Posted on

Beware Australia’s real ‘illegals’

http://bit.ly/17QYaGP

The Advertiser, 8 November 2013

PICTURE this scenario at an Australian international airport arrivals terminal: “
Excuse me, sir. We are the Federal Police. You are under arrest.”
“Are you serious? What for?”
“Participating in illegal military activities while in Syria.”
“I was on a humanitarian mission!”
“You will need to prove it.”

But this scene will not play itself out in reality while politicians drag their feet in a legal quagmire.
The Abbott Government is renowned for its simple and clear statements, especially pertaining to border protection.

The incarnation of the ‘‘stop the boats’’ war-cry was to launch Operation Sovereign Borders, deploy a three-star general and render the seafaring asylum seekers ‘‘illegal arrivals’’.

So what is the incarnation of its “baddies versus baddies’’ banner overarching Syria?

Why have we not seen the Government launch Operation Foreign Fighters, deploy a three-star general and render the returning mercenaries ‘‘illegal combatants’’?

In his book Foreign Fighters: Transnational Identity in Civil Conflicts, Dr David Malet from Melbourne University claims that the 200 Australians participating in the Syrian war outnumber all other Westerners.

He contends that “the biggest danger is that they return home as recruiters” and are hailed as “heroes in their local communities”.

Surely, this must render them more dangerous than the ‘‘illegal arrivals’’ who are desperately seeking life for their beloved families, not martyrdom for their ‘‘brothers in arms’’ and a ‘‘ticket to paradise’’? Already four Australians are known to have been killed in Syria since the uprising began.

It was rich of former foreign minister Bob Carr to urge his successor to revisit the idea of legally blocking these Australian citizens from returning home from the Syria war zones. He had his chance.

What has been the result of his strategy of intelligence gathering and merely monitoring their recruitment activities after their return? The number of fighters swelled from single to double to triple digits.

While our intelligence agencies need to keep their confidential information and control orders out of the public domain in case the radicalised recruiters go underground, the public deserve more than blanket response of ‘‘trust us – we are doing much more than you think’’.

Regardless of reality, there is a prevailing perception that Australian jihadists come and go with impunity.
Community advocates sounded the alarm when there were two high-profile Australian fatalities in the battle zone in 2013. The alarm was amplified with when this figure subsequently increased.

The government’s “‘wait and see’’ strategy revealed a gaping loophole and made a mockery of our federal laws.

Those opposing the Syrian government did not want their sons to slip down this hole, as virtually all embraced Australia to flee from war. Those supporting the Syrian government also opposed this loophole because of their general concern over foreign mercenaries and terrorists allied with al Nusra and al-Qa’ida.

When David Hicks was participating in paramilitary training in Afghanistan in 2001, the US Military Commission charged him with “providing material support for terrorism” and he was detained in Guantanamo Bay until 2007. But when other Australians participate in military activities in the plethora of pro and anti-government ‘‘brigades’’, they return home to a hero’s welcome.

The current law is articulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs travel advice: “It is illegal under Australian law for Australian citizens, including dual citizens, to provide any kind of support to any armed group in Syria.

“This includes engaging in fighting for either side, funding, training or recruiting someone to fight.”. . . Australians who commit these offences while overseas may be prosecuted in Australia”.

Breaches may incur heavy fines and a maximum 10 years’ imprisonment. So why has there not been a single arrest, prosecution of or conviction reported to the Australian public since the alarm bells were sounded?

Too many of these Australians publicly claim to be offering humanitarian aid to the Syrian refugee epidemic, but their Facebook photos show them posing proudly with guns.
If the problem is loopholes within the current Australian law, then it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General George Brandis to update the national security laws. , just as the anti-terrorism laws were updated with 54 new Bills under the Howard government. The real ‘‘illegals’’ are arriving in planes, not boats.

Joseph Wakim is the founder of the Australian Arabic Council and author of Sorry We Have No Space.

Posted on

Are Christian Arabs an endangered species?

bit.ly/16rzkZT

National Times, 22 October 2013

Are Christian Arabs an endangered species?

From the onset of the Arab Spring in Syria, I was advocating a third way: unarmed dialogue, rather than the status quo advocated by the pro-Assad rallies or the forced regime change advocated by the armed rebels.

The more I listened to stories from those living in Syria, the more I suspected that the Arab Spring foliage was hiding some foreign seeds and foreign weeds. There was a disconnect between the factual testimonies and the fictitious tale. Many minorities, especially Christians, feared that a crude form of democracy would prevail: majority rules with no constitutional protection for the most vulnerable citizens.

But it was an uphill battle for me to find media space to question the Arab Spring goodies and baddies. “Sorry, we have no space” became shorthand for “sorry, we have no space for counter narratives”. If the Christians were declared an “endangered species” of animal, rather than the indigenous people, there would have been greater global outrage.

After all, the fishing bait that I was feeding to the media may have been bitter to swallow and my fishing hook was upside down in the shape of a question mark.

More than a decade after George W Bush’s divisive ultimatum, “Either you are with us with us, or you are with the terrorists”, it appeared that some still chose to watch a colour television in black and white.

Then I happened to be grounded at the airport. My plane had “something missing from its checklist” and could not take off. As I gazed out of the plane’s window, I had an epiphany that something else was grounded – me. After more than 20 years with more than 500 published opinion pieces, why was I still grounded at the same intersection?

A former editor once sniggered: “When will you stop beating the same racism drum?”
I replied: “When you stop beating the racist drum. When you stop, I stop.”

I looked at the wings of the plane and thought about the wings of my advocacy. Those who walked with me in the 1991 Gulf War had moved on. Those who walked with me in the 2001 War on Terror had moved on.

Many became disillusioned with this unpaid work. Some were fed up with being “fire extinguishers” that were rolled out every time Arabs behaved badly. Others became armchair advocates for the advocates, tweeting and emailing from their “clearing house” of articles by advocates. Many pursued creative paths by writing plays, writing poetry, writing musicals, writing PhDs or writing speeches.

I understood them, but still stood there. The perils of criticising fellow Christians when they are “Islamophobic” and criticising fellow Arabs when they are “anti-Semitic” come at a personal price.

But with the rise of so-called “Christianophobia” in Muslim majority countries, as warned by peace-activist Mother Agnes Mariam and British historian Rupert Shortt, it will be inspiring to see the rise of Muslim advocates defending the Christian “endangered species”. Just as many of those speaking out against Islamophobia were fellow Christians.

For too long, some sections of our media treated Arabs as a wild species to be contained and scrutinised in a test tube. But the irony was that some of us advocates were treating media editors like a school of fish without realising it. I wanted to inhabit their habitat and understand their feeding patterns so I could offer the right bait to catch the coveted “column”. But their feeding habits kept changing.

In the shadows of the Arab revolutions, there was an advocacy evolution. In the main streams of yesteryear, the bait had to be a proven “head” of a proven organisation with proven representation. But with global warming, the media mountains were melting and little islands were breaking away and sinking. The fish were migrating. They were more interested in immediacy than legitimacy.

Their food was literally “online” and they could feed from anywhere. As a free floater, my catch could no longer be fetched by casting one rod to one fish at a time. I needed to cast my net out wide.

After staring at each other through the barrel of the test tube for too long, editors and writers learnt that we swam the same turbulent ocean like little dots on a global page. We never said something so simple. “Let’s have a coffee” was code for let’s have a conversation. After all, coffee and conversation start with C which is an open circle, while Other starts with O which is a ‘closed circle.’

Joseph Wakim is the founder of the Australian Arabic Council and a former multicultural affairs commissioner. This is an edited excerpt from his forthcoming book Sorry we have no space to be released this month.

Posted on

Give up something meaningful for Lent

Published in Sunday Age, 10 March 2013
http://bit.ly/14LDQkt

Fast and loose – give up something meaningful for Lent

”WHAT I have given up for Lent” has become a fashion statement in some social circles. The announcement has been trumpeted so loudly, it may as well be tattooed on foreheads with pride in place of the ashes of penance. Indeed, it is written on the wall of many Facebook pages for all the friends to see.

Some of my ”faithful” flock mope pathetically about how they have given up their favourite luxury – chips, pizza, chocolate or caffeine. They appear to have forgotten that it is not what goes into their mouth that defiles them, but what comes out of it: pride, profanities, gossip.

As a child raised with Lebanese Christian traditions, spirituality and culture intersected and fused. Meat was the prescribed sacrifice during Lent, which was meaningless to me as I detested meat.

I should have been denied dairy products instead. Ironically, I looked forward to Lent because I much preferred the lentil soups than the mandatory meat anyway.

Many Christian faithful who celebrate Lent may need to be reminded of its origins. It is meant to be a time to enhance the relationship with their maker through private prayer, with their ”neighbour” through private almsgiving, and with themselves through some private sacrifice.

But before the faithful sacrifice alcohol, there are some sobering biblical reminders against pride and hypocrisy because ”God sees the unseen”. When you fast, wash your face and comb your hair so that only God notices, rather than look miserable and moan so that people pity you. When you give alms, do not sound a trumpet. And in praying, do it in secret.

Looks like some social sins persist after two millenniums. Indeed, bragging on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram about what you gave up for Lent is merely a modern manifestation of hypocrisy and reward seeking.

Herein lies the biggest difference between fasting privately for spiritual reasons and fasting publicly for social reasons. The former is tougher because it involves long-term faith that ”God will reward you later”, while the latter is tempting because it involves fulfilment from ”friends” and ”followers”.

For the ”fashion” fasters, it prompts the question – why sacrifice your favourite edibles if you undermine it with conceit and complaint? Are you point-scoring for this life now, or the next life?

Posted on

The Shadow of 9/11 Falls On Syria

www.newmatilda.com/2013/09/11/shadow-911-falls-syria

Published on New Matilda, 11 Sept 2013

“We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom.”

With this prayer, US President George W. Bush vowed revenge [6] against Al Qaeda soon after the World Trade Centre attacks of 11 September 2001. “We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest,” he said. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”

In his speech today on the eve of the September 11 anniversary, Obama was at pains to distance himself from Al Qaeda.

But his description of the Syrian government as “the forces of tyranny and extremism” could have been his predecessor’s description of Al Qaeda 12 years ago.

Obama declared that “Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing”. He will ask Congress to postpone a vote authorising violence, saying “it is beyond our means to right every wrong … America is not the world’s policeman.” However, a “pinprick strike” could compound the chaos and embolden Al Qaeda who would welcome “allies” firing from the sky. He fails to urge “those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos” of the beheadings of his fellow Christians in Syria, now an endangered species, and the demolition of sacred churches that mark the history of Christianity.

The US will give time and space for a Russian-led diplomatic solution to the issue of chemical weapons. Despite Obama’s claims that “my administration tried diplomacy …and negotiations”, he fails to cite a single example, siding instead with the rhetoric of the rebels that we will never negotiate with a dictator.

But is Obama, like Bush, really trying to “starve” the terrorists, who presumably feed on chaos? Many would prefer to forget about Bush’s statements given the ironic alliances made by the US. Earlier this year, Obama pledged $250 million of “non-lethal aid” to the Free Syrian Army, a default ally of terrorist armies in “the opposition” affiliated with Al Qaeda. Contrary to Obama’s repeated claims, this is far from a “civil war”.

One opposition group, the Al Qaeda-linked “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”, was accused of assassinating a Free Syrian Army commander in July. The “Islamic Front” has vowed to impose Sharia law in Syria [10]. “Jabhat al Nusra” has vowed allegiance to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Given the war logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, intelligence and arms are shared and flow freely among these allies. This means that US aid may have easily fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of President Bush, still invoked as a reason that intervention in Syria is called for. Why didn’t the US align with the Syrian government years ago in the face of a common enemy: the Wahabi Jihadist ideolology.

Obama’s rhetoric today marks a significant change to Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement at the G20: “This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter… Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.”

If the US has principles to uphold, but also recognises it can’t militarily police the whole world, then some interesting questions arise: Kerry alleges that his “significant body of open source intelligence” revealed that “for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.” Why wasn’t the information used to intervene then, or to warn Syrian civilians and prevent over 1400 fatalities? Why was such intelligence not immediately given to the UN weapons inspection team who were on the ground exactly three days before the war crime?

Moreover, if the US leaders are “serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use”, where was their “international obligation” when over 1400 Gazans were killed under Operation Cast Lead in January 2009? Obama did not draw an unequivocal red line that “we will not tolerate their use” against “our ally Israel” because it has his “unshakeable support”. According to Amnesty International, Israel “indiscriminately fired white phosphorous over densely populated residential areas.” These unlawful US-imported chemical weapons burn flesh to the bone. Nonetheless US leaders were content to remain spectators to that particular slaughter.

Whether in Gaza or Ghouta, this selective concern makes a cruel mockery of the principles espoused after the World Trade Centre attacks.

Twelve years on, Bush’s prayer, “God grant us wisdom”, has been challenged by Pope Francis. While Obama was still insisting that a “limited” attack on Syria was “the right thing to do”, Pope Francis said that “never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake … war begets war.”

What an irony! While President Obama in St Petersburg was making the moral case for a military solution in Syria, Pope Francis in St Peter’s Square called for a “day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria” last Saturday. The Pope’s call was heeded and echoed by leaders of many faiths, believing that God alone grants them wisdom.

The last papal day of prayer was declared by Pope John Paul II in the wake of the World Trade Centre attacks 12 years ago. He invited religious leaders to Assisi to pray for “true peace … religion must never become a cause of conflict, hatred and violence.”

Posted on

Give up something meaningful for Lent

http://bit.ly/14LDQkt
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fast-and-loose–give-up-something-meaningful-for-lent-20130311-2fvm8.html?skin=text-only

Fast and loose – give up something meaningful for Lent
Published in Sunday Age, 10 March 2013

”WHAT I have given up for Lent” has become a fashion statement in some social circles. The announcement has been trumpeted so loudly, it may as well be tattooed on foreheads with pride in place of the ashes of penance. Indeed, it is written on the wall of many Facebook pages for all the friends to see.

Some of my ”faithful” flock mope pathetically about how they have given up their favourite luxury – chips, pizza, chocolate or caffeine. They appear to have forgotten that it is not what goes into their mouth that defiles them, but what comes out of it: pride, profanities, gossip.
As a child raised with Lebanese Christian traditions, spirituality and culture intersected and fused. Meat was the prescribed sacrifice during Lent, which was meaningless to me as I detested meat.

I should have been denied dairy products instead. Ironically, I looked forward to Lent because I much preferred the lentil soups than the mandatory meat anyway.

Many Christian faithful who celebrate Lent may need to be reminded of its origins. It is meant to be a time to enhance the relationship with their maker through private prayer, with their ”neighbour” through private almsgiving, and with themselves through some private sacrifice.
But before the faithful sacrifice alcohol, there are some sobering biblical reminders against pride and hypocrisy because ”God sees the unseen”. When you fast, wash your face and comb your hair so that only God notices, rather than look miserable and moan so that people pity you. When you give alms, do not sound a trumpet. And in praying, do it in secret.

Looks like some social sins persist after two millenniums. Indeed, bragging on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram about what you gave up for Lent is merely a modern manifestation of hypocrisy and reward seeking.

Herein lies the biggest difference between fasting privately for spiritual reasons and fasting publicly for social reasons. The former is tougher because it involves long-term faith that ”God will reward you later”, while the latter is tempting because it involves fulfilment from ”friends” and ”followers”.

For the ”fashion” fasters, it prompts the question – why sacrifice your favourite edibles if you undermine it with conceit and complaint? Are you point-scoring for this life now, or the next life?

Posted on

The Pope is not a CEO

http://newmatilda.com/2013/02/15/pope-not-ceo

The Pope Is Not A CEO

The Pope’s retirement, which in secular logic might look like a CEO stepping down, is a wise decision in the tradition of Saint Peter himself, argues Maronite Catholic Joseph Wakim

Joseph Ratzinger has been hailed for his humility in reminding us all of his human frailty. But his retirement message should not be misconstrued as reducing the Papacy to CEO status.

In public discourse, the secular logic is seductive:

Bravo to the man who finally concedes that this colossal job of being the shepherd over 1.3 billion Catholics belongs to a younger candidate “due to an advanced age”. It is absurd that this “top job” be offered to a person aged 78, which is 13 years after most men retire.

When popes are so old, they are naturally old fashioned. By his own admission, Pope Benedict XVI shaped a new job description that this person must “govern … in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes”, requiring “strength of mind and body”.

This sets a positive papal precedent that the position is for a limited tenure, pending regular “fitness” checks, just like any other senior post. It is no longer a life sentence, but a human job like any CEO that has finally come home to the fold.

Age does not always equate to ability — we have seen leaders such as John Howard, who was still prime minister at age 68, outpace much younger leaders who had run out of puff. It is also flawed logic to assume that conservatism increases with age.

The papacy is not a job, it is Petrine — a succession to the apostle Peter. In his brief retirement speech, Benedict refers to Saint Peter on three occasions. To “govern the bark of Saint Peter” and the “See of Saint Peter” may indeed be a hard act to follow.

This is an apt coincidence; Peter denied knowing his master Jesus three times after the arrest, but then affirmed his love for Jesus three times after the resurrection by way of reconciliation.

Popes wear the Fisherman’s Ring as a reminder of Peter’s profession before following Jesus. As the “fisher of men”, the Pope casts nets to catch people and bring them to the Gospel. CEOs may be expected to market and grow the “followers” of their company, but not to convert people to a death defying faith.

Peter was far from perfect and renowned for his weaknesses. He failed to stay awake when his master agonised alone before being arrested. He failed to stand by his master during the persecution, trial and crucifixion.

Given this cowardly character, Popes should not be afraid to face their own failings in the shadow of their first forefather. However, CEOs displaying such disloyalty are normally dismissed or disciplined, not given an opportunity for forgiveness and salvation like Peter.

Peter was anointed for his honesty and his rock solid faith when Jesus announced “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. CEOs are given a limited tenure with regular reviews depending on their ability to achieve key performance indicators. They are not given eternal shares in the company and promises of a place in paradise.

Peter was the first apostle to perform a miracle after the resurrection. After devoting the rest of his life to preaching and converting, and casting his new net out far and wide, Peter was imprisoned, persecuted and crucified upside down because he was “not worthy” to die like his master. CEOs are normally protected and indemnified by Pty Ltd status and cannot normally be personally prosecuted.

This does not mean that the Petrine Ministry and the Via Dolorosa (the way of suffering) needs to be taken literally by popes like stations of the cross. But it does mean that the job description of the “papal primacy” must honor the “apostolic primacy” of Peter.

Popes do not need to be persecuted, imprisoned or crucified. But they do need to rise above the mortal call of duty, and step aside when they morally feel that what they can offer is “not worthy” of the Petrine Ministry. As Pope Benedict put it: “my strengths … are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry”. Like Peter who self censored himself for his weaknesses, Benedict also humbled himself to “ask pardon for all my defects”.

So before we strip down the Papacy to a modern day CEO, this needs to be juxtaposed against the modern meaning of a Petrine Ministry. It cannot be compared with a CEO, president or monarch.

Pope Benedict is not pathing the way for a more tenuous papal seat. Instead, he is actually fulfilling and following the way of Peter.

Posted on

Job applicants without correct creed don’t have a prayer

Job applicants without correct creed don’t have a prayer
Published: February 2, Canberra Times

This story was found at: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/job-applicants-without-correct-creed-dont-have-a-prayer-20130201-2dpyi.html

It is ironic that our moral pillars are defending their right to lawful discrimination, when they should ostensibly be crusading against this. Church-based groups insist that while they are not above the law, their fundamental right to freedom of religion trumps the right to freedom from discrimination.

The irony is richer when one looks at the submissions made a year ago in the lead-up to the Consolidated Human Rights and Anti Discrimination Bill that is currently before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee.

When submissions were called by federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon in September 2011, she gave pre-emptive reassurances that ”religious exemptions will continue as under the current scheme”. These untouchable aspects that will not change deserve as much scrutiny as the ”protected attributes” that will change, such as sexual orientation and gender identity.

A total of 230 submissions were posted on the Attorney-General’s website, mostly from individuals. Virtually all the faith-based submissions were from churches, with none from the other major faiths. Responding to questions 20 to 22 in the discussion paper regarding these religious exemptions, these 17 church ”corporations” sang from same hymn sheet, virtually verbatim.

The first verse is led by Churches Commission on Education (YouthCARE) and anchored to Article 6(b) of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (1981) ”to establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions”. This is now interpreted broadly as the right to practise religion ”corporately”, which means that ”some roles … are entitled to include a requirement of acceptance and practise of a specified religious faith” and to ”shape organisational advertisements and job descriptions … to include certain religious dimensions”.

When I was interviewed for social work roles in faith-based corporations, a personal commitment to their ”doctrines, tenets and beliefs” did not need to be stipulated as an ”inherently” desirable attribute in their selection criteria – it was common sense. And when I was interviewing candidates in such corporations, a person of a different creed who wished to embrace our faith was welcomed. Their professional credentials trumped their personal creed. Indeed, a robust and respectful debate about the teachings of the church is encouraged in my children’s Catholic school, not grounds for refusal or dismissal.

The Australian Baptist Ministries led the next verse by vowing that ”rules pertaining to the employment of staff by a religious organisation ought to be considered on similar grounds as employment of staff by a political organisation”. This is a self defeating argument because greens or gun lobbies are not exempted from the discrimination laws and do not insist on the right to select candidates of their own colour to prevent being tainted.

The next verse rejects the language of exceptions or exemption because the ”right to religious freedom … should be seen as a fully fledged right in itself”, identical wording used by both YouthCARE and Anglicare submissions.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference adds weight by insisting that religious freedom is a ”fundamental human right that government is obliged to protect”. This is akin to arguing that we should never open this door because it has always been that way.

The chorus was a covenant cited by virtually all the faithful voices: Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966) which enshrines the right of religion ”in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his [sic] religion or belief in worship, observance, practise and teaching”. However, article 18(3) adds that this freedom ”may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect … the fundamental rights and freedom of others”.

This negation of the religious freedom trump card is challenged by the YouthCARE submission which argues that ”in situations where there is a conflict of rights, a specific right of persons to practise their religious beliefs … prevails over a general right of persons not to be discriminated against on the ground of religion”. Indeed, it is an existential threat – ”Without this requirement, we cannot maintain our character as a Christian organisation or carry out our mission”.

The haunting hymn culminates with scaremongering by Christian Schools Australia about an atheist nation where ”freedom of religion may effectively become freedom from religion”.

But are these old arguments red herrings? Where is the research which verifies how often these discrimination exemptions have been invoked? How many non-believers would apply for such jobs if the exemptions were lifted?

The exposure draft of this consolidated bill was issued in November last year and adopts the spirit of this hymn. Section 33 states that it is ”not unlawful” for religious bodies to discriminate ”in good faith, and conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion, or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion”.

Conjuring old covenants, declarations and ”traditions going back centuries” are not contemporary or compelling arguments to counter the ”public money means public liability” paradigm. Surely the royal commission into institutional responses to child abuse has heralded a new era to rethink old ways and open the church doors, not close them.

The hymn should sing something more akin to biblical covenants than man-made covenants: even if we are immune from the law, we will not discriminate any more. We have nothing to hide and will have nothing to fear.

Joseph Wakim is a former multicultural affairs commissioner and a founder of the Australian Arabic Council.

Posted on

Obligation to respect not share our faiths

http://bit.ly/UwqmZ0
Obligation to respect, not share, our faiths
Date: December 28 2012

Each Christmas, my family receives more greetings and gifts from my Muslim friends than from fellow Christians. We treasure many handmade cards by Muslim children who do not celebrate Christmas. We cannot trivialise these efforts as tokenistic as they are annual and original. They are well-worded messages of peace in English and Arabic. I only wish we took the time to reciprocate this goodwill gesture at the two Islamic Eids each year.

Throughout my childhood, we would be visited by Lebanese Muslim friends laden with gifts. This did not mean they suddenly elevated the prophet Issa to Jesus the son of God. Their faith was not compromised. As I write this article, there is a knock on the door as Ahmad, my late father’s carer during his disabling Alzheimer’s, arrives looking like a bearded, smiling Santa bearing gifts. When asked, ”You do this but you are a Muslim?”, he replies, ”I do this because I am a Muslim”.

Twice this year, Australian Muslim leaders were swift to disown rather than explain behaviour that was both un-Islamic and un-Australian.

Before the unauthorised and short-lived Facebook fatwa on Christmas greetings, there was September protest that was notorious for its ”behead all those who insult the prophet” placard. On both occasions, leaders were swift to extinguish the flames, learning from past experiences that a flame can quickly morph into an international inferno through modern media.

The leaders need to be congratulated for their damage control and their voice of reason. The Facebook post was promptly removed and their Christmas greeting was written high in the sky – literally.

The Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, wisely provided perspective and disarmed the stone throwers with the comments that ”there is difference between showing respect for someone’s belief and sharing those beliefs” and that the ”foundations of Islam were peace, co-operation, respect and holding others in esteem”.

This contrasts with the temporary message that was posted on the Lebanese Muslim Association Facebook page, which was borrowed verbatim from an international website. The Fatwa section at Islamweb.net was asked if it was haraam, or sinful, for Muslims to celebrate or congratulate Christians during Christmas. Its response was: ”The disbelievers spare no efforts to draw the Muslims away from the straight path … celebrating such feasts is actually imitating disbelievers … whoever imitates a nation is one of them … a Muslim is neither allowed to celebrate the Christmas Day nor is he allowed to congratulate them.” It’s a view not shared by Australian Muslim leaders, a diversity that is not unusual in all religious teachings.

Islamweb is ”designed to enrich the viewer’s knowledge and appreciation of Islam … [among] Muslims and non-Muslims alike about the mission of Islam” by adopting ”balanced and moderate views, devoid of bias and extremism”. But this all needs to be put into perspective before being imported into the Australian context, highlighting the growing dangers of the instant, borderless, copy-paste, digital age.

Let any Australian religious order that has never innocently copy-pasted from a global site throw the first stone. Even from church pulpits, our priests have been critical of non-Christian practices, cautioning about staying on the straight path, avoiding the consumer culture of Christmas celebrations, and putting Christ back into Xmas, literally.

When I greet my Muslim friends for Eid al-Adha and Eid al-Fitr, it does not mean I share in the celebration or I am losing my religion. I am merely extending goodwill and am happy that they are happy.

This is not the first time Australian Muslims have copy-pasted concepts from abroad and inadvertently caused controversy for failing to consider the context of Australia. Only 18 months ago, the Islamic evangelical initiative MyPeace mounted billboards stating ”Islam: Got questions? Get answers”, followed by ”Jesus Prophet of Islam”, which provoked outrage and vandalism. The posters were adopted directly from the Chicago-based GainPeace, which was keen to demonstrate that ”Islam is not synonymous with terrorism”.

The public relations damage to the Muslim community is difficult to undo. Which is why all responsible leaders need to think twice before borrowing from overseas contexts. They may be copy-pasting a viral problem, not a safe solution.

Posted on

Render unto Caesar: Israel and the Catholic Church must have their day in court

http://bit.ly/UVitY6

Render unto Caesar: Israel and the Catholic Church must have their day in court

Joseph Wakim ABC Religion and Ethics 17 Dec 2012

The public faces of Israel and the Catholic Church in Australia, Pell and Netanyahu, need not to fear the criminal courts. It may earn them greater respect, to replace the suspicion and resentment.

What do abuses of power by church clergy and the Israeli government have in common? Both flirt within civil spheres while they skirt the criminal courts.

Both church and Israeli leadership have portrayed violations against children and Palestinians respectively as anything but criminal. The defence mechanisms deployed by both theocratic institