Something Spiritual for Christmas?

.

Or, why our Immigration Policy is
The Hand Of God Moving in Mysterious Ways.

I have a new IPad app that lets me listen to British radio stations (oh yes, the thrill of it all!) and I recently caught the tail end of a conversation with an Anglican Bishop who was bemoaning the decline in Church attendance. He made the following comment:

"The Evangelical movement has failed as a reform movement within the Church."

I was amazed he had ever thought it could be one, when, to paraphrase my youngest daughter, it could best be described as "petri-dish mysticism" [i]. So, lest I be damned at Christmas, let me explain: First, churches operate at two levels:

1.     The communal and religious: the human urge to come together and sing uplifting songs, hear the word of their God expounded, and unite in worship and that warm feeling of virtue and connectedness. Enjoying communion - being part of a spiritual community.

2.     The individual and spiritual, or mysticism: an individual and direct personal spiritual connection to God, the Godhead, the Universal Soul (or whatever term works for you).

The first is the visible part of the church: the people it includes and all the charitable, generous, open-hearted and 'inspired' works they do. Which is the part of most Christian churches that's dwindling just as fast as their congregations are aging and dying.

The second is the personal spiritual connection that's always been distrusted and tightly controlled by Christian churches. Known as mysticism, it's about personally penetrating the 'cloud of unknowing' to reach and connect with the ineffable mystery of God. And that's why the Evangelical movement in Catholic and Protestant churches is a problem: it's a hybrid form of communal mysticism. All that speaking in tongues and spiritual healing and what looks uncomfortably like mass hysteria is the spirit of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or whatever you want to call it, reaching down and overwhelming the faithful with bliss and rapture. It's a group orgasm of the spirit.

And if you think this doesn't have anything to do with you let me remind you that our Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison is a very senior Evangelical. His faith guides him, and therefore his attitudes and actions. And this is where the 'petri-dish mysticism' comes in. There are four levels or stages of transcendent experience involved in mysticism. They are:

1.     Bliss, or rapture.

2.     Illumination - the enlightenment bit, where you get new insights and a little humility.

3.     Exstasis, the separation of the soul from the body, and:

4.     Merging with the infinite, the Universal Soul, or God.

The problem is that Evangelicals aren't reaching beyond the first level. The 12th century Christian mystic and Augustinian monk Richard of St Victor described it thus:

"In the first degree spiritual feeling sweeter than honey
enters into her soul and inebriates her with its sweetness.."

That inebriation, being spiritually drunk (on the Holy Spirit), is what Evangelical services offer. Mass drunkenness, without alcohol. A cathartic emotional release which can wash away guilt and pain and regret without the understanding, insight or reflection of personal mediation or prayer. When people break out into babbling and gibberish it isn't a sign of over stimulation, mental intoxication and emotional overload it's a sign of holiness, of purity, of God's acceptance of who you are, with all your faults. And there's the rub. If this emotional and spiritual hot-tub washes only God's chosen vessels then we are, by definition, absolutely worthy, upright and deserving, true and correct in all our opinions and beliefs.

The Catholic and other traditional churches' long-held suspicion of this 'rapturous connection' is based on a genuine spiritual concern. People who are in this state of spiritual and emotional openness are enormously suggestible. And there's plenty of charismatic individuals in any generation willing to allow themselves to be first adored, then worshipped as beyond ordinary conceptions of morality, then obeyed to the letter in any despicable act or impulse. Cult leaders from Jim Jones to Charles Manson are notable examples of rapture followed by bloodshed. And while the Church may debate the degree of demonic influence involved the results here on earth are still bloody, appalling and socially destructive. 

Defensiveness, cults and reactionary politics

And it's not just religious cults that feed on this emotional and spiritual orgasm. When historian Robert Waite described Hitler as the 'Psychopathic God' this process is exactly what he had in mind; the cynical and systematic manipulation of people's emotional states to prey on their religious needs and instincts. The cult of personality around Lenin or Mao are similar extremes, but you can see the same fervour at an Obama rally, or in the cult of personality around Ronald Reagan among the conservative 'faithful'. People in groups will quickly connect and hype each other up emotionally, but intellectual processing drops to the lowest common denominator just as quickly. There is no need, or use, or room for intellect, discernment or logic. Just the rush, and the obedience of the herd.

That rapture, for the solitary individual praying or meditating is a sign that you're becoming spiritually open and emotionally responsive. It's there to motivate you to engage in the hard work of reflecting on yourself and your place in the world. On honestly seeing yourself in a broader context, which should produce humility. 

