH Editor, R. Ives. 4 Alandale Ave, Balwyn Vic 3103 Enquiries: email rosslyn@netspace.net.au

Separating Church and State: Keeping God out of Government

Proceedings of the public conference held in Melbourne, June 2006, 60pp. (Report, AH No. 83, page 22). 5 Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

Are reason and faith compatible?

Idiosyncratic belief systems which are shared by only a few adherents are likely to be regarded as delusional. Belief systems which are just as irrational but which are shared by millions are called world religion. Christopher Hitchens

David Milan
hristopher Hitchens typical take no prisoners statement will, no doubt, swell his shoals of hatemail and cause true believers everywhere to fulminate against his provocative declaration as being an insult to their faith. Most believers, when challenged, will argue that their faith (unlike others) is founded upon reason, indeed, the task confronting the religious apologist is none other than to persuade intelligent people that, in the face of the obvious contradiction, it is quite rational to believe propositions which cannot be proven. I have a DVD entitled The Secret. It is a smoothly marketed lifestyle philosophy teaching the existence of a cosmic force described as The Law of Attraction which anyone can access at any time. To do this, simply choose whatever may be your hearts desire, then concentrate unswervingly upon that wish, permitting no distractions. By holding that thought foremost in your mind, you will engage this Law of Attraction and the Universe will make your dream come true. Your life can be transformed as you seek, then acquire, joy, health, money, relationships, love and happiness...everything you have ever wanted. These rewards flow to anyone with the faith to appropriate them. Is your reaction to The Secret one of disbelief? Are you tempted to dismiss it as an absurd money-making scam designed to defraud simple, gullible people? Do you demand some evidence for these mysterious claims? Well, O ye of little faith, let me tell you that The Secret has become the highest-selling DVD in America, and since March 2006, has earned its two Melbourne creators over US$300 million. Unfortunately, as I write this entrepreneurial duo are hotly engaged in an unseemly court squabble over the proceeds! I offer the two following definitions, for your consideration, of what I mean when I use the words faith and reason. Faith: to accept a proposition as being true, although unprovable and incapable of independent verification by established knowledge and scientific enquiry. Reason: the process of logical thought used to test the validity of a proposition. A conclusion based on empirical evidence, the scientific method and existing scientific data. My argument is that our reason is the indispensable tool required to maintain a balanced, rational view of the real world. Reason and faith are mutually exclusive because, where we have reasons for what we believe; there is no need of faith! (that is, faith is only necessary where no evidence exists for what we believe.) Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 6

Granting that faith ipso facto lies beyond proof, the believer, paradoxically, still must employ reason to decide what to believe and disbelieve. Take, for example, the allbut universal belief in an afterlife. It is surely reasonable for believer and sceptic alike to agree that the evidence against this proposition is overwhelming and that none can be advanced to support it. Yet, one person will choose the irrational course (belief) the other accepts the verdict of evidence that, at best, life after death is only a remote possibility. Reason goes with the odds, not against them, and it is clear that faith and reason march to different drums. That said it would be churlish to deny that a vigorous faith can be an uplifting, ennobling and life-enhancing experience. Countless inspirational people have attested to this fact by virtue of the gracious lives they lead, furthermore, many respected thinkers rightly argue that we can never dismiss outright the possibility of our having a spiritual dimension as an integral part of our psyche. However, to grant that faith plays an important role in the lives of millions of people is not to overlook the sober truth that all is not goodness and light within the community of faith. History is stained by the misdeeds of tyrants and monsters whose perverted beliefs have been the engine driving them to vicious oppression, persecution and unspeakable cruelties. Moral behaviour is not always the child of faith. With faith and reason at odds, the dictum from Hitchens what is believed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, throws down the gauntlet to the enthusiastic apologist when he or she attempts to convince the sceptic of the truth of particular beliefs. What he or she knows by faith requires no proof, whilst, to the sceptic, this is a vacuous argument, so he or she irritatingly demands but how do you know its true. Common ground in this debate is scarce when one side argues for propositions which cannot be tested, whilst his interlocutor demands proof! To further reinforce the argument that faith and reason belong apart, consider some of the claims being made today which intoxicate otherwise sensible people, but which are quite lacking in evidence. First, there are the gormless Bible literalists who smugly ignore one thousand years of scholarship and scientific progress, which has reduced their simplistic version to rubble. Second, aspiring Casanovas who believe their sexual inadequacies will be remedied by a good dose of tiger-bone soup. Then there are the thousands who avidly read their daily horoscope without there being a shred of evidence to support such absurdities, and the clairvoyants who exploit human grief and hope by conveying vague messages from beyond the grave. Then theres the most astonishing ritual of all, performed innumerable times every day in churches around the world. It requires millions of people to muster enough faith to believe that a few words mumbled over a wafer biscuit and a chalice of wine, supernaturally transmute these everyday commodities into the actual flesh and blood of a long-dead Jewish rabbi. When reason abdicates and faith steps in, the potential for irrationality seems unbounded! I am fascinated by the guru phenomenon. These men and women, with apparent ease, attract droves of devotees by offering a new enlightened path, thanks to revelations they have received from some esoteric source. They emanate an aura of ersatz godliness; many become quasireligious cult leaders drawing hundreds to their side by dispensing pearls of wisdom. Some become worshipped as

avatars, and generally inspire their disciples to a life of renunciation and anti-materialism. Curiously, although the guru can engender such blind faith, he may be less inclined to adhere to his own revelations. Some, unfortunately, have displayed a distinctly venal side to their character, their carnal appetite only matched by their profligacy, one notorious humbug having his celebrated armada of Rolls Royces financed by his generous, if credulous devotees. But before disillusionment sets in, thousands have succumbed to the blandishments and charisma of their particular guru, some, tragically, at the cost of their lives. Reason blinded by faith. But faith is not limited to the world of guru and religion. It comes in all shapes, sizes and packages. One modern day phenomenon is the huge domain of complementary medicine and alternative therapies. This is a happy huntingground where faith plays an integral role, with a medley of practitioners and remedies on offer. Many of these health professionals may be dubiously credentialed, but importantly, they almost invariably offer sincere concern for your problem and an insatiable interest in you, personally. Compared to pressure-cooker conventional medicine, the alternative therapists soon enlist faith and confidence by their interest, sympathy, and unhurried technique. You gain not only a healer, but a friend! This field is awash with practitioners offering a breathtaking range of treatments. Patients are usually drawn from the ranks of those disappointed with perceived shortcomings in conventional medicine. They probably are aware that the alternatives on offer are denounced as unproven by the medical establishment who point out that these remedies have not been subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Notwithstanding, hopeful patients, faith in hand, seek out healing from an eclectic marketplace of healers. You can choose from, kinesiology, reiki, aromatherapy, iridology, reflexology, homeopathy, herbal treatments, water therapy, and so it goes on. I suggest that, here again, we see the dichotomy between faith and reason. Faith in treatment, augmented by known placebo effect, and boosted by a positive, expectant attitude can have a helpful outcome for many people with chronic, intractable illnesses. There are, of course, many disappointments too, as hard evidence apart from the anecdotal for such cures is hard to find. So while the jury remains out on the effectiveness of alternative therapies, faith in them will be undimmed so long as conventional medicine cannot successfully address societys health concerns to the satisfaction of most people.

Conclusion
My argument has been that faith and reason are not compatible because they belong in different worlds and operate on different planes. Whether you are of a sceptical disposition, with your thinking rooted in rationalism, or a person of faith, we must all sometimes wonder how it is that normal, educated adults can take unto themselves a belief system which, to them, is sustaining and nourishing, yet is riddled with irrationality. But, this being the reality, in our discourse, lets honestly distinguish between matters of faith and reason, of fact and fiction. To help this process along, Socrates worthy aphorism comes to mind. the unexamined life is not worth living. So lets keep on with our examining, lets go after the truth, surely an enterprise well worth the effort! David Milan, member of Humanist Society of Victoria. 7 Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

Some Humanists amongst climate change deniers

Victor Bien
This article followed an exchange started in June this year on the Council of Australian Humanist Societies (CAHS) internet Topica discussion group [see end of article for address]. Where, notably Frank Legge argued strongly he does not think that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by humans have caused the climate to change.
hat discussion itself was prompted by a report I made to the Topica group of a talk given by David Tribe at a Humanist Society of NSW meeting for members (see http://www.hsnsw.asn.au and click on Meetings) in June where he expressed his disbelief that humans have caused climate change. Indeed I gained the impression that Tribe even doubted that there was any global warming. He even talked about global cooling! Now that Australia is seriously grappling with this enormous issue with the release of Prof. Garnauts more substantive report, this topic has more currency than when David Tribe spoke. The issue and associated questions are complex and extensive. To form a personal judgement about the merits and demerits of the cases for and against the science of climate change a fair bit of material has to be examined. Some of information is in pictorial or graphical form which makes it rather impractical for this journal. I will try to summarise the points which seem most apposite, and will list some internet addresses where information can be download for further study. I have packaged this information so only a few files need to be downloaded, rather than many references or files from disparate spots needing to be chased. Thanks to Dr Andrew Glikson for compiling these references and making them available. One difficulty in this debate is the protagonists from each side accuse the other of bad faith. The pressure to do this is hard to resist! Those arguing that human induced climate change or global warming is real lament that the deniers have adopted the strategy and techniques of the cigarette lobby; which for decades impeded the campaign to reduce smoking by denying that cigarette smoking substantially increased the risk of lung cancer. The deniers on the other side accuse the climate change proponents of selective presentation of data and having won consensus by not entirely fair means; now selectively refuse to fund research proposals which are critical of the main paradigm. I will try to avoid criticisms which are essentially adhominem and try to convey the actual arguments and information supporting the reality of climate change. One ad-hominem criticism from the denialists is that funding for climate research is biased to the for case. Conversely there is solid evidence to back up the climate change case that the likes of the tobacco lobby is behind the stream of denialist material coming forth.1 Another difficulty is that the opposition from the deniers is not unified although they have a lot of points in common. I will have to ignore David Tribe who expressed doubts that global warming is actually taking place because it appears to me that facts are staring us in the face. You will undoubtedly have heard that it is possible the ice in the Arctic will melt completely in a few years. That melting is real and has become entrenched, is that now there Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 8

is increasing shipping over the North West passage and oil drillers have become excited at the prospect of being able to search for oil in the Arctic. The second point would hardly please environmentalists!

Unlike Tribe, Frank Legge2 does not dispute that global warming is happening but he argues it is mainly caused by natural climate change or causes. Additionally, he allows that if there is a human cause, it is not due to rising CO2 but advances the novel (to me) idea that it is due to soot! Soot notably from the appalling low environmental standards of the rising industrialisation of China. He makes the obvious point that if we accept that soot is a major factor the remedy is much easier to implement than trying to rein in the emission of CO2. The force of the argument against conceptualising that CO2 is the cause of course is that trying to control that factor inappropriately would be extremely damaging and stupid if it is not true. (Personally I think the weight of evidence is very much the other way so that conversely it would be extremely damaging and stupid not to reign in the emissions of CO2 but more of that below). There is also the point notably made by Nicholas Stern in his report that the cost of not doing anything is likely to far exceed the cost of perhaps (very unlikely) cutting greenhouse gases in vain. Frank Legge supports his argument that soot is a serious factor by noting that there is not similar melting of ice in the Antarctic. However, here I think he ignores evidence presented to him. He seems to ignore quite a few things which dont suit his case. The package of information from Dr Andrew Glikson includes an image showing significant melting in the west Antarctic.3 The references allow you to make up your own mind as to which side of the argument is sounder. This article takes a step back from the actual debate. It concentrates more on the epistemological (theory

