The Divine Universe

Recently I watched a documentary about the trial in Victoria of some suspected Islamic terrorists. The State had limitless financial resources to construct their prosecution, while the pro bono defence worked on a shoestring and, not surprisingly, most of the suspects were convicted. One was sentenced to fifteen years goal. But they were not convicted on the basis of anything they had done. They were not identified with any terrorist organization, let alone any terrorist activity. They were convicted entirely on the basis of what they thought, interpreted from some extremely ambiguous conversations picked up from their tapped phones. Several of the suspects specifically said in these conversations that they had no support for terrorist activity, but the mere fact that they thought and talked about terrorist activities was sufficient to convict them. The program was banned from Victorian TV, by the way. Many distinguished lawyers, barristers and judges have expressed deep concern about the extent to which human rights and justice are compromised under current legislation regarding terrorism. I am happy to say that some Christian writers have been expressing concern too.

We have no statutory charter of human rights in Australia but our judicial system has a long tradition inherited from the British and based, I think, largely on Christian values. The purpose of terrorism is not, basically, about killing people; it is about changing our social and political landscape. In this the terrorists seem to have been remarkably successful in this country with almost no activity. Nobody has blown up anything illegally in Australia. Nevertheless, there is a fair amount of neurotic paranoia about, partly engendered, encouraged and pandered to by both sides of Parliament.

Refugees and asylum seekers have also been made a hot political property by the Opposition, claiming that the Government has lost control of the situation. There is no way that the Government can affect the number of people under persecution and oppressive regimes from trying to reach this country. The previous Government claims to have had some success by treating boat people, including children, with extreme harshness, keeping them for many years behind razor wire fences in remote and environmentally hostile regions of Australia, or on the desolate island of Nauru. The present Government has adopted a more humane approach. The Opposition claims that this has caused an increase in attempts by boat people to reach this country. If this is the case I believe it is still the right course of action. Abusive and unjust treatment to innocent people, including children, is not an appropriate means to reduce the number of would-be refugees arriving.

Most of the current arrivals are from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. In Sri Lanka, since the military conquest of the Tamil Tigers, there have been reports of discrimination and persecution of Tamils. If there is no truth in this, it is hard to explain the arrival of so many Tamil asylum seekers from that country.

Many refugees come from Afghanistan. It is in the throes of armed combat between American and other forces, propping up a weak and corrupt government, and highly disciplined and motivated Taliban forces who want to regain control of the country and re-establish their draconian Islamic regime. Civilians in that country live in constant fear of their lives. Many have little respect for the ruling government but no desire to see the return of the Taliban. We also receive asylum seekers from Iraq where there are daily bombings of civilian targets by Islamic fundamentalists.

Australia’s refugee problem is very small compared to that in many countries both in the affluent countries and in the third world. While refugees could eventually pose a threat to our quality of life in this country, I believe we have an international obligation to do as much as we can to accommodate some of the millions of people now seeking safety from violence, oppression or persecution.

Much of the violence that leads people to flee their country comes from Islamic fundamentalists, but fundamentalists are not all Moslems. Christian fundamentalism was a contributing factor in launching the disastrous war in Iraq. Today there are fundamentalist Jews and Christians persecuting or at least discriminating against selected groups, especially homosexuals. They argue that the book of Leviticus defines male homosexuality as an “abomination”. The Torah also defines eating pork as an abomination, so that is a slightly ambiguous word. The concern of the authors of Leviticus was mainly the fulfilling of the command to Adam to “be fruitful and multiply”. Homosexuality obviously militates against that, but it is not a problem for us.

Fundamentalist Christians also quote the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, claiming that buggery was the grievous sin committed by the people of those cities. But this is unlikely. The louts who attacked the house where Lot was staying wanted his daughters, so were presumably heterosexual. The real sin was against the very strict and comprehensive laws regarding hospitality to strangers. Lot was a visitor in Sodom, and to threaten him and his daughters was a grievous sin.

Homophobia is not confined to religious extremists, of course, but it is hard to imagine Jesus telling someone to get lost or that they were going to roast eternally in hell because of their sexual inclinations. Indeed, among fundamentalist or ultra-conservative Jews and Christians, it is not even necessary to be gay. Being female is enough to bring discrimination. In these matters, the secular authority is closer to the Kingdom than many Christians.

However, most Jews, like most Christians, are not judgmental about sexuality or gender. There are many women rabbis in the liberal Jewish community. A prominent Jewish rabbi in London, Lionel Blue, has lived openly with his male partner for more than fifty years.

The Anglican Church authority is not as tolerant as this, submitting to fundamentalist pressure in the interest of unity. One could wish that Jewish and Christian fundamentalists would get as steamed up about observing the rules in the Torah regarding hospitality to strangers, foreigners and travellers as they are about gays.

Jesus spoke much about the Kingdom of God. While Jews regarded YHWH as a merciful God, they also regarded him as just. On the basis of Jesus’ teaching it is clear that we have a very long way to go before our own society, or even the churches, can claim to exercise justice according to those values. Heavenly justice is a distant goal, but I wish more people could indicate a desire for it.