Instead Evangelical Churches favour an anti-intellectual Biblical literalism whose status as 'the absolute truth' is directly proportional to the fevered fervour of their emotional and spiritual experience. Which is the greatest, most powerful experience of their lives.  So there are no questions which can't be answered by their 2000 year old book of fables, myths, eye-for-an-eye morality, xenophobia, selective editing and obscure metaphysics. 

The head-shaking and derision this elicits from the rest of us does not make them feel loved. It only serves to amplify their self-imposed cultish isolation. And with all cults isolation breeds defensiveness, suspicion and a pseudo-martyr complex. God knows, they know they're right (about everything no matter how ridiculously uninformed they may be). They have God's miracle of orgasmic spiritual fever to prove it. 

This is the mindset that inspires reactionary politics: suspicion of outsiders, possession of a Holy Truth that others lampoon, direct authority from God for their opinions, no matter how small, or petty or cruel, or selfish, or self-serving or .. well, you get the drift. And when they get the power to punish others for their temerity in questioning God's chosen people.. well, watch out, Buddy.

I once worked with an Evangelical Catholic and his most prominent trait was an astonishing level of spiritual arrogance. He truly believed he was 'chosen of God' if not chosen by God. He was, unsurprisingly, reactionary and conservative, and he closely identified with the authority structure of the organisation, becoming progressively more humourless and authoritarian the longer he held any organisational power over others. He went from being regarded with amused condescension, to mockery, to animus, to fear and eventually outright hatred for his punitive, bullying manner and acts of spite and petty revenge.

The 'holier than thou' reactionary politics of Evangelical Christians is consistent with history's worst religious excesses. Pogroms, massacres, jihads and crusades all stem from religious fervour and fear. Fear which morphs into hate, and hate which generates violence. 

The cumulative weight of micro-aggressions targeted at refugees and other outsiders makes our society uglier and more hateful. It isn't just the 'boat people' who suffer. We all do when they arrive here damaged and in pain, embittered by their treatment, angry and resentful. And while Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott may keep them from staying here we will all still have to live in a society with new norms of behaviour that are progressively more hate-filled, mean-spirited and extreme, less tolerant of difference and diversity, more abusive, authoritarian and violent. 

And no God worth a good goddamn could be pleased with that.

And A Merry Christmas to You All.

PS: If anyone would like to engage me upon the rest of the four levels of transcendent whotsit, mine's a very large rum.

---

[i] An acerbic and insightful young lady, she once memorably described the idea that pole-dancing empowered women through physical mastery as 'petri-dish feminism'.

Money For Old Rope.

I've been watching the debate, for want of a better word, on MPs entitlements for some time now and I'm appalled by the sloppy thinking of commentators and journalists on the matter, all waffling incoherently about what is and isn't reasonable. MPs meanwhile have been predictably talking about 'grey areas' and the difficulty of deciding what is and isn't a rort or a ripoff. It's truly depressing to see the half-assed reporting on this issue, which is at heart a matter of informing both the public and politicians about the limits of naked self-interest and the underlying principles that need to be applied. So, for all those journalists too lazy or stupid to work it out for themselves here's how it works:

Members of Parliament are employed to do two things: represent their constituents in Parliament and consult with their constituents on policies and anything else their constituents want to be consulted about. That's it. That's the job. And anything in the way of expenses incurred in doing either or both of those two things is entirely legitimate and should be reimbursed.

There's a second class of activities, related to the first, where expenses should be covered. That's any activity that helps inform the MP about policy questions or solutions that can be applied to their work in Parliament. This includes attending boring infrastructure conferences, meeting with academics, experts and similar drones, talking to community leaders and travelling to see how social, economic and environmental problems have been solved in other places.

So, travelling to Germany to see how solar power is being used to fundamentally change how green power can save the environment and change the energy industry into a more democratic model is expensive but entirely appropriate. Travelling to a wedding because there will be useful political contacts is not. Not ever. NEVER.

Travelling to remote parts of Australia to inform the MP on policy performance in Aboriginal communities is entirely appropriate. Travelling to talk to industry lobbyists is not. If an industry lobbyist wants to talk to a politician or Minister then that lobbyist should do the travelling and cover his own costs. If that lobbyist offers to cover the MPs costs to travel to meet the lobbyist, or for any other purpose, that offer must be rejected. It is 100% NOT ok for any lobbyist, or private citizen to fund MP's travel or expenses. No matter how trivial the cost it puts the MP in that citizen or lobbyist's debt, leading to a conflict of interest.

So travelling to the wedding of any private citizen is not, under any circumstances, something the public purse should pay for. If there are rich and influential people at the wedding that the MP may talk to then it is even more inappropriate. The rich have enough influence as it is. Taking their money and hospitality is absolutely NOT ok. Going to the Melbourne Cup is fine. Accepting free tickets to it is NOT ok. Having the public purse pay for you and your spouse's travel and accommodation is NOT ok.
 