of knowledge) aspects how we know things, how to make judgements from facts and opinions which are put. Feeling daunted by the amount of information I needed to gather to form an independent view I sought the help of Dr Andrew Glikson of the Research School of Earth Science ANU. He came to my attention from a reply he wrote to James Young (another Humanist climate change denier) in this journal AH No. 86 Winter 2007. (The 1995 Australian Humanist of the Year [AHOY], Prof. Ian Plimer is another climate change sceptic associated with Humanists. In contrast the 2005 AHOY, Prof. Tim Flannery is in the forefront campaigning for lowering CO2 emissions). Dr Andrew Glikson is one of the people cited as a reference person by Prof. James Hansen NASAs Chief Climate Scientist in a personal open letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. (A copy of this open letter is included in the package file pointed to in Endnotes). In the package is Gliksons reply to Legge. Not surprisingly there is little common ground between them. Legge talks about the view of global warming being caused by rising CO2 as a hypothesis! Personally I think to view CO2 induced global warming as a hypothesis today is unreasonable. Glikson wishes that the situation was just an unproven hypothesis and the issue would just go away. Glikson mentioned in correspondence that he finds it extremely frustrating that views like Legges are so widely held and propagated. This is what he wrote:
I am afraid not many realize how bad the situation has become, and only few climate scientists are in the position of/willing to communicate this to the public. We are hitting brick walls, not least with the media, who for the sake of balance every time they report the science feel compelled [to convey] old longdiscarded misinterpretations by denialists, who specialise in sowing doubt

the feeling that where points are inconvenient Legge simply ignores them or at least remains silent. Of course I am indicating my own inclinations here. This creates a difficulty. For example when reading an article by Rahmstorf (in file 3) that sets out the mainline climate change view one basically has to ignore the noise made by the deniers. For example, yes Rahmstorf baldly presents the hockey stick which the deniers question. I am reasonably sure that the basis of the science is sound despite the noise made by the deniers. An aspect of this difficulty is the interpretation of graphs. The situation is a bit like the old adage, there are lies, damn lies and statistics! There have been cross accusations of doctoring the graphs; conveniently cutting graphs leaving out data that doesnt suit a given case; purposely not noticing dips and rises which are inconvenient etc. This was a notable factor in the Great Global Warming Swindle film (see R Benders review AH No. 87 Spring 2007, p 17). With regard to the use of terms like hockey stick, Glikson wrote:
Denialists use kindergarten language to try and trivialize/ridicule the science and its messengers, for example hockey stick, alarmist, scaremongers and worse.

(see http://www.abc.net. au/tv/qanda/video. htm?pres=20080710&story=1 [if you use this

address ensure it is not broken by a new line in the middle]) as if every time someone says the world is round the media has to have someone appear on the program to say the world is flat ... We have been talking with Parliamentarians for the last 2.5 years many dont get it, while others appear to be neutralized by their partys policies. Of course the real power brokers are at the top business/executive level, which I found totally unapproachable.

Thus this debate via me presents an opportunity for someone like him in the forefront of climate change research to give an extended answer to the deniers. To some extent Glikson directly refutes Legges points. However there are too many points of disagreement so despite Legges extended arguments about the role of soot Glikson at first simply denies that it is a significant as CO2 without going into details. However, in reviewing this article he wrote:
[Soot] in no way negates the significance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases; soot in the stratosphere results in albedo-enhancement and thereby a degree of cooling; soot on ice decreases the albedo and therefore enhances warming; however, soot is shortlived (a few years) before it settles from the atmosphere or melt with snow, whereas CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere on time scales of centuries and longer.

The situation is very much a case of a Thomas Kuhns paradigm shift as conveyed in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (The nature of Kuhns thesis has been categorised as Science as a Dynamic System by David Oldroyd.)4 The thesis is that most of the time science behaves as normal science where research proceeds along well establish frameworks and protocols. Science is said to be operating under a paradigm. But sometimes science breaks out of being normal and a paradigm shift occurs. Examples of this are: the shift from Newtonian classical mechanics to Einsteinian relativistic mechanics and the shift from classical mechanic understanding of atoms and sub-atomic particles to a quantum mechanical understanding early last century; the adoption of the germ theory of medicine associated with Flemings discovery of penicillin; the introduction by Darwin and others of the theory of evolution displacing ideas of creation (which significant numbers of religious still have problems with); the discovery of DNA has completely changed virtually every aspect of biology research and the way we all think these days. It has been said that the 20th century was the century of physics and that the 21st will be the century of biology. From a scientific paradigm perspective it is easy to see why. After decades of research and data gathering there has been something like a paradigm shift with the general view of Earths climate. It is because of this that it is possible for those who dispute the dominant paradigm that rising CO2 is causing global warming to accuse the proponents with being one sided. This was manifest in these words from Glikson in AH No. 86, p19:
Inherent in the scientific method is the continuous testing of working hypotheses, aimed at reaching best fit explanations for the growing bodies of field observations, accompanied with computations consistent with physical principles. Once consensus is reached, onus is on sceptics to advance alternative interpretations of the data consistent with physical principles. This, climate sceptics have not done.

On the other side where he does go into details such as the warming in the middle ages Legge remains silent. I got 9

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

That is to say, a new paradigm has been set. Anyone who wants to challenge that has an enormous job on their hands! At the same time part of this situation provides great scope, for dissemblers to exploit the gap to impede the body politic to act appropriately (as we can see hence this article). In this particular case of course we dont just have an academic conflict. There are huge vested interests who find this paradigm most inconvenient and will fight tooth and nail to deny or resist it! Jared Diamond in his book Collapse has argued that the world as we know it may collapse in a similar way the world of Easter Island collapsed in the 17th and the 18th century when the last tree was cut down.5 He argues undoubtedly the society at the time would have argued between themselves. In the event the equivalent of the global warming deniers of today won at the cost of the society disappearing altogether! Prof James Hansen has ramped up the stridency of the climate scientists message. See the attached article NASA_Chief_calls_for_emergency_carbon_capture.pdf packaged in A_Glikson2.zip 6 While this discussion was running there were a couple of Humanists who thought the whole affair was quite inappropriate because population was the real issue. (I mention it here because I judge this dimension of disagreement to be widely shared amongst Humanists). However, I dont agree with their case and on the Topica group wrote a contribution explaining why. I am rather concerned that what I had to say was simply ignored. Victor Bien is an active Humanist and HSNSW Treasurer. [CAHS internet chatline address is http://lists.topica.com/lists/humanist/read]
1 2 3 4 5 6 http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/articles/CliveHamilton_con_denialists.pdf 53 kB http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/articles/FrankLegge_questions.pdf 503 kB http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/articles/A_Glikson.zip 12.8MB contains 17 documents and 11 graphics The Arch of Knowledge An introductory study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of Science, David Oldroyd, UNSW Press 1986 ISBN 086840 049 1. Collapse How societies choose to fail or succeed by Jared Diamond 2005 ISBN 0143036556 http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/articles/A_Glikson2.zip 1.2MB contains 10 documents

Man-made climate change, or just climate change?

James Fairbairn

________________________________________________

Climate change? Wot climate change? Wot Lil Ol me cause climate change?
Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 10

here is currently a major realignment under way with politicians and pundits continuing to attempt to square the Man-made global warming circle, with it being re-packaged as Man-made climate change thereby covering both potential bases. I would never claim to be a climate scientist, or to be in possession of all the facts, however as a historian and observer of human psychology things just dont add up in my eyes. First of all climate change has always happened, period. Our ancestors 10,000 years ago had to cope with a rise in temperatures of 7 degrees Celsius in under a decade. The Little Ice Age (1315 c1850) is seen to have started when three years of torrential rains beginning in 1315 ushered in an era of unpredictable weather in Northern Europe which did not lift until the 19th century. Ask any family of farmers and they will tell you that the climate is always changing, from year to year, from decade to decade, and especially century to century. Sometimes you will have warm periods, sometimes cold. Yet these events were not caused by man, they were caused by the sun and volcanic activity. Think about it for second. The sun is the source of all our power, so logically when it gets hotter we get hotter and when it is colder we get colder. Second volcanoes when they erupt, as they are always doing, throw considerable quantities of gases and pollutants (many greenhouse gases amongst them) into the Earths atmosphere. In fact a sizeable eruption like Krakatoa in the 19th century will in one day emit more greenhouse gases than mankind has managed in the last century. Now dont get me wrong here. What we are doing to this planet, especially in the indiscriminate use of fossil fuels in the West instead of alternatives is morally reprehensible. (We have a choice those struggling to survive in the third world currently do not.) The damaging pollution that this emits is not CO2 but carbon monoxide, nitric oxide and particulates (of soot and un-burnt petrol/coal) that create the smogs, lung infections and other noxious illnesses that affect us. The CO2 debate masks that, just as it masks all the other massive pollution that we are inflicting upon our delicate ecosystem such as GM crops, the collapse of world bee populations, plastics in the oceans and mercury in the water table. So you have to ask yourself why is this modern religious fervour around CO2 being perpetuated? Well step back and look at the psychology of the opinion formers. Politicians love it, as for once they have taxes that you dont mind paying. Corporations love it, as for as long as we debate over what we emit every minute by simply breathing (CO2) we are not focusing our attention on the very real and massive environmental destruction they are collectively committing on the closed ecosystem in which we all live. The media itself is ultimately paid for by the corporations or governments so will help amplify and broadcast the agenda. Many scientists meanwhile go along with it as it guarantees the holy grail of science, that is funding, and these days no matter how barking mad the suggestion, there is the promise

of ever more $$$s. Those in these three groups who go against the consensus, are cast out and denounced for being deniers and worse, described as being uncaring about the environment. How many times in history have there been seen similar witch hunts to suppress questioning of the status quo? I am not saying that many are not passionate in the fervency of their beliefs, however in ever aspect of life it is intellectually blinkered to unquestioningly take as gospel a received wisdom that is handed to you, and this is no different. This is no dark room conspiracy; it is just human and corporate psychology. Which brings the spotlight to us? Joe Public. We are fed the daily diet of the evils of CO2, and to be honest we know something is not right with this picture of how we live our lives on this planet. This catch-all enables us to emotionally purge our collective environmental sins. Unfortunately what we are really doing is chasing after a red herring, and that ultimately will be to the detriment of us all. But before you form an angry mob complete with pitch forks and flaming torches to come and lynch me, please stop, think and read. Make your own informed decision. Dont just accept what you are told is undeniable fact. Every single week articles appear in the worlds media that highlight the contradictions and the vested interests behind stifling the debate. From just one week in early September the eagle eyes amongst you would have noticed the following. Big chill a symptom of climate chaos. Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), 1 Sept. Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists. The Guardian (UK), 1 Sept. Global cooling? An inconvenient truth. Farming Online, 2 Sept. Least sunny UK August on record. BBC News, 2 Sept Suns face virtually spot-free for months. New Scientist, 3 Sept. An Inconvenient Truth exaggerated sea level rise. The Daily Telegraph (UK), 4 Sept. Bid to launch Sydney green tax. SMH, 4 Sept. Revealed: PMs billion pound green power windfall. The Independent (UK), 6 Sept. There is still a debate to be had. Dont let the zealots close the door.
For hyperlinks to all of the articles view Edition 27 of Open Your Eyes News at: www.openyoureyesnews.blogspot.com

We need to consider more than the global warming problem

Dick Clifford
ames Fairburn agrees that our burning fossil fuels causes damaging pollution; reason enough for our scientists to tell us to stop burning coal and oil. However his doubts on man-made global warming and Garnauts weak proposals, will convince people and politicians that reform is not necessary, so nothing will be done. There are many reasons why we must change our way of living and I wonder if our newspapers concentrate on the climate change issue so they can ignore the more serious problems of peak oil and overpopulation. What convinces scientists that global warming is real and dangerous is a) The ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic showing the correlation between temperature and CO2, and, b) The shrinking glaciers and the thinning ice in the Arctic. Data collected on air composition at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, shows a steady rise in CO2 in the most recent decades, to levels higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years. This is clearly due to human burning of fossil fuels as shown by production and consumption charts of coal, oil and gas. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which stays circulating in the atmosphere for 90 years, whereas other greenhouse gasses fall out quite quickly. Yes, our weather is erratic with many variations, but the sun has a relatively constant output. Sunspots are said to increase incoming heat but only by less than 1% insufficient to explain temperature variations. The Earths orbit has a greater effect but even this is said to be only sufficient to give temperature change a slight nudge. Contrary to the arguments about the Little Ice Age and the medieval warming, the Earths temperature during the past 11,000 years has not varied by more than 1 degree up, or 2 degrees down, showing that the sun had only a small effect. Before that the temperature was going up by 3 degrees causing higher ocean levels and down by 8 degrees causing ice sheets over large parts of America and Asia. The comparatively constant level in the last 11,000 years needs a better explanation. It could be that larger forests, the herds of Buffalo emitting gas in North America, and the commencement of farming, created a balance in the amount of CO2. This suggests that humans can control the Earths temperature by controlling the CO2 we emit. This means that we must try to bring the CO2 level down to a lower level than it is right now. The Island of Krakatoa erupted in 1883. For months afterwards the world experienced unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights due to the spread of aerosols throughout the stratosphere that reflected sunlight away from Earth. The fine particulates slowly fell out of the atmosphere and the CO2 helped the planet to recover. Hopefully the two effects compensate. But multiple eruptions of flood basalt volcanoes over thousands of years can raise CO2 levels and cause global warming. 11 Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

James Fairbairn, HSWA member, Historian and Blogger: www.openyoureyesnews.blogspot.com

A four wheel drive driven 7 Km has the same carbon footprint as a bowl of cereal, but a modern vehicle emits only one tenth of 1% of carbon monoxide (CO), insufficient to kill the would be suicide. However when starting the engine, the catalytic converter takes a short while to warm up, and the resulting CO concentration may be high enough to kill you at that time. Of course an electric car would not produce any CO or CO2. If Jamess comment on scientists looking for funding is correct, then this is more than offset by oil and coal interests who pay for papers supporting their industry and then feed them to the deniers. It is clear that the world needs much reforming, but the problems are not only global warming, but also overpopulation, peak oil, and financial crash. These problems interlink and some remedies may help more than one problem. What Humanists need to know is what are the most serious problems and why; and where should the work of reformers be concentrated. Consider the following: 1. Financial crash is the most serious problem because it is happening now. As I write Lehman Brothers have collapsed and more banks are to follow. Worse depression than the 30s, say the pundits. For those who have forgotten, in the USA between 1929 and 1932, 11,000 or 44% of banks failed, farm prices fell 52%, Industrial stocks fell 80%, and unemployment was 25%. Australia also had 21% unemployment peaking to 32%. So the song on everyones mind was Brother, can you lend me a dime. Reforms should be designed to reduce break-neck competition, allow fairer distribution of wealth, provide a basic income for all, allow credit with nil interest for essential infrastructure, (these to be retained in public ownership) and reduce fraud and gambling. A tall order which can not be brought about without the full cooperation of bankers and financiers who should be called on to hold discussion groups, and public symposia in the major countries. Even more difficult, it is essential for the World Bank and the IMF to be reconstituted so they benefit third world countries, not the almighty dollar. 2. Peak oil, is the point in time when the maximum rate of global oil extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. It is known as Hubberts Peak, after M. King Hubbert (190389) a well-known US oil geologist. His prediction, in 1956, that US oil production would peak in about 1970 and decline thereafter was scoffed at, at the time, but his analysis has since proved to be remarkably accurate. Many people, including oil experts, accept that globally this point has now been reached. At present consumption, oil will only last 40 years, but in 10 years the price will be prohibitive for most, and wars will be fought over it. Oil shortage initiates financial crash. (See 1.) This is why it should be the second priority. If we stop burning oil in vehicles, we reduce global warming and save sufficient oil to maintain fertiliser production at a reasonable price. Oil companies are developing unconventional oil, which uses more energy than they produce as well as more CO2. This must be stopped. We must build transport so that vehicles run on electricity supplied by solar generators of all kinds. Car manufacturers should be required to build smaller more economical cars now and electric cars within 5 years.

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which will warm the planet even if it may take 700 years. It is essential to start remedies now to prevent CO2 levels rising above 450 ppm, which is thought to be a danger point where temperatures may jump and not come down. All businesses should be required to prepare CO2 reduction plans with 5, 10 and 15 year targets, with a total target of 90% reduction of CO2 emissions within 20 years. Solar towers, concentrating solar generators, solar cells, wind generators, geothermal generators need to be pressed into service. France has developed solar metal smelters. We have adequate sunlight. Coal miners would be retrained as solar engineers. Kyoto and tax proposals may help the financial position, but the real solution is doing without coal and oil and developing green energy. 4. Overpopulation: the major cause at the back of all the others. World population is now at 6.5 billion and rising. It is expected to be over 9 billion by 2050. This is completely unsustainable. Even a small rate of increase is unsustainable see Professor Albert Bartlett of Colorado University who proves it, on his web pages, using simple mathematics. Remedies include teaching every child in the whole world about family planning. School curricular to be amended and contraception made available to all. Religions who oppose should be requested to find a new prophet. Living standards in third world countries to be upgraded by insuring that all trade agreements favour the third world. Nothing short of a propaganda war (I should say an intensive media education course) will be necessary to make these suggestions practicable. The likelihood of these programs being adopted is remote. This is all the more reason for Humanists to make these problems a priority issue, by writing a letter to a politician or an industry once a week. Even a partial success when combined with a program such as The Simpler Way by Ted Trainer (http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/) may help civilization to be preserved into the future. Dick Clifford, Vice-president, Humanist Society of South Australia. ________________________________________________

Christmas Sonnet
On Christmas Day His Holiness the Pope Summoned his chaplain to draw back the drapes Round his sublime Renaissance bed. I hope, He said, This joyous festive morning shapes Into a triumph in St Peters Square For all the world to see simplicity, Meekness and poverty together share Fruits of the spirit in true piety. He rose and wandered round the frescoed rooms By golden plate and jewelled diadem, Then down to crypts past marble busts and tombs, Thinking of the Babe of Bethlehem. Blessed His birth, the Holy Father cried, But as His Vicar I thank God He died.

David Tribe
Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 12

On neutral ground
We have already invented a way for the devout and the godless to get along in public, says Paul Kelly. We just have to believe in it

espite the ardent desire of many, religion just wont go away. The progressive secularisation of modern societies was supposed to push religion to the margins where it would wither away of its own accord. But if anything the religious voice seems to be growing louder, and increasingly permeating our politics. Prominent multi-culturalists such as Bhikhu Parekh, author of Rethinking Multiculturalism, and Tariq Modood, author of Multicultural Politics, claim that religious affiliation is an important dimension of identity and should be protected as an aspect of an individuals civil and political rights. The state, and everyone else, they argue, should be compelled to respect religious belief. In response, the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and A. C. Grayling have lambasted the irrationality of religious belief and its threat to Enlightenment values. And they take issue with the multiculturalist claim that religion deserves respect. But at the same time their own political prescriptions for dealing with this challenge are either nave or inadequate. Atheists may be right in their insistence that god doesnt exist, and that it is illogical to believe in a supernatural creator, but this does not take care of the political issue of how a society composed of both the faithful and the faithless organises itself. If there is an argument for secularising the public realm it has to be different from the claim that religious claims are probably all false. Even if religion is harmful in the way that Dawkins or Harris claim, it is not the sort of harm that can be politically eradicated without imposing an intrusive and repugnant tyranny. We therefore need to seek an alternative account of political secularism that distinguishes it from politically nave atheism. Contemporary liberal political theory is the best place to start. Liberal secularism in its contemporary form is traceable to the ideas of the Harvard political philosopher John Rawls and the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin. For both thinkers a secular liberal order distributes and protects the rights of equal citizens. These rights ensure the equal status of citizens irrespective of their religious, political and cultural identities. Individuals are free to hold and practice whatever beliefs they wish as long as they are consistent with the equal rights of others. This has the important effect of privatising religion. Religious groups cannot claim special public protection or support as this would involve some people having to subsidise the life choices of others. But religious communities can thrive as private associations under the law. For liberals the state must be neutral between individuals life choices. Consequently, it neither promotes nor does it seek to suppress religion. Individuals remain free to say what they wish about others beliefs and values. More controversially, Rawls argues that when deliberating about fundamental rights and liberties, legislators and judges must

adopt the language of public reason. This means that no individual can have their rights denied or altered for reasons that they could reasonably reject and that legislation must forgo appeals to contentious religious, ethical and cultural beliefs. One obvious consequence of this liberal approach is that it builds an idea of individualism into its fundamental presuppositions. This individualism, however, will not be compatible with religious or ethical views that put the good of the group above any consideration of the interests of the individual. The other important point about the liberal resourcebased conception of equality is that though it equalises external goods, it does not require that everybody respect the value of everyone elses life choices, beliefs or values. In this way it rejects the multi-culturalist egalitarianism of Modood and Parekh, who insist that religious beliefs be accorded respect. Instead it demands equality of respect for the person not the belief. Critics of this view claim that liberalism respects an abstract person, not a real person with gender, race, ethnicity or religious beliefs which they should not be expected to shuck off when they enter the public sphere. Yet this commitment to abstraction is no mere accident: it is central to the liberal vision and it is there, and should remain there, for two crucial reasons. First, the idea that an individual is identical with their ends, goals or beliefs is simply false. Personal coherence can withstand considerable changes of belief, culture and values. Such change might be costly to the person but it is not the case that anyone who loses her faith (religious or political) ceases to be the same person in anything but a metaphorical sense. Abstraction only requires that we see no set of commitments as being definitive of a person over time. Identity is not destiny, and it is the attempt to make it so that raises the political problem of religious and cultural authority in pluralistic societies. The second reason for rejecting the idea that the person is defined by beliefs and values is that this would deny that people can adopt the perspective of a citizen. Citizen equality requires that people see themselves not only as belonging to a variety of identity-conferring groups but as doing so in a shared public space where not everyone will hold the same beliefs as they do. Equality (and civility) requires us to be able to step back sufficiently from our beliefs and values to live a common and minimally coercive life with others. This, not the existence or otherwise of a supernatural being, is the fundamental reason for the liberal preference for secularism in the public realm. In a confessional state people who do not share the religious view of the majority will either be marginalised and denied the equal protection of the law, or they will be required to falsely comply with beliefs and practices that they do not believe in. Such sullen submission is precisely the kind of false religiosity that the Enlightenment challenged and is something that most religions consider valueless. 13 Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

Of course there will be religious zealots who argue they should never compromise with infidels and apostates. Let me stress that this is by no means a peculiarity of Muslims, as British history amply demonstrates. Yet militant defenders of religion who are not prepared to accept the burdens of civility cannot expect the protection of liberal laws. Reciprocity is central to civility and liberals have no obligation to protect those who act in an anti-liberal fashion. They do have an obligation to protect those who hold antiliberal views and pursue them peacefully. This view is overlooked by those New Atheists who wish to purge religion fully from the public domain. Liberals are not committed to the forcible maintenance of a belief in liberal values and are prepared to rely on the force of argument alone to defend these values. But it can and should defend those values in ways that appeal both to atheists and to theists. Liberal secularism is not a religious belief and has no non-political value. It is a view that applies to politics which is fundamentally characterised by inerradicable disagreement. It is of course possible that some religions might accept liberal values only until demographic change gives them the monopoly of power. This is one of the dangers inherent in the system. But if a religious or political view does persist in claiming that it alone is not bound by the long-term obligations of liberal civility, then it can hardly complain if it is criticised or vilified as a dangerous and backward doctrine. Such was the position of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe for much of the last four centuries, and it is a perception that it has struggled hard to overcome in the last 50 years. Moderate Islam is engaged in a similar struggle today. Alongside those militant atheists who argue that liberal secularism already concedes too much to religion, multiculturalists such as Parekh and Modood argue that the liberal secularism I have defended assumes a caricature of religion as an uncompromising and static view of the world that has no place in plural societies. In place of this caricature they argue that the proper way to seek fair and equal terms of social cooperation is to negotiate ways around our differences in mutual respect.

others will be offended by it and criticise, mock and challenge its beliefs accordingly. This offence will no doubt be irksome but it remains offence and not harm as long as it is not translated into political and social marginalisation. As long as individuals do not violate the civil and political rights of others, they enjoy the protection of the liberal state, whatever their beliefs. Liberal secularism is an ideal only poorly realised in our current politics but it is a necessary ideal. It may also be a godless doctrine in the sense that it does not appeal to theological premises, but it need not be a doctrine that attempts to eradicate religious belief; indeed, by not privileging any one religion in the public domain, in a paradoxical way it protects religion by freeing it to speak in its own voice. Liberalism ensures we all have a right to do that. From New Humanist (UK) 123 (4), July-Aug. 2008: 3840. Paul Kelly is Professor of Political Theory at the London School of Economics and author of Liberalism (Polity, 2004). ________________________________________________

Pyrrho of Elis, Greece, fl. 300 BCE: the first sceptic philosopher
he main principle of Pyrrhos thought is expressed by the word acatalepsia, which connotes the ability to withhold assent from doctrines regarding the truth of things in their own nature; against every statement its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this fact to preserve an attitude of intellectual suspense, or, as Timon expressed it, no assertion can be known to be better than another. Thirdly, Pyrrho applied these results to life in general, concluding that, since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, freedom from worry. (By suspending judgment, by confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of mind.) The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly we must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, we ask how we are related to these things. Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them. Pyrrhos answer was that things are indistinguishable, unmeasurable, undecidable, and no more this than that, or both this and that and neither this nor that. He concluded that human senses neither transmit truths nor lie. Humanity cannot know the inner substance of things, only how things appear. The impossibility of knowledge, even in regard to our own ignorance or doubt, should induce the wise man to withdraw into himself, avoiding the stress and emotion which belong to the contest of vain imaginings. This theory of the impossibility of knowledge is the first and the most thorough exposition of agnosticism in the history of thought. Its ethical implications may be compared with the ideal tranquillity of the Stoics and the Epicureans.

To seek peaceful reconciliation of all beliefs would be to afford a spurious recognition

The problem with this is that it demands too much of religions and fails to offer them true respect. We do not expect and would not desire uniformity and agreement in the realm of politics or personal morality. Disagreement, disapproval and denial form part of many religions, as well as non-religious ethical positions. If we are to respect religion then we need to respect it on its own terms, and that involves allowing it to speak for itself in its own way and to make its own exclusive truth claims. Such a strategy will indeed be controversial, challenging and sometimes offensive to others, but it is also part of the exchange of ideas that liberals value above all else. To seek peaceful reconciliation of all beliefs, whereby no one is allowed to offend or disagree with anyone else, would be to afford a spurious recognition and respect that effectively silence religion altogether. Of course, if religion is afforded this liberty to be itself Source: Wikipedia (online), 22 Jul 2008. and offend the sensibilities of others, then it must accept that Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 14

No To Pope activists undermine Ratzingers World Youth Day

The week long Catholic event was held in Sydney from 15 July 2008. Max Wallace
combination of events served to act as a check on the Catholic extravaganza which had the advantage of massive media coverage. This included part sponsorship by the Daily Telegraph, the Murdoch empires morning tabloid newspaper which saw no contradiction in sponsoring a news event. The first thing that went wrong for the church was heavy handed regulations introduced by a Catholic member of the Executive of the New South Wales parliament shortly before World Youth Day was due to commence. These were introduced after the parliament had closed for the winter recess. They banned any citizen from annoying Catholic pilgrims during their stay. Their introduction in this way meant the new regulations could not be debated in parliament. There was immediate outrage in the media. The regulations were a public relations disaster for the church and the government. Information obtained at the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) meeting in Washington in June concerning government grants to World Youth Day in Germany and Canada, helped fan the media fire. The Greens in the NSW parliament researched the matter and it was realized that Australian governments, federal and state, had paid the Catholic Church four times what Germany and Canada had paid for World Youth Day in their countries. This was published in a Sunday newspaper. Usually conservative radio commentators then gave unprecedented time to critics of the regulations and the government. Talk back radio and letters to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) were overwhelmingly against the government and the greed of the church. Two university students from the No To Pope Coalition, Rachel Evans and Amber Pike, took the NSW government to the Federal Court with legal assistance from the NSW Civil Liberties Council. The court ruled that the annoying clause of the regulations was an unconstitutional breach of a citizens right to freedom of speech. This was a significant victory which allowed protestors to air their opinions against the Pope and the Vaticans policies. While this was happening the Australian New Zealand Secular Association (ANZSA) conference was held in the Theatrette of the NSW Parliament to describe and discuss how Christianity in Australia and New Zealand has declined in all recent censuses. Rachel Evans joined the afternoon panel discussion. The SMH ran the information (Jesus romps home on the donkey vote) as part of its World Youth Day reporting. This led to three radio interviews broadcast across Australia where the point was made that World

Youth Day would not arrest the decline in young people leaving the church. After the Pope arrived the No To Pope Coalition sent over 300 letters to Catholic schools in Sydney where the pilgrims were staying welcoming them to Australia. The letter contained four condoms and advised the pilgrims the Popes policy on contraception was wrong and they should practice safe sex during their stay. The next major problem for the church was the return of the Foster family from Britain to confront the church during World Youth Day. The Fosters two daughters, while attending primary school, had been raped by a Catholic priest in Melbourne some years previously. They were aged about five and six at the time. The church had offered the Fosters $50,000 in compensation which the family refused saying they would take legal action for greater compensation. The church then fought the case in the courts for eight years denying a responsibility they had previously accepted. The tragic outcome of the rapes and the long court case was that one daughter later in life turned to drugs and eventually committed suicide. The other turned to alcohol and was involved in a serious traffic accident leaving her paralysed and requiring constant care. The Fosters were met at Sydney airport by child abuse activists from Broken Rites who had been brought from Melbourne by the Sydney activists. The case received Australia wide and international attention from that moment and for a while World Youth Day was replaced on the front page of the SMH by the Fosters dreadful case and their plea for a private audience with the Pope. On the second last day of the week, after much activism, a demonstration was held and about 1,500 protestors listened to speeches from Broken Rites, abused citizens and other No To Pope activists before marching to confront the pilgrims on their walk to the Popes final mass. The day was a success and only one person, an Australian pilgrim, was arrested, which made the regulations passed by the government look ridiculous. In order to placate critics of the churchs response to child sexual abuse, the Pope made a crocodile tears statement condemning the abuse. Then the church held a private meeting with hand-picked victims in a vain attempt to counter the bad press the church was receiving. Of course, the Pope would not meet the Fosters. The meeting with hand-picked victims was a transparent sham. It has only caused to reconfirm the activism and cooperation of those who have been brought together by his visit. A final word: we have never seen an occasion like this in Australia before with over 200,000, mostly young people, in a city for a religious event. Their faces revealed their naivety and gullibility. Friendly and innocent as they were, there was an echo of Germany in the 1930s. This was truly Ratzinger Youth Day. Postscript: SMH of 2021 September reported that the Catholic Church was trading on exemptions under Freedom of Information legislation to prevent full disclosure of the finances concerning WYD. See M. Moore, Pope visit too sensitive to talk about, p.38. Dr Max Wallace, Humanist activist, author of The Purple Economy and spokesperson for the ANZSA.

15

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach,

the man who brought religion down to earth.
Nina Power
udwig von Feuerbach (18041872), is one of those thinkers whose ideas have so infused our way of conceiving the world that we have forgotten who it was who originally committed them to paper. The son of a famous Bavarian lawyer, he married into money and was able to pursue a life of relative ease, marred only by the death of a daughter and his dismissal from university teaching on account of his anti-religious views. Feuerbach is no doubt best known for being the target of Karl Marxs attack on philosophers in the famous Theses on Feuerbach. But Feuerbach, far from being the dusty old idealist that Marx pillories, deserves to be remembered as the thinker who made humanism and atheism serious philosophical and practical concerns. It is Feuerbach who first articulates the eminently human origins of religious belief and describes the processes by which mankind alienates itself from its real, practical concerns. It is Feuerbach, too, who breaks with the idea that philosophy must defend the status quo, whether it be the stranglehold of church authority or the dead weight of tradition. He places man at the centre of his thought, not in order to assert our dominion over nature but to unite us in our shared identity as a thinking, living, creative species.

It is Feuerbach who first articulates the eminently human origins of religious belief and describes the processes by which mankind alienates itself from its real, practical concerns.
Feuerbachs most important idea, as simple as it is ingenuous, is that, as he puts it, the true sense of Theology is Anthropology. In other words, instead of looking to the heavens and the vagaries of religious belief in order to understand religion, we need to turn the question around: what is it in us that needs to believe? Why do we hanker after immortality? Why do we project all those things we admire in ourselves the capacity to forgive, to create, to love on to something transcendent we cannot see and cannot prove? Feuerbachs answer lies in demonstrating that every aspect of what we call God corresponds to some feature or need of human nature. We project human capacities on to something beyond because what we imagine is possible goes far beyond what we as individual mortal beings can achieve. As individuals we cannot possibly hope to be as wonderful as we would like to be, argues Feuerbach, but instead of assuming there must be an entity that is a perfect form of man (immortal instead of mortal, infinitely benevolent instead of petty, all-knowing instead of ignorant), we should steal these qualities back from religion and understand them in their rightful place as human ambitions, not godly attributes. The publication of Feuerbachs major work, The Essence of Christianity (1841), which was translated into English by George Eliot, caused a scandal in Europe and helped many young atheists, anarchists and communists (including Marx) to formulate their opposition to church, state and philosophical dogma. Feuerbach remained committed to his radical thesis, and became even more down-to-earth in his later years as he attempted to prove that even the loftiest sentiments have their origins in more practical, human concerns such as eating and the need for affection. He advocated a combination of rationalism and sensualism that took as its object not the fevered brain of the philosopher, nor the fantasies of religion, but real living human beings, understood as a species, as a collective social and political subject. What Feuerbach ultimately proposes is a thorough examination of human nature, its needs, successes and desires. It is only then, he argues, that we will have a complete philosophy of the future. [New Humanist Volume 122 Issue 5 September/October 2007.] Nina Power lectures in philosophy at Roehampton University, UK. Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 16

Mother Superior, nearing 98 years-old was clearly ailing. The ever attentive nuns had brought her a glass of warm milk which she refused to touch. Then one of them remembered a bottle of Irish Whisky received last Christmas. She put a generous measure in another glass of warm milk and offered it to the Mother Superior. With some encouragement from the nuns the ailing Mother Superior finally took a sip, then a few more until she finished the glass. As she sat up and turned her eyes upwards, the nuns gathered round. Please give us some of your great wisdom, Mother Superior, one of the nuns pleaded. Mother Superior thought for a few seconds and finally spoke, Dont sell that cow. ********* An Englishman, a Canadian and an American were captured by terrorists. The terrorist leader said, Before we shoot you, you will be allowed last words. Please let me know what you wish to talk about. The Englishman replied, I wish to speak of loyalty and service to the crown. The Canadian replied, Since you are involved in a question of national purpose, national identity, and secession, I wish to talk about the history of constitutional process in Canada, special status, distinct society and uniqueness within diversity. The American replied with a sigh, Just shoot me before the Canadian starts talking. ********* An artist was travelling through an outback town when he saw a full bearded old swaggie leaning on a fencepost. Ill give you $50 dollars if you let me paint you, said the artist. The swaggie scratched his beard and looked doubtful. Its easy money, said the artist, trying to be persuasive. No question bout that, replied the swaggie. I was just wonderin how Id get the paint off me self afterwards.

17

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

Is Humanism really a secular project?

Roland Boer My topic concerns the interaction of Humanism and secularism. More specifically, I want to ask whether Humanism is really a secular project.
must admit that I wish to provoke reflection and discussion, especially in rethinking secularism and the Humanist project. 1 The first step in answering this question is to ask what secularism itself might mean. Usually the term secularism conjures up ideas like opposition to theology or religion, the separation of church and state, or the need to banish theology (= irrational superstition) from education. However, it seems to me that these are secondary meanings, derivatives of the basic sense of secularism. Secularism derives from the Latin term saeculum (adjective, saecularis); the Latin saeculum means an age, a generation, or the spirit of the age. By secularism, then, I mean a way of living, thinking and acting that takes its terms from this world and this age and not some world above or future age. If we take this definition, then everything else becomes secondary and derivative: the anti-religious drive of secularism; the separation of church and state; the removal of religion and theology from intellectual and academic work. I have argued these points in more detail in my article, The New Secularism. 2 But let me say a little bit more about each one.

Aspects of secularism
First, the anti-religious sense of secularism. The problem with a term such as secularism is that its sense has slipped to mean anything that is opposed to supernatural religion. Secularism then becomes another word for atheism. However, we can distinguish this sense the anti-religious one from the basic sense of secularism rather easily. If secularism means a system of thought and a way of life that is based in this world and this age, then the anti-religious sense is derivative and not crucial to its meaning. 3 The problem is that too often implications like this one are understood to be the meaning of secularism. Yet, the antireligious position may follow from secularism, it may even be an implication of it, but it is secondary to the meaning of secularism itself. I do agree that there is a certain logic to such a move, since secularism does not draw its reference point from something beyond this world, whether that is a god or the gods above, or a time in the future, or indeed a sacred text such as the Bible or the Quran that talks about
1 I thoroughly enjoyed the tough and probing questions by those who heard the first version of this essay at the meeting of the Humanist Society of Victoria, 26 August, 2008. I thank all those engaged with the talk for setting me thinking further on these matters. 2 See Roland Boer. 2008. The New Secularism. Arena Journal 29-30:35-57, and Roland Boer (ed.), In press. Secularism and Biblical Studies. London: Equinox. 3 Here I am taking sides in an old debate. Within the English secularist movement a split opened up at the end of the 19th century between those, like George Holyoake, who argued that secularism should be indifferent to religion, that it was irrelevant, and those like Charles Bradlaugh, who argued that anti-religious activism was crucial to secularism. I think Holyoake was on the right track by arguing that secularism is not the same as atheism.

both. But that does not negate the fact that such a step is a secondary one from the primary definition of secularism. A further derivative meaning of secularism relates to intellectual disciplines. Here secularism is usually understood to mean that such disciplines must operate in a secular manner. The catchwords are science and reason: a discipline is scientific and operates according to principles of reason if it makes use of evidence and develops its hypothesis and theories on the basis of such evidence, not on any divine revelation. This assumption applies even to the study of religion or of the Bible. Many of those who practice biblical criticism or the study of religion assume that their disciplines must be undertaken with tools such as textual analysis, history, the social sciences, archaeology and so on. In making use of the tools of reasonable scholarship, they do not count divine forces or influences as viable categories. God or the gods are matters of faith and not scholarship. Yet, once again, this is a secondary or derivative sense of secularism. A third derivative of the basic definition of secularism is the separation of church and state. Perhaps the most discussed version of such a separation may be found in the United States, where the relevant section of the First Amendment to the Constitution reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Initially a response to the established Church of England, especially after the American War of Independence, it has come to be interpreted as any act by the Congress and the legislature that would favour one religion over another with the possible outcome that such a religion could become established. In practice, this really means Christianity and shows up regularly in the area of state-funded education religious doctrines cannot be taught and prayers must not be said in state schools. A major area of conflict in state education in the United States concerns the efforts to have intelligent design (creation science) taught as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. The proponents of intelligent design (for whom secular humanism is the great enemy) keep coming up against the First Amendment; the courts keep deciding that intelligent design is a religious, not a scientific, theory, and therefore has no place in public schools. As a result, the First Amendment has come to be interpreted as an effort to restrict the promotion of religion by the state. I would also cite the strong separation of church and state in France with its doctrine of Lacit. The government must not support any religious position, including atheism. The First Article of the French Constitution reads: La France est une Rpublique, unie, indivisible, laque et sociale. Indeed, it is distinctly un-French to display ones religion openly, especially if one is a politician or public servant. Another notable example is Turkey, which continues to fascinate many observers. Ever since Atatrk in 1924, the separation of church and state has been central to the constitution of a secular Turkey. Government departments and employees, including schools and universities, 18

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

must operate without influence from the Sunni Muslim majority. Indeed, the Constitutional Court is able to disband a political party should it breach the constitution on matters of the separation of church and state. The recent struggle over the Muslim roots of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), elected in both 2002 and 2007, illustrates the tensions of such a separation. Although the party claims that it does not have a religious axis, some of its measures (such as relaxing the ban on the hijab and invocation of sharia) would indicate that there is a hidden religious agenda. For this reason the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court filed a suit with the Constitutional Court to ban the AKP since it is undermining the principle of secularism at the heart of the constitution. In 2008 the Constitutional Court agreed that the ruling party is indeed engaged in anti-secular activities that undermine the constitution. However, the court was unable to achieve the necessary majority (it needs 7 out of 11) to ban the party. Instead, the court reprimanded the party and cut its official funding from the central bank by half. Fascinating as all this is, I reiterate my point: the separation of church and state is a derivative and secondary sense of the basic definition of secularism. Humanism as a Secular Project That is more than enough on the matter of secularism, although I did want to establish clearly my take on the meaning of secularism. Let us move on to Humanism. Before I proceed, let me offer a few comments about my encounters with Humanism. I have studied, especially in my undergraduate degree in Classics, the great humanistic disciplines classical languages such as Greek, Latin, Hebrew, rhetoric, moral philosophy, ethics, poetry and history. I also spent a good deal of time studying Renaissance Humanism when I completed a Bachelor of Divinity at the University of Sydney. There I learnt that a Humanist was originally a teacher of Latin and Greek literature. Eventually, by the mid-15th century of the Renaissance period, Humanism actually designated a curriculum of study the studia humanitatis which I was to study some 500 years later. And during those studies, the great Humanist Erasmus was my hero. I even wrote an essay on his debate with Martin Luther over free will and determinism (I took Erasmuss side). But this background has helped me realise that Humanism has different meanings. So I will use here the double definition of Humanism from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary: humanism n. 1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. 2 a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought. We may call these two types of Humanism the Humanist period and the Humanist project. Even though they overlap in some ways, they are distinct. In what follows I focus on the second type the current Humanist project. For this part of my paper, I propose to do something very straightforward: assess each statement of the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002 in light of the definition of secularism outlined above. The first two statements are very this-worldly, so there are no problems with them: 1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe 19

that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction. 2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the worlds problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends. However, when we get the third statement on democracy, it gets a little more interesting. 3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government. At this point I want to ask: is the world completely democratic yet and are human rights fully observed? I hardly need to answer that question, but it does raise a concern to which I will return soon. 4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination. Note my emphasis on build a world: there is a desire and program to construct a world based on the idea of a free person responsible to society. In other words, that world does not yet exist. Once again, I return to this question in the next section. 5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The worlds major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision. There are no problems here in statements 5-7. Statement #5 focuses on our world rather than any world above, Statement #6 seeks human fulfilment through art, and Statement #7 is concerned with our times. 6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment. 7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere. Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

To conclude: the Amsterdam Declaration seems quite secular, especially in light of my earlier definition. Humanism, then, might be summed up as a concern with this human life, that is, a concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. Humanism as an anti-secular project Now, it may seem as though my search has been fruitless. Humanism really is a secular project or philosophy and that is all there is to it. However, in my comments on the Amsterdam Declaration I began to notice a hint or two that suggested the desire to build a better world. When I first came across these hints, I decided to dig a little deeper. When I did so, I came across a number of very interesting statements. Firstly, there is the Minimum Statement on Humanism from the IHEU. All member organisations are required by IHEU bylaw 5.1 to accept this Minimum Statement. It reads: Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. In light of my earlier definition of secularism, this minimum statement is secular on one count, but not on another. It does not refer to a world above (supernatural views of reality), but it does look forward to building a world of the future that is better than this one. The second example is drawn from the Declaration of the Council for Secular Humanism: We believe that it is possible to bring about a more humane world, one based upon the methods of reason and the principles of tolerance, compromise, and the negotiations of difference. 4 This comment comes in the midst of some very secular statements regarding church and state, religion and education and the dangers of religious obscurantism. But its real concern is to build a better world, that is, a conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. You can see where my argument is going, but let me offer one more example. This one comes from the Statement of the American Humanist Association (Humanist Manifesto III 2003): Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone. 5 Once again, there is a clear project of improving the world because the one in which we live is far from being as good as it can be. In other words, Humanism is essentially optimistic about peoples ability to improve. Although it does not believe that human beings are purely good or that we can achieve these goals unaided, it does not hold that we are inherently and irretrievably evil. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to ones potential is hard work and
See www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declar ation. 5 See www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php.
4

requires the assistance of others. The ultimate goal is to make life better for all human beings as well as all other sentient beings. The focus is simultaneously on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world better for those who come after. So, according to my earlier definition of secularism, it seems that Humanism is not so thoroughly secular after all. It certainly does not take its terms from a world above, from a world of the gods and so on. But it does have its eyes firmly fixed on a better world of the future rather than merely this age. In fact, since the drive of Humanism is to work towards a better world, we could say that Humanism draws its terms from that better world of the future. Conclusion: Humanism as a secular and anti-secular project It would seem as though Humanism is both a secular and an anti-secular project. I am aware that this may be regarded as a somewhat provocative statement and some may object that I have restricted the meaning of secularism too much: a concern with this world and this age. There are plenty of people who have no desire to change the status quo and who are quite satisfied with this world. Thankfully, Humanists are not among them. I would like to conclude with a few observations. Some may point out that religious humanists are closer to the type of Humanism I have been discussing than secular humanists. 6 After all, religious humanists subscribe to many of the principles of Humanism but they include a religious dimension, whether that is in the form of ritual, or transcendent experience or even a deity. The problem is that the statements I quoted above concerning the desire to build a better world come from both secular humanists and the IHEU, which are not all that sympathetic to religious worldviews. Further, it may be useful to make use of the distinction between reform and revolution. One is the complete sweeping away of the old world and the building of a new one, while the other refers to changing the world we know so that it becomes a better place. In this sense, Humanism is more a reforming than a revolutionary movement. The problem here is that the line separating the two is often hard to distinguish. What someone thinks may be a reform often ends up being a revolution: the Renaissance is one example, Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution is another (I am sure readers can add further examples). Finally, for my initial definition of secularism, I do not want to stipulate how we should use the term or say what we should and shouldnt do with it. Nor do I want to rule out the secondary senses of being anti-religious, espousing the separation of church and state and keeping intellectual inquiry free from theology. If we decide that these are crucial to the sense of the term secularism, then that is well and good. However, it is always useful to understand what steps we have taken to arrive at such an important position. Roland Boer, Research Professor at the University of Newcastle.

There is of course a vast range of humanisms. I was able to find secular, religious, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Existentialist, Buddhist, Hindu, integral, Marxist, post-humanism and ethical culture. The effort of the IHEU to stick with capital Humanism is to my mind a good move.

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

20

International Humanist News

HUMAN RIGHTS SPECIAL
Reports from IHEUs delegation to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where real progress has been made, particularly on issues of freedom of expression and separation of religion and state
Human Rights Council: The fight-back begins
In what was probably a first for the UN, delegates to the Human Rights Council heard two Muslims describe Islamism as Racism and tell their listeners that the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC) does not speak for the majority of the worlds Muslims. Danish MP and leader of the Liberal Alliance Naser Khader, and Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress were eloquent in their denunciation of the OIC, and its Saudi paymasters, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

New team attacks religious privilege at the UN

After ploughing our lonely furrow at the Human Rights Council for the past five years, often with only the colourful veteran Human Rights advocate David Littman for company, it was a pleasure to welcome three new additions to the team for the 9th session of the Human Rights Council: Austin Dacey and Hugo Estrella from Centre for free inquiry (Cfi) and our new intern Xavier Cornut.

Egypt accuses IHEU of inciting hatred

An Egyptian delegate to the Human Rights Council has accused IHEU of inciting and promoting hatred. Every statement is incitement to hatred. Every statement is promoting hatred he said. The accusation was made during a point of order by Egypts Amr Roshdy Hassan, who objected to the statement being made by Roy Brown, IHEU representative, on the subject of Islamophobia. We have a transcript of the Egyptian intervention in full (see website). Readers can decide for themselves whether the accusation was justified. We now have video of this intervention.

IHEU speaks out (cautiously) against OIC censorship at UN

Following the successful attempts by the Islamic States at the 7th and 8th sessions of the Human Rights Council in March and June to silence any criticism of Sharia Law and the linking of certain abuses of human rights, such as the stoning of women, to Islam, IHEU main representative, Roy Brown, struck back at the 9th session on 19 September with a statement on the human rights of women. He argued that No State should be permitted to hide behind tradition, culture or religion in order to justify any abuse of womens human rights, adding It must be possible here to freely exercise the right to freedom of expression in order to defend the human rights of all, including women, and to expose abuse, whatever the attempted justification.

Growing opposition to the concept of defamation of religion

The tide really does seem to be turning in the debate on combating defamation of religion even to the point where there are hopes among some delegates that the concept will soon be buried, at least in the Human Rights Council. Following attacks by France and Belgium last week on the notion of defamation of religion, several NGOs joined the attack on Thursday with several strong statements. The Cairo Center for Human Rights Studies with Article 19, the European Center for Law and Justice, and Center for Inquiry in a joint statement with IHEU were among those who weighed in.

IHEU defends rights of women and attacks censorship at the UN

In a joint statement with Center for Inquiry, IHEU has condemned abuses of womens human rights, including child marriage and honour killings, especially in Pakistan and Iran. IHEU also attacked the culture of censorship that now prevails in the Human Rights Council.

AWE addresses human rights violations experienced by women

In an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, the Association for World Education (AWE) has supported IHEU in calling for concerted action to prevent female genital mutilation, honour killings, stoning, facial maiming with acid and child marriage.

Criticism of religion is not blasphemy

The IHEU position on defamation of religion was strongly supported on 23 September 2008 in a statement to the Human Rights Council prepared by Rabbi Francois Garai of the World Union of Progressive Judaism. Egypt tried to have the statement ruled out of order on the grounds that Nobody can discuss the basic tenets of any religion in this Council. In other words, a Jewish Rabbi (unlike the Holy See) was not qualified to discuss the basic tenets of Judaism!

IHEU stands up for the primacy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In a written statement to the UN Human Rights Council, Sixty years after the UDHR: threats to the universality of human rights, IHEU has highlighted the overriding, universal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the wide divergence between the UDHR and the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Source: IHEU news 6 Oct. Fuller versions on IHEU website.

IHEU attacks concept of Islamophobia

IHEU has told the UN Human Rights Council that the concept of Islamophobia is unhelpful and misleading, wrongly implying that any criticism of Islam is based on irrational fear and must lead automatically to hatred of Muslims. 21

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

BOOK NEWS
LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION: A Challenge to Faith, by Sam Harris
Bantam Press (A division of Random House Group) London 2007. $30 approx. ISBN 9780593058978

CHING CHONG CHINA GIRL: From fruitshop to foreign correspondent, by Helene Chung
358 pp., illustrations, maps, index; ISBN 978 0 7333 2291 4. Sydney: ABC Books, r.r.p. $32.95.

Reviewer: David Milan

hat a trilogy, Sam Harris, The End of Faith (2004), Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006) and Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great (2007). What an erudite arsenal of lucid logic to grace the thoughtful secularists bookshelf. And now Sam Harris has passed us another hand-grenade! This little gem brilliantly and succinctly revisits the formidable case for reason and science which will leave gasping those who still imagine that organised religion offers the way forward for our weary old world. Letter to a Christian Nation began life as an essay but, thankfully, is now available is this neat, pocket-sized volume. Harris manages to encompass his sharply-honed argument with elegant brevity he neither minces nor wastes a word. Predictably, he is still receiving shoals of vitriolic mail, deriding, condemning, and even threatening him for his uncompromising stance and his militant unbelief. He writes:
The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christs love are deeply, even murderously intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.

Reviewer: Nigel Sinnott

At first glance, you dont seem to be getting much for your money, but the books size is but one of its many virtues. It is a dynamic source of secular ammunition, a work of excellence and intellectual rigour. The priest carries his missal, now we have ours! I happily lend out my copy to anyone with a spare hour to read it. Would that every thinking Australian might dip into it also, for to quote one dust-jacket commentator:
If you believe in a religion, even the mildest form of Christianity, please read this book. It won't take long, but it might change your mind ______________________________________________________

Available for review 2 CDs

1. Love is Born. Music and lyrics by Dennis Morris, mostly in English interspersed with Zulu. 2. Original songs + re-write of Australias National anthem by Ron Davey Contact AH editor if you are interested.

Hobart childhood in the 1950s, including a convent school education, suggests at first something very proper and conventional. Helene Chungs, however, was from far from a normal Tasmanian upbringing of the time. The author is entirely of Chinese descent, although born in Tasmania in 1945, and, despite the respectable Catholic school, her wicked mother was not only divorced but drove a red MG sports car, posed as a model for artists, and lived in sin with, at one stage, two men: an Egyptologist and a broadcaster. No wonder Helenes rather reserved elder sister, Lehene, was wont to sigh on occasions, Oh, why cant we be normal? The book explains the circumstances that brought the Chungs and the Henrys from SE China to Tasmania. (Henry being a signwriters misinterpretation of Hen Lee.) Eventually Dorothy Henry (Hobarts Miss China of 1942) married Charles Chung, but, after the birth of two daughters, the marriage failed because of Charless mood swings and aggression. In June 1946 the first Chinese divorce was splashed over the Tasmanian Truth. The two daughters remained with their mother and coped remarkably well with a mix of unconventional homes and very conventional but thorough educators (nuns). Helene recalls getting a lift home from school one cold day from Neil Davis, the famous cameraman later killed by gunfire during a coup dtat in Bangkok. From St Marys College Helene went to the University of Tasmania, where her interest in acting was fostered by the Old Nick theatre group despite a warning that You dont find nice girls there, only bold girls. Helene later joined the radio and television branches of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and was the first woman to be appointed (1983) an ABC foreign correspondent, in Peking. The book describes a period of residence in London (including an interview with Princess Anne) and visits to Hong Kong, Singapore, Egypt and places in China from which the authors ancestors came. Also discussed are her fathers rather complex marital history and Helenes relations with, and the deaths from cancer of, her husband, John Martin, and her sister Lehene. Ching Chong China Girl describes an unusual childhood and a varied and creative adult life. It is skilfully told and is well illustrated with photographs and maps. Readers who enjoy this account may find it useful background for some of the authors earlier books such as Shouting from China (1988, 1989), Gentle John My Love My Loss (1995) and Lazy Man in China (2004).

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

22

ON RAGE, by Germaine Greer

Melbourne University Press $19.95

PLANET INDIA: How the FastestGrowing Democracy is transforming America and the World by Mira Kamdar
Publisher Simon & Schuster rrp. $24.95

Reviewer: Rudi Anders

based my opinion of Germaine Greer on media reports, which was a mistake. I finally read one of her books. The little book titled On Rage, to my surprise is not written in a rage but looks at the complexity of rage and its terrible toll on society. I can hardly think of a more important subject, and she deals with it with understanding rather than condemnation. In tandem she writes about angry wronged white farmers and angry wronged aborigines, and says aboriginal men have had the worst deal of all. I didnt expect sympathy for any men from her, and owe her an apology. Rage is described very well, the personal experience as well as the physiological ill effects such as heart failure. Impotent rage is common in Aboriginal peoples all over the world, and it leads to self destructive behaviour such as suicide and violence against family. I know when I am in a rage I do stupid things I regret. Alcohol is not the cause of violence but takes away the inhibition to express feelings already there. Recently in Cooktown I saw an Aboriginal man in the main street railing against the white invaders; he was totally ignored, which must have made him feel even more powerless and angry. I begun to think she painted too black a picture of the whites treatment of Australian aborigines, in particular the sexual abuse, until I remembered that around 1960, in Queensland, I was offered a job on a station with a lubra as part of the deal. I think he called her a gin. A workmate in Victoria was amused at the cunning way lubras filled their genitals (not his term) with dirt when they were chased by white men. All that, in living memory. There would have been no stolen generation if white men had kept their hands off black women. The fraught and complex interactions between white men and Aboriginal women in the past and in the present are discussed. I am glad I read the little book. To me the main message was that violent behaviour should be understood and not condemned without finding out the cause. If a cause is a feeling of powerlessness, as seems to be the case with Australian Aborigines, part of a cure would be a treaty. I was disappointed the book didnt spend more time on other areas of rage. There are similar issues in all parts of the world as a result of poverty, colonization and oppression. Not only the Europeans are guilty, the Indian cast system is one of many examples. ________________________________________________

Reviewer: Howard Hodgens

Available for review

Einsteins Gospel, by Kenneth M. Garven
Wild & Woolley, NSW.124 pages, 2007
He presents the case for scientific determinism and the falsity of free will very firmly and with a degree of passion I commend it warmly. Paul Crittenden, Emeritus Prof of Philo. Uni. of Sydney. 23

he title could have been here comes India! It is a very positive, recent history of a country which has developed at an astonishing rate and is now beginning to rival China. The author, Mira Kamdar, grew up in India then went to the US. She has travelled between the two countries ever since. In this portrait she describes the dramatic changes that have occurred giving rise to so much optimism. She travelled the length and breadth to interview businessmen, the rural poor, street vendors, film and television people; and became infected with their faith that their childrens lives would be better. She writes, India, with its open society, dynamic economy, its commitment to democracising the institutions of world order and to creating wealth in a way that is inclusive and sustainable, is forging a compelling native paradigm. India has a very young population. Fifty percent of Indias people are under the age of twenty-five. By 2015, there will be 550 million teenagers in India, providing plenty of labour and consumers for the ever-growing retail spending. Nandan Nilekani, CEO of Infosys the leading information technology company says, Infosys is symbolic of this moment of the possibilities for India. We have 66,000 employees and the average age is twenty-seven. Its about building a global brand. Amongst the other companies putting India on the world map are Mittal Steel, Wipro (which acquired New Logic, a microchip company), Tata the Indian steel giant which took over a Dutch steel company and added beverage companies to its register. In addition India has leading companies in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, research and development. The wind farm company Suzlon has exported its generators to California. The brain drain to the West is being reversed the demand for foreign-educated Indians and Indians with international experience are in demand. At the same time there are tremendous challenges 40% of the worlds poor live in India, including one-third of the worlds malnourished children. Add to that a record number of HIV/AIDS sufferers, mass unemployment, a grave water crisis with wells becoming more and more toxic, and global warming affecting its agricultural base. On top of that there are tensions between ethnic groups, such as the Naxalites, the Dalits, and the Tribals. The other India describes the gender discrimination problem, the tradition of large dowries that push families into debt and encourage infanticide, mostly of baby girls. The violence and degradation to which women are subjected has been documented in a United Nations Population Fund called Silent Spring. India has embarked on an ambitious project to transform its cities. Without that change Indias dream of becoming a developed country will come to a grinding halt. Bombay is a good example. Despite a housing construction boom, 60% of Bombays 18 million people live in slums or on the Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

streets. Thats 10.8 million people. In the slum Dharavi there is one toilet for every 1,500 people. By 2020 Bombay will be the worlds largest city, with 28.5 million people. Thousands of Indians flock to Bombay every yearambitious, educated Indians, Americans, and Europeans, including returning members of Indias diaspora. Its leaders want to make the city a world financial capital by 2020. India also has an education emergency. Millions of children are illiterate and many cannot recognise an alphabet, let alone complete four years of schooling. But with the use of wireless for internet connections, corporate support and government supplied computers, improvements are being made. The schools are poorly fitted out and even paper, pencils and pens are often too costly. The United States was completely taken by surprise in 2004 when the BJP Hindu nationalist party was defeated by a thirteen party coalition, the United Progressive Alliance, supported in part by the Indian Communist parties. This occurred despite heavy campaigning by wealthy Hindu support from America. It was associated with a determined move to transform India from a secular multi-religious country into a Hindu state. Notwithstanding their views the US provided partnerships with defence, agriculture, biotechnology, investment in civil nuclear co-operation. Free-market-oriented economists, including the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh helped preserve the close relationship. US investment was widely interpreted as the need for a counterbalance to China. In fact India has remained a leader among developing nations and a fierce opponent of unfettered access to Indias markets. If we are to survive as a planet, we need India to summon up from its deep cultural past a new ethos, shake off the yoke of subjugation to the West and re-emerge as a truly great power. ________________________________________________

New edition Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History, Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability by Gideon Polya

NOW OR NEVER: A Sustainable Future for Australia? by Tim Flannery

Quarterly Essay, Issue 31. 2008. Black Inc. $15.95

Reviewer: Rosslyn Ives

ritten for the concerned citizen, this essay is a lucid summary of much relevant material, including the latest data on ice melts, increases in CO2 and probable consequences for life on planet Earth. Flannery begins with a quick over view of the Earths complex interacting systems that maintain the planet in a state able to sustain existing life forms. However, one species, Man, is causing changes that threaten to totally alter these system interactions. Flannerys account of the melting of the Arctic ice and its consequences is both frightening and convincing. The rest of the essay is taken up with feasible solutions, if acted upon, for a sustainable Australia. Already much time has been wasted by deniers and procrastinators. So if someone like, Tim Flannery, who has a good grasp of the science involved, is very concerned about whether we humans can act in ways that will sustain our planet for future generations, then we should all be very concerned. As he puts it in the title, its either act now or we never will. Any later than now will just be too late. Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 24

Second Edition of Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History, Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability by Gideon Polya was published in September 2008, ten years after the publication of the First Edition. The thesis of the book is that history ignored yields history repeated. It initially explores the life, connections, novels and literary impact of the marvellous English novelist Jane Austen, and reveals that Sense and Sensibility actually tells the true story of the major Austen family. This was a scandal involving Warren Hastings, the first Governor General of British India and the only major British figure to have been tried for crimes against humanity. The book then presents in great detail the horrendous secret history of British and European imperialism in India (notably Bengal) and elsewhere. That has been largely white-washed over several centuries by a European culture of ignoring what had occurred. Thus few have heard of the Great Bengal Famine of 17691770 (10 million dead), the man-made Bengal Famine of 19431945 (67 million dead) or indeed of the 1.5 billion other avoidable deaths in two centuries of callous British rule in India. The First Edition ended with a detailed plea for a change to the dominant culture of establishment lying and ignoring, in order to save the world from the consequences of violence, global warming and poverty. An updated Second Edition became necessary because of 911 million avoidable deaths associated (so far) with the 19902008 Bush Wars; the 16 million annual avoidable deaths globally from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease; and from what has now become a worsening climate emergency from man-made global warming. (This is seen most acutely in the Arctic, Africa, Asia, island states such as the Maldives, and mega-delta countries India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.) These countries are already associated with mass extinctions of species, devastating storm surges and the melting of the Arctic Sea ice. The top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock (FRS) estimates that over six billion people will perish this century due to unaddressed climate change. It was legitimate for Jane Austen to render her exquisite novels free of the contemporary awfulness in which her family connections participated. But the continual spindriven ignorance and denial of the scientifically backed consequences of human action, is dangerously dishonest and threatens humanity itself. (For further details and documentation see:
http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ , http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25339/42/ , http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya and http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home ).

Copies available from, Dr Gideon Polya 29 Dwyer St., Macleod. Vic 3085. Tel (03) 9459 3649 ________________________________________________

LETTERS
How Augustine solved the Problem of evil
HOW CAN the existence of evil in the world be reconciled with belief in an all-good, all-powerful and all-wise Creator? In his fine article Epicurus and Suffering (AH No. 91), David Milan reminds us that this problem has been a source of difficulty for thoughtful believers over thousands of years. Among those believers was Augustine of Hippo (354430), whom Encyclopaedia Britannica describes as perhaps the most significant Christian thinker after St. Paul. In Book VII, Chapter V of his Confessions, Augustine states the problem at length with the skill that befits a professor of rhetoric (his occupation from 383 to 391). The following quotation encapsulates his quest: Whence then does [evil] spring, seeing that the good God made all things good? After great anguish, Augustine succeeds in solving the problem of evil. He has previously argued in Chapter IV that the incorruptible is better than the corruptible. From this basis, he proceeds in Chapter XII to prove that there is no evil in the world.
And it was made clear to me that all things that are corrupted are good. For corruption does harm, and it can do harm only by diminishing goodness. Either then corruption does no harm, which is impossible, or all things that are corrupted are deprived of good, and this is most certainly true. But, if they are deprived of all good, they will cease to exist. For, if they exist and can be no further corrupted, they will be better because henceforth they remain incorruptible. Now what can be more monstrous than to maintain that, by losing all good, they have become better. If then they are deprived of all good, they will cease to exist. Therefore, so long as they exist, they are good. Therefore, all that exists is good.

I confidently leave it to the readers of AH to decide whether there is a flaw in Augustines logic.

3. Inevitably the world leaders who produce and sell them set moral examples to the rest of the world which are copied and soon surpassed. Who dare call USA or Britain truly peace-making or Christian? 4. Inevitably they destroy and maim, in addition to natural disasters and diseases which already destroy and maim. 5. Inevitably they waste resources and brains. The enormous financial costs are hardly offset by the enormous sales to create more havoc and oppression elsewhere. Sure, great discoveries for good can result from military research; they should be made by research redirected to peace. 6. Inevitably it harms the moral stances of the inventors and workers. 7. Inevitably it ignores the lessons that 21st century conflicts are not won by shock and awe. Yes, we need self-defence but not mighty missiles and milliondollar types of armaments that prove ineffective against the increasing menaces of terrorists, fanatics, pirates and blackmailers. 8. Inevitably military invention, computer war games and horror films interact psychologically to warp attitudes and alas behaviour as we see. Inventing and producing means to kill and torture are not justified as making jobs and making profits. In facing enormous shared environmental and economic threats, global co-operation is needed, not expectations of more and worse wars to make the destruction worse. The technology needed is to make all nations prosperous; the science the psychology of peace-making; and for entertainment and the arts, to raise visions of how peace could be won, not self-fulfilling schadenfreude that depicts still more future horrors. Every public discussion of life-and-death issues such as abortion should include this life-and-death issue too.

Val Yule, Mount Waverley, Vic.

Ken Wright, Glen Iris, Vic.

Syntagma 6 Reverence for living

PUBLIC CONCERN for reverence for life is unbalanced. Surely a major issue of morality should be the costs of the arms industries. Research, production and sales are linked with climate change, financial melt-downs, peak oil, war crimes trials, culture clashes, scientific ethics and Pro-Life. They should be urgent public issues and the focus of political elections, including Presidential elections. A terrifying New Scientist article, September 27, p26, was aptly titled You thought cluster bombs were scary. Beverley Nicholls wrote Cry Havoc in 1933 about the armaments industry selling to both friend and foe. Hardly a word of that book needs changing. War research and sales have inevitable consequences: 1. Inevitably they are used by your own enemies, including terrorists and rogue states. You have done the work for them. 2. Inevitably their design and use creates more enemies and hatreds. 25 Optimism in nineteenth-century style would now be a kind of idiocy. R. J. Hollingdale Nietzsche named it the idolatry of success, which has always been big with idiots.

Gregory Wilson, Albany, W. A.

________________________________________________

Contributions
to Australian Humanist are welcome. Letters (300 words), reviews (850 words) short and long articles (max. 3,000 words), short poems. Preferred content for the AH is material that promotes Humanism in an Australian context. Plain text, no formatting please. Deadlines 2009: 1 Jan., 1 April, 1 July & 1 Oct.
Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

Humanism and Feminism: How truly compatible are they?

Contributions to a panel discussion at the CAHS Convention, Sydney 4 May 2008. Sophia Catharios
t first glance I found it rather strange that we are discussing the compatibility of two philosophical premises, which to my mind denote one and the same thing. For I believe that humanism and feminism have the same value basis and are, therefore, necessarily compatible. d. What is a humanists responsibility vis a vis Women equality within the Humanist Society first?

As humanists participating in this conference we should be stimulated to think of the social climate within which we operate, in other words, The changing values and choices we have versus no choices. Local diversity and global diversity versus monoculture. Tradition versus Progress. Humanist organisational structures and their efficiency of operation in a society challenged by change must be continuously assessed and reassessed.

Definitions
The word humanism by definition implies the theory whereby a human being undertakes the effort to elevate his or her spirit, through a rational and critical analysis of the world. Through this process the achievement of an instructed, cultivated and enlightened mind, becomes the paramount of all values. Therefore the perfection of the human spirit as stated above implies that the improvement of the human condition does not require intervention from above. The cultivation and enlightenment of the mind are goals which cannot be achieved without fundamental rights and freedoms. Feminism is a theory embraced by both female and male humans who wish to undertake the promotion of mechanisms aimed at improving the human condition of females, and thereby improve society. The specific goals of feminism cannot be achieved without freedom and social responsibility. It is obvious to me that in both feminism and humanism we are talking about commonality of values and overlapping social responsibilities. We are also talking about a rational and critical analysis of society and its structures so that action can be taken and improvement can occur.

In conclusion, I propose the view that humanism and feminism is not only compatible but it is actually the composite of an interconnected value system which must remain integrated if it is to support an ethical society. Sophia Catharios, playwright and member of HSNSW. _______________________________________________

Ann Young
A newspaper pollster asked, Who makes the important decision in you household? The husband replied, I do. I deal with all the complex issues of principle politics, theology and the like. Pollster, What about your wife? Husband, My wife takes care of the incidentals. She decides what we eat, where we live, the school the children attend, the car to buy, holidays, all that kind of detail and I deal with the important concerns.

New realities
Having arrived at the understanding of the shared values of humanists and feminists, it is very important to also understand that the new realities of the 21st century impose on us new responsibilities. We are living in a world of unprecedented closeness due to the development of rapid communication. We live with the results of globalisation which threatens the extinction of difference and diversity. We live in a world of precarious economic systems, and of great divisions between the haves and the have nots. We are experiencing the rise and rise of religious fundamentalism in both East and West. We are experiencing Euro-centricity as well as eccentricity of the so-called developed world where bargaining in the public arena signals the return to the brutality of competition. Humanists and feminists are two sides in the same coin. Therefore, if we want to play a role in the scheme of things, humanists and feminists not only must we unite our platforms of action, but we must become catalysts for change, which places before us questions like: a. b. c. What do humanists expect from society? What does society expects from humanists? How satisfied and content are we with the state of the equality of women in Australia and the world? 26

Post-modern Feminism
e laugh at male posturing. It seems to me that post-modern feminism has stopped laughing and is taking men seriously! People who buy the sales talk end up paying the price. Men have everything to gain by convincing women that mens work is essential, but that does not make it so. Men ignore womens achievements. Womens history is invisible. Whose fault is that? Somewhere along the line women forgot to pass on their story. We are fixing that now. Men put women down. Sure. Who cares? We dont listen to them anyway. My opposition is to anyone who suggests that stereotype-male work is important and women should have more of it. Why waste your life doing the stuff men do when you could be doing important and meaningful work. Its about values. What is really important? What is essential?

Work
Traditionally about 16 hours of work each week from every adult was required to provide everything needed to sustain a family. The balance of time was spent pursuing embellish-

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

ments to life religion, stories, songs, dances and so on. Thats nice, but its not really essential (i.e. not as important). Some young men are hyper-active, aggressive, competitive, and arrogant. This is a problem. Lets encourage sporting activities. Women are in charge of all the important projects: the rearing of children, the feeding, the health and the nurture of families. Educating the women in under-developed countries in the world, we know, will raise the standard of living of the whole community. Population increase always falls as a consequence. And population increase is the root of all evil. Providing women with the information to implement their own priorities is the surest way to solving the worlds problems. We already know that. That is why my project now is setting up the charity Humanist Heart, to do just that.

HUMANIST SOCIETY NEWS

CAHS
ALAN McPHATE has stepped down as CAHS President, a position he has ably held from May 2004 until August 2008. Humanists throughout Australia have been very grateful for Alans willingness to hold this position for over four years. His was a voice of reason, wisdom and experience, all invaluable when chairing CAHS annual general meetings and other presidential tasks. Many thanks, Alan. I have agreed to be President and fortunately Mary Bergin (Secretary) and Rosemary Watson (Treasurer) are willing to continue in their respective positions. This will ensure continuity for several more years. The executive has been working its way through the resolutions from the 2008 Convention held in Sydney in early May. So far we have congratulated the Federal government for their intent to amend legislation to remove discrimination against same sex couples, and sent a letter criticising the overtly Christian nature of the schools chaplaincy program. A reply has been received to our letter on the Australian Governments review of the Australian Agency for International Development Family Planning Guidelines, saying that the matter is still under consideration and thanking us for our concerns. Also an unsatisfactory reply from NSW Department Education and Training, to Alan McPhates letter complaining about the holding of special assemblies to encourage student attendance at World Youth Day. A major undertaking of CAHS is to produce and circulate four issues of the Australian Humanist each year. With the help of the many contributors, myself as Editor, Stephen Stuart as Assistant Editor and Valerie Yule, Illustrator, this task has been more than adequately fulfilled, considering that it is produced entirely by volunteers. Prior to my appointment as President I have been a member of the CAHS executive for the last four years, as editor of the Australian Humanist. In taking up the additional role I hope to be an active President and am eager to hear from member Societies of issues on which CAHS should be actively involved. Individual members should pass their suggestions onto their Society for formal action.

Humanism
Fertility control has been unanimously supported by Humanist Societies around the globe. When I was in India it seemed every Humanist Society in every town had its fertility clinic and its Humanist hospital where safe abortions and vasectomies are performed. Eva Cox is the paradigm model of the best type of Humanist. She didnt ask to share male values. Instead she organised women to demand that government meet womens needs. Thats what I say feminists should do. Thats what Vicki Potempa did. This is not a new idea. I believe that women have always taken upon themselves the most important work and have never trusted men to do it alone. But the most successful Humanist project in living memory is the Olympic Games: a Humanist project to get the world to meet and play instead of fight each other. Before that it was the winter solstice party, now known as Christmas, with mistletoe, plum pudding, mistletoe, pine trees and ivy and mistletoe. Humanists have always had the best parties. Thats why everyone else wants to take part in them. Playing together and feasting are Humanist values. If food, sex, pleasure, people and playing are the most important values, then Humanism and female values are in perfect synchrony and always have been. Ann Young, long-time member of HSNSW, CAHS President (20022004). ________________________________________________

Rosslyn Ives, CAHS President

New South Wales

OUR AGM and election went smoothly. We successfully amended the constitution. I am again President I welcome the members of the new committee. Many challenges are behind us, and Im sure we on the committee will now find it easier to focus on things which progress NSW Humanists. On behalf of the NSW Committee, I announce with pleasure that Dorothy Buckland-Fuller, a member of NSW Humanists, has joined us as a second patron. Dorothy has been appointed a member of the General Division of the Order of Australia, for service to the community as a contributor to a range of social justice, ethnic and migrant womens organisations and through raising awareness of issues affecting women from culturally and linguistically diverse back-grounds. 27 Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08

Child development

Charles Foley, member and coordinator of the Humanists Celebrant Network, has noted changes in the way the Attorney Generals Department, wishes to communicate with a single peak body rather than multiple organisations. According to the AG, The lack of unified representation by marriage celebrants has been of ongoing concern to the government for many years. I dont believe that the government has voiced these concerns before, and it is interesting that the many years must cover a change in Government. The NSW Humanists were set up to obtain the right to be married in a setting other than a church or registry office. Lionel Murphy as the then Attorney General made the necessary reforms, and I hope that Charles will be able to deal effectively with changes in the governments approach improving the position of Humanist Celebrants. The Hillsong Church has received more flak lately it has been accused of secretly making a push to convert public school students in New South Wales. The NSW Federation of Parents and Citizens Association says it has received a number of complaints from teachers and parents concerned that Hillsong is using public schools as a recruiting ground. NSW Greens MP John Kaye has encouraged the new Education Minister, Verity Firth, to step in. I recently visited the Auburn Gallipoli Mosque during an Open Day. Ive been outlining my experiences to NSW members, and hope well all be more able to understand Islam. The protest against the World Catholic Youth Day was a success as far as we can tell. It is of course difficult to measure public impact, but the protest was well attended and felt solid. The draconian laws which the NSW Government introduced were swept aside by the Court. In addition to the media coverage with 2SER radio, I managed to have two article published on the Home page Daily website see http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article5273-popemobilises-sydney-atheists.aspx and http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article5378-protestingthe-pope.aspx I identified myself as HSNSW President, and we had a few NSW Humanists at the protests. However, the Sydney Atheists are a lively and dynamic group; I expect impressive things from them, and will be doing my best to maintain positive ties with them. The Humanist Viewpoints Afternoon Talk continues to provide interesting speakers. Our next talk will be presented by member and Aboriginal artist Gordon Syron.

religion or belief. We encourage all Humanists to take a look at the web site of this group, Just Rights Qld., because the views expressed are relevant to every State. There is also a Petition to the House of Representatives that we highly recommend. The site can be found at: www.justrightsqld.org. We are very pleased to welcome Jenny Cram, a new member of HSQ, who is a registered Civil Celebrant. She has many years experience in conducting non-religious ceremonies, including namings and confirmations, and understands Humanist requirements. We are very pleased that she has joined us. The Secular Freethinkers Society (SFS) at the University of Queensland continues to increase its numbers and has now passed 200. Under the guidance of Maria Proctor it has grown into a nucleus of secular action on campus. Maria produces fortnightly newsletters for the students letting them know about secular talks, discussions and social activities. Great work, Maria. Unfortunately the latest development in SFSs campaign to have a Humanist Chaplain at UQ is that, having been turned down by the University three times, SFS is now forced to consider taking the issue to the Queensland AntiDiscrimination Commission. We are saddened to think that we have to go down that track once more. On a happier note, HSQ is looking forward to its annual end-of-year Luncheon. This year it has been set for Sunday, 14 Dec., at Sizzlers, Toombul. This is always a popular and very well attended function and finishes off each year on a high note. We hope as many members, partners and children as possible will support this merry occasion.

Zelda Bailey, HSQ president

South Australia
Did this Happen in Adelaide? IT HAD BEEN announced that the Asia-Pacific Defence and Security Exhibition was to take place at the Adelaide Convention Centre on the 1113 November. Hold on! The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month is the day when we remember the many young men and women who died in the 1st and 2nd World Wars, and we were being invited to an exhibition designed to sell weapons of individual and mass destruction to be used in more killing? It wasnt long before the Peace Committee went into action led by Sue Gilbey. They put out an appeal for $30 (each) from 100 people to be used to hire a huge billboard on the Port Road. At the entrance to the city. Peace-loving citizens promptly oversubscribed and the contract was duly signed. Early in September, Acting Premier Kevin Foley announced the cancellation of the Expo because of the potential violence/protests of low life feral anarchists. Humanists, at the previous meeting, had met Sue Gilbey who told us about the Peace Convention in Venezuela and the idea that she was a feral low life was quite laughable. She looked much like everybodys favourite grandmother. But dont get me wrong, she is also a dedicated fighter for peace and naturally uses peaceful methods. The billboard was cancelled, no negotiation, word changes, or location changes, just cancelled. The money was refunded with a note, sorry unable to proceed. After discussion the money was spent on a full-page advertisement in the Independent Weekly and a smaller one in the Advertiser. However at the following Humanist discussion meeting, the speaker, Hendrik Gout, editor of the Independent

John August HSNSW President

Queensland
FOR A NUMBER of years HSQ has been meeting once a month at an old community hall in Albion, one of Brisbanes inner suburbs. The building is in a state of disrepair and needs a great deal of maintenance, but those who run it lack funds and/or volunteer workers. Recently our Committee decided to approach those in charge to explore the possibility of hiring the room that we normally take for only one day per month, on a full-time basis. This would give us the chance to improve its appearance and provide us with the space to set up a library for our members, a service that we have wanted to perform for a long time. Negotiations are being conducted on our behalf by our treasurer Bernie Doran, who also organizes our very lively Open Forums each month. Thank you very much, Bernie. HSQ strongly supports a new human rights group which has formed in Brisbane. We have contributed to the development of policy relating to the elimination of discrimination based on Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08 28

Weekly, suggested that the real reason for the cancellation of the exhibition was that insufficient agents were coming to the event to make it financially successful; a very different reason than going on about feral low-life. Did all this happen in Adelaide? Indeed it did!

Western Australia
OUR REGULAR programme seems to be bubbling along with an interesting members meeting in July. After welcoming members and guests, taking apologies and giving a short address on the state of the Society those in attendance formed two groups to answer, in as few words as possible, the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on Humanism, circulated and tabled. They pondered for 45 minutes, after which the appointed leaders presented their findings from which the chairman, not necessarily being his own opinion, analysed as follows: Q1. What is Humanism? Answer: A moral and ethical life based on reason and compassion. Q2. Is Humanism atheistic? Answer: No! Without god rather than anti-god. Q3. Why is Humanism so anti-religious? Answer: Dont agree that Humanism is anti-religious. Oppose religions because they impose their values on others. Religion is belief without explanation. Science abolishes a need for God. Q4. Why Evolution and not Intelligent Design? Answer: Declaration is not proof. ID gives answers Evolution asks questions. ID is not based on scientific fact. ID is a deliberate and fraudulent ploy to bring religion through the back door. Q5. Where do Stalin and Hitler fit into Humanism? Answer: They dont! They cant be assigned to Humanism; they dont fit in with the answer to Q1. Q6. What do Humanists offer? Answer: Compassion without self interest. Q7. What do Humanists do? Answer: Promote free-thinking and free association. The AGM went along smoothly with a major restructuring of the executive and committee which is well placed to tackle the coming year. Outgoing President, Eric Pyatt, after thanking all for their support in the past year, handed over to incoming President Diana Warnock. Eric who is taking over as Secretary/Treasurer, paid tribute to Mike Cheam (Secretary) and Bill Hawthorn (Treasurer) both have retired after a decade of devotion to the Society; they remain on committee. President Diana, on taking the chair, gave a short address emphasising the need to seek issues that we can get our teeth into and make an impact, getting our message out there. Because of inclement weather, there were quite a few apologies but despite this, there was a good roll-up to our Spring Equinox Get together (our Equifest). Kylie Sturgess presented us with a talk on Belief in Weird Things. Among many other career followings, Kylie has gone from being just a secondary-school English teacher to a M. Ed in Special Learning needs; an author for several journals and (best of all!) a teacher-trainer for the current and next generation of primary and secondary educators in WA. Kylie is particularly interested in superstition, pseudoscience, paranormal and promoting science. The contribution of food and refreshment made for a wonderful spread for all to enjoy. The fellowship was a joy to behold.

Dick Clifford, HSSA Vice President,

Victoria
OUR MONTHLY Sunday Discussion not only examines issues for submissions to be prepared by Halina Strnad, but encourages expression of views on a broad range of current topics. This format is appealing to not only Humanists but several newcomers. Enthusiastic discussion continues over a shared lunch and there is often a certain reluctance to conclude and restore order to the hired premises! The Victorian Humanist newsletter is still the main vehicle of contact with our members. As editor, Rosslyn Ives collates a range of contributions from other members, including the regular report of the monthly public lectures by Jennie Stuart, the Submission Report by Halina Strnad, a report by Harry Gardner of the monthly Sunday Humanist School and a sample of one of his Humanist Ethical Education series of 189 ethical lessons for primary school children, and other items. The editorials generally written by Rosslyn are challenging and of immediate interest. Others are invited to contribute and Stephen Stuart wrote in support of Youth Against World Youth Day (August). Glancing through the guest speakers and the subjects addressed at the monthly public lectures, it is obvious why these lectures attract many with a special interest in the topic who are not necessarily Humanists. Subsequent questions and debate, continued over supper, provide stimulating exchange and often, an interest in applying for membership of HSV. We acknowledge Stephen Stuarts initiative in arranging such a stimulating program: July Gerard Reed (Mental Illness Fellowship Victoria) on Rational Responses to Mental Illness, August Dr Roland Boer (Monash University) on Are Humanism and the Enlightenment really secular projects?, September Prof. Eleanor Wertheim (La Trobe University) on Enhancing Relationships in School Communities. Pub Lunches have been arranged from time to time by Lorna Noble, the most recent being a Social Lunch at Club Ringwood on 27 July. These occasions are popular and valuable in providing an opportunity to get to know one another on an informal basis. On the social calendar for Humanists and friends was the Annual Dinner, on 15 October, arranged by Judy Watt and John Shilliday whose experience assured us of an excellent evening. It was a very a convivial meal with an excellent guest speaker, Arnold Zable, noted author and story teller.

Maureen McPhate, HSV Committee

Humanist Internet Discussion Group

CAHS hosts an internet discussion group where Humanists share their thoughts on issues of interest. To subscribe go to http://lists.topica.com/lists/humanist/
U

Eric Pyatt, HSWA Secretary/Treasurer

29

Australian Humanist No. 92 Summer 08