Ideas versus harsh reality

I watched ‘The Help’ a week or so ago. I found it quite a powerful movie, although I appreciate why African-Americans criticize the way the black women are less at the centre of this story than they should be. It can at times be about a young, white woman’s search for salvation, rather than a struggle for justice.

I was struck, though, by how hard it is to be courageous when there is no community to help you have courage. It is hard to stand up against things like racism when all the people around you are racist, and will leave you socially isolated if you disagree. You need a community and another story to sustain any courage.

But I was also struck by what a strange and uneven contest the fight against racism can be. Racism isn’t simply a nice idea or a playing around with mental constructs about human nature. Racism is about the defence of the social and economic benefits enjoyed by a few, or a way for some people to keep themselves off the absolute bottom of the community.

Racism justifies slavery, poor pay and conditions, and leaving people with all the hard and menial tasks in a community. Racism justified high risk and poor worker protection, keeping costs down to maximize profits for a few.

The unevenness of the contest is that churches and other bodies try to explain why racism is wrong. It is a conversation about morality and values, a battle over ideas, when racism is about daily realities. It’s a contest of good ideas versus benefits, and benefits will nearly always win.

That is why people talk about trade boycotts when faced with racism and injustice. Boycotts say: actually we are going to make sure that there are less benefits to you continuing to act unjustly. We will not talk about the wrongness of racism, and then keep buying your goods that are produced in a racist economy.

That’s why the decision of the US Presbyterians to discuss disinvestment in companies that deal with Israel is important. All the talking and the moralizing, all the discussions about international law and justice, are wasted. There are benefits for Israel in denying Palestinian autonomy, destroying homes, stealing water, and taking land. While the US has clearly decided that it will prop up Israel and its racist regime forever, it is time for those working in the wider civil society to remove some of the benefits, Nice ideas and arguments will not create change, only different practices.

Israel’s Nuclear Hypocrisy

Israel’s posturing and hypocrisy over Iran’s alleged nuclear capacity is mind-boggling. Essentially Israel is saying: “How dare you want what we have, and how dare you flaunt UN requirements like we do.” The subtext is clear: we are the good guys and loyal allies of the USA, and you are part of the evil Empire.

Consider this comment from Ali Kazak, a former Palestinian ambassador:

“All Arab countries actively support the Middle East to be a nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction free zone, and all the Middle Eastern countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) except one, Israel, which headed in the opposite direction secretly developing and producing over 200 nuclear and neutron warheads according to US intelligence agents reported in the Washington Post on December 8, 1980, later confirmed by the Israeli technician working at Dimona nuclear plant, Mordechai Vanunu, in 1985, a figure believed to be doubled by now, and continues its refusal to comply with tens of UN resolutions calling on it to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection.

Israel says that its support for a nuclear-free Middle East is conditional on all countries in the region, including Iran, signing a peace treaty with it. But all Arab and Muslim countries have, in fact, agreed to recognise Israel and sign a peace treaty with Israel, if it recognises the inalienable and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, withdraws from the occupied Arab territories and complies with relevant UN resolutions. Israel refuses to recognise these rights, refuses the Arab peace initiative, refuses to withdraw and builds more Jewish colonies.” (‘A missing peace option,’ Kaleej Times online, 10 February 2012)

Christians find the conversation in this region to be very difficult. This is biblical land, and in amidst modern politics are claims about land and chosen people and the promises of God. Add to this the guilt around the holocaust, the narrow and anti-Palestinian media coverage, and significant racism about people and nations in the Middle East, and Christian responses are often distorted by ignorance and myth.

There is a need for a new Christian narrative for this area: there is no room for nuclear weapons in any parts of the world, and that includes Israel. The requirements of the UN need to be complied with by all countries, and not just those that the US is opposed to – the double standards that exist at present lead to hostility and suspicion and war. Israel does have a right to exist, but so do the Palestinians, and it is time for Israel’s illegal occupation to end.

Selling Child Care centres - A world bound by the bottom line

My local Council - Newcastle City Council - is exploring whether it should sell the Child Care Centres that it ‘owns.’ It seems to me to be another example of the way in which local government, which should be focused on the needs of the community and on the common good, has bought into the narrative of the bottom line, and minimal services.

Of course Councils have to be concerned about their budgets, and they have to work within the constraints imposed by the State Government around rate levels. There is no doubt that Councils are caught between the demands of citizens and stark economic realities, but the issue is the narrative or meaning story that shapes the response.

Take the Child Care Centres. Child Care Centres are one of the ways in which communities seek the care of their children, and the well-being of families. If we agree with that then we can either see this as an issue of the common good that needs to be nurtured by the community as a whole through bodies like local councils. Or we can see it is an issue for individuals, who should simply access child care through private providers, and one in which councils should not be involved.

I belong to a Christian tradition that says that the world is not simply about individual freedom and choices, or a world whose shape is dictated by economic choices in which those with more wealth have a bigger voice. There is a common good, because human beings are essentially social rather than solitary creatures. The well-being of individuals is tied to the well-being of the community. Each person is called to contribute to social conditions that allow all people to be cared for and to reach their full potential as human beings.

I think that Newcastle City Councilors need to re-think their approach to the issue of possible sale of Child Care Centres. The issue is: what can the Council do to contribute to the well-being of the community, and not simply how does it provide space of r individuals to do their thing? The issue may be how this is to be funded, but the starting issue is not about money but services. The budget is built and trimmed around the core services of the Council, many of which are simply not measurable in economic terms, rather than the other way around.

Besides, even at a straight economic level this move is foolish. The Council doesn’t own all the land, mostly the buildings. The Child Care Centres cover their own running costs. There will be little saved in operating costs. There may be a relatively small capital gain from selling the services to others, but this will make no long term difference to the Council budgets. It will simply deplete the Councils role and contribution to the common good of the community.

Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution

I think that today will go down as a significant moment in the life of this nation. At lunch time today the expert Panel appointed to advise the Government on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could be recognized in the Constitution delivered its report and recommendations to the Prime Minister. The report can be read at http://www.youmeunity.org.au/

In 2 Corinthians 5:18 Paul says that God has reconciled us through Christ, and has given us a ministry of reconciliation. The Basis of Union says that God’s desire for the whole creation, the end in view, is its reconciliation and renewal, and that the church’s task is to serve that end (para. 3).

This suggestion to change the Constitution is a practical step in reconciliation in Australia, one that has had the active support of the Assembly of the Uniting Church and of the Uniting Aboriginal and islander Christian Congress.

The panel consulted widely. It received 3500 submissions, and conducted more than 250 consultations with over 4600 present. It conducted a number of surveys and opinion polls, and the overwhelming evidence is that a vast majority of people supported the idea of changes to the Constitution that would recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and which would prevent discrimination on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin.

The actual suggestions are:

·                    To repeal Section 25 of the Constitution which allows the possibility that a State Government could disqualify a particular race from voting.

·                    To repeal the current races power (Section 51 (xxvi)) and its replacement with a new power (Section 51A) which would allow laws to be made for the well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (where the present power allows laws to be made that are detrimental to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples).

·                    This new power would be preceded by a preamble containing a statement of recognition.

·                    The addition of a new power recognizing English as the official language of Australia, but honouring the languages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as part of our national heritage.

The next step is for people to engage in extensive debate, and to encourage people to be well-informed when the referendum happens.

Anti-whaling protests and street theatre

A lot of years ago I read an interesting article that compared the life and work of Martin Luther King, jnr and Father Daniel Berrigan. King, of course, was famous for his fight against racism and his use of non-violent action, and his willingness to go to gaol in an attempt to change the system. Dan Berrigan was an active opponent of the American involvement in Vietnam and of the use of nuclear weapons. He, too, spent a lot of time in gaol as a result of his actions.

The article – which I can no longer put my fingers on – makes the point that King believed that the American system was basically OK, but that there were parts of it that needed change and individuals who needed to change. Essentially he saw sin as structural and personal, and took actions which he believed would change those parts and people that needed changing.

Berrigan, on the other hand, thought that the sin around war and nuclear weapons was not simply structural or individual, but went deep into the culture of the country. Changing a law or a part of the system or a few people was not going to change this culture. So he and his friends engaged in street theatre, in attempts to highlight the sheer craziness of things. They poured napalm – which was being dropped on Vietnam – on draft cards in an effort to show the absurdity of being charged for destroying cards when people where being burned in this way. They broke into nuclear defence facilities and painted peace slogans on bombs.

I was reminded of King and Berrigan this week when the three men in Western Australia boarded a Japanese whaling vessel. The moral outrage has been extraordinary, and the government has responded by (i) defending its failure to insist that international law is followed in regard to whaling with the usual excuse about how complex this issue is and how much needs to be done behind closed doors, (ii) working very quickly to get the men released so the issue moved from the front page of the papers, and (iii) speaking about the amount tax payers will need to pay for their return to Australia in order to get tax payer sympathy on the Government’s side.

I think we have a major clash of approaches. The government insists that, yes there are a few minor issues with whaling but if we play the game right changes can occur. I think that the three men confront us with Berrigan’s issue: is the failure to act a deeply cultural one about a game that stinks, and the only way to force change is a form of street theatre that shows the absurdity of what is going on.  

Action ficks and redemptive violence

Over the short break between Christmas and New Year I indulged in my liking of action flicks, the kind where good usually triumphs over evil and there is a fair bit of martial arts action. This time it was Nikita, and the ongoing struggle for a few people to destroy a black op program out of control.

I often wonder about my liking of this kind of film; what attracts a person opposed to war and violence to such action and violence, and the tendency for these films to explore redemptive violence.

A sense of redemptive violence sits under much of the church’s understanding of the atonement. It’s what makes it possible for the church to live in a very ambiguous place around war and support for the military, and refusal to give peace-making a priority in its life.

I think that sort of theory of the atonement provides the implicit basis for a country as overtly religious as the USA to pursue pre-emptive strikes as the foundation for its foreign policy. Evil has to be named, shamed and destroyed, and violence is OK if used by the righteous in the service of the salvation of the world.

I think it is what often makes churches ambiguous about the death penalty, and keeps us quiet about the fact that far too many people – and particularly those who are poor – are in prison. Punishment and violence!

That seems so contrary to my understanding of the cross of Jesus, an act not of violence by God but of suffering servanthood that undermines all pretensions to Empire.

And yet there is something attractive about the way violence is used to protect and destroy in the movies (and in real life). It is always a deep temptation for us in our personal lives and for our countries; much easier than peace-making, reconciliation and the need to share with others in a struggle that gives life and not death. There is this seductive sense that things get put right, and good triumphs, and all the evil is on the other side and has been dealt with. And we don’t need the one who is Emmanuel, because we have everything under control.

I’m not sure I should, but I still enjoy those movies.

Aliens or neighbours, terrorists or refugees?

Once more there is sharp public debate about refugee and asylum seeker policy as news arrives of more people who have died. The political response to this issue is the usual rock throwing combined with expressions of sympathy worded to suggest that it is the fault of the other Party.

What fascinates me is that while options are discussed there is almost no exploration of the assumptions and the way in which refugees and asylum seekers are to be seen and valued. It is a reflection of the sort of world we live in where there is no space for a conversation about what we value and what we seek for human life; there is only space for issues and for technical solutions.

It is not that there are no values or ideologies; it is simply that they get hidden and assumed to be beyond discussion. In Australia the framework is terrorism and border security. What will protect our space; how can the government fulfill its major task – the protection of citizens?

I am sitting at my desk trying to write Christmas sermons and reflections. I know we are not quite to that part of the story, but I am forced to think about Mary and Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt in the face of a murderous dictator.

I wonder what would happen to them today were they forced to flee the illegal settlers and the army who harass people in Galilee? I guess if they flew to Australia on holiday visa and stayed on (with many thousands of others) they might have a chance – at least a chance to be heard in a more reasonable climate than if they came on the boat with a tiny number of others.

I wonder why few people mention the fact that Australia is supposed to be bound by international law to accept and properly process people seeking asylum, even if we then send the unsuccessful people back home. Why do so few people think it strange that we believe it is moral to shove refugees off-shore, forcing other countries – with a fair bit of arm twisting – to deal with issues that belong to us as a nation? What happens when we see people as neighbours and strangers to be cared for, people who are actually loved by God? Why does the fact that we live in an economically, politically, and environmentally global community seem so contrary to the obsession with border protection without compassion?

Does it not mean anything to Christians that Jesus was born outside the town, had to flee to another country, and was killed outside the walls of the city? Refugee and asylum seeker.