The same principle applies to ANY sporting event, whether the MP is going as a spectator or a competitor. There is no public interest in any MP, including the Prime Minister, being in a triathlon. It isn't 'engaging with the community', it's a personal activity with political payoffs for the MP, or PM's image. It's a professional politician advertising his own brand, not to mention any other brands he happens to be wearing. The only possible exception to this is the Sports Minister, and that only applies to attending, not taking part.

Which brings us to our second principle. The distinction to be drawn here is the difference between political work as an MP, and party political work as a professional politician. If an MP, or PM, is working in parliament, or consulting with his electorate, or meeting with experts or visiting places where policies are being implemented, then it's work for the public good and can be paid for by the public purse. If he is doing political work for his party, making public appearances to get elected, attending weddings where rich campaign donors will be, or attending political party meetings, conferences or rallies he is doing party politics and this is his and his parties responsibility. And he or his party must pay for his expenses. 

There is no grey area here. 

The party pays, not the public.

This is always the case. 

ALWAYS.

Politicians will always fudge the question here. Attending a short 'work' meeting to cover a trip that's 90% private business is a typical and obvious example. And politicians will generally band together to support such cheap and shoddy conduct. It's our job, and the job of journalists, to pull them up short and say no, not good enough. Get used to it. It's part of the $$ price of democracy: eternal vigilance over the not so petty amounts of travel and accommodation expenses that a politician, or former politician will gladly rack up and charge to the public purse.

The only further issue here is the question of family and politics. This is a huge country. If you are a Minister from WA, for example, spending weeks at a time in Canberra and away from family strains relationships. So it's reasonable that we cover SOME of the costs of spouses and children's travel. Bringing family to stay in Canberra can be justified. Taking extended holidays  overseas and attending cultural and sporting events on the public dime is stretching the point beyond the friendship.

If a politician claims it's all too confusing and complicated it's an admission that they aren't up to the challenge of being a politician, dealing with complex, messy questions of the nation's politics, economy and future. They should quit, get out, find another employer. We need people who do understand these principles and will commit to following them.

Rant over.

.

"Welcome to Florida. Cross me and I'll kill you."

On the 13th of July the jury in the Trayvon Martin murdercase found George Zimmerman not guilty of tracking, stalking and murdering an unarmed 17 year-old in Sanford, Florida. The injustice of this verdict is attested to by peaceful rallies protesting in 100 US cities.

When reading the coverage of the trial I was struck by a thread running through all of the public comments on online news sites. Predictably there were two sides. One decrying the verdict and the pointless loss of a young life, raising the race card like a soccer umpire cautioning a violent and unrepentant offender. The other side vehemently defended the not guilty verdict. What struck me, however, was an underlying assumption common to every one of the 'pro-Zimmerman' comments, every single one on over a dozen different sites - that it is perfectly fine to shoot and kill another human being dead.

A shocking statement in itself, but one made even more disturbing by the tone and trend of this 'side of the argument' towards not just self defence and a comfortable certainty that it's fine to kill someone, but that the laws on this determine the morality, rather than the reverse. That a law which allows 'shoot to kill' means taking a life is completely justified and requires no further thought whatsoever.

In a healthy culture laws are an extension of social morality. We prohibit behaviour that goes beyond moral boundaries. When this is in balance our laws serve the principle of justice. Immoral behaviour, violence and property destruction and dispossession are proscribed in law along with the appropriate sanctions. When social values and social morality changes, groups who have argued for a change in the laws will see public opinion sway their way, and eventually public pressure will force a change in law.  

A current and classic example of this process is the global shift in laws regarding homosexuality and marriage. The feeling that gay marriage is not only a just extension to a minority of rights enjoyed by the majority, but a right that should be enshrined in and protected by law is a current global phenomenon.

Conservative politicians everywhere are finding themselves out of touch with the vox populi, the voice, and will, of the people on this. Their  conservatism is often a positive restraint on the 'enthusiasms of the mob' easily whipped up by demagogues and media barons. But when the people genuinely change their opinion politicians must follow or become electorally obsolete.

This is not the case with the 'Stand Your Ground' and 'Castle Doctrine' laws (the right to use deadly force in your own home). Originating in Florida (and aggressively promoted by ALEC*) these laws are now in place in over thirty US states. These laws go far beyond justice and leave morality trailing in their wake. They put justice and social morality to one side and arm the citizen with the right to judge, condemn and execute while protected by law. This isn't just rhetoric, it's already happening:

In November 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, 61 year-old Joe Horn shot and killed two men who were attempting to rob his neighbour's house. He rang '911' and reported the crime, and the discussion continued as follows:

Joe Horn: “I’ve got a shotgun; do you want me to stop them?”

Pasadena emergency operator: “Nope. Don’t do that. Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, O.K.?”

Joe Horn: “But hurry up, man. Catch these guys will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.”

Mr. Horn then said he would get his shotgun.

The operator said, “No, no.” But Horn said: “I can’t take a chance of getting killed over this, O.K.? I’m going to shoot.”

The operator told him not to go out with a gun because officers would be arriving.

“O.K.,” said Horn, “But I have a right to protect myself too, sir,” adding, “The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.”

The operator said, “You’re going to get yourself shot.” 

Mr. Horn replied, “You want to make a bet? I’m going to kill them.  I ain’t gonna let them get away with this shit ... They got a bag of loot … Here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.”

The operator then heard: “Move, you’re dead.” Followed by three gunshots.

“I had no choice," said Horn when he got back on the line. “They came in the front yard with me, man.”

You can listen to a complete recording of the call here: 

The two men, who were carrying a sack with cash and jewellery, were shot in the back. Both died. A Texas Grand Jury found Mr Horn had no case to answer. He was free to go.

This decision implies that the 'Castle doctrine' embodies not just the right to self defence in your own home, nor the legal right to kill to protect person and property, but the opportunity to deliberately seek the death of others as a personal choice, a right to kill for personal satisfaction within the law. Joe Horn is not an isolated case. Nor is his attitude, which says the laws now serve me. My right to arms includes the right to kill my fellow citizens if they offend me. All I have to do is claim I felt under threat. The right to free speech entitles me to lie to protect myself. My rights are absolute, and sacred. Cross me and I will kill you.

 Joe Horn being lauded by Fox News:

 

This is a society in moral free-fall, so driven by fear and hatred that it is fragmenting into tiny personal fiefdoms of property and the right to kill others to defend it.

There is a serious systemic issue here. When law and morality are out of balance one will move to accommodate the other, driven by a kind of social cognitive dissonance. In progressive reforms laws reflect changes in public morality. In reactionary and regressive reforms public morality will accommodate itself to repressive laws. Laws that provide protection for our baser instincts license behaviour previously held in check by tradition, social custom and social institutions. 

When the law shifts the goalposts towards the bottom of the barrel behaviours that were once beyond the pale soon emerge, with those with a taste for violence and hatred soon claiming the moral high ground. Soon society is brutalised, social relationships are vested with threat and animus, and social institutions that reflect positive moral values lose their standing and we are thrust into the realm of the shock-jock listener. A world full of hatred, paranoia, misogyny, and xenophobia, where wilful ignorance, bigotry and self-interest are elevated to the level of supreme moral virtues. 

The justification for this is always the same: a crude Social Darwinist view that man is by nature violent, competitive and crass and any attempt to claim otherwise is derided as sentimental and fantastic. That in our true nature we are 'red in tooth and claw'.

Civilisation and its moral and social values are what separate us from other animals. The Social Darwinist derides this as wishful thinking and that a crude form of 'natural justice' demands we behave as brutes, that competition is the only fact of life and that nothing is sacred: not family, not society, not virtue or ethics or any moral stand against the barbaric and brutal. 

I say no. I say we must fight for every principle, every choice to rise above a base nature, every instinct for compassion, empathy and generosity of spirit. The struggle will be endless. As long as man has a baser nature there will be those who are too lazy to see beyond it, and too selfish to think beyond their own needs. But civilisation wasn't built by these people, and while any of us defends humanity's higher calling they will not prevail.

Civilisation belongs to the civilised. The brutes and their mercenary mouthpieces will always be limited by the short-sighted self-interest they claim as their nature. If anything separates humans from other animals it is our ability to rise above the instinct for blood and to seek what justice we can in an imperfect world.

.o0o.

* FOOTNOTE: ALEC:  the American Legislative Exchange Council.

 

 ALEC is the 40 year old American Legislative Exchange Council, originally the Conservative Caucus of State Legislators. ALEC's website says members believe "government closest to the people" is "fundamentally more effective, more just, and a better guarantor of freedom than the distant, bloated federal government in Washington, D.C." 

ALEC is funded by industries whose profitability is enhanced and whose corporate responsibility is minimised by ALEC laws. ALEC promotes legislation to restrict voter access through ID laws, limit corporate accountability (on asbestos, fracking and tobacco health claims for example), limit taxation and government oversight (on environmental protection, for example), extend police powers and punitive laws (for the private prisons industry), and promote gun rights and ownership (for gun lobby corporations). 

In 2012 ALEC wrote to the Australian government stating that US legislators opposed plain cigarette packaging and that generic cigarettes increase rather than decrease cigarette consumption.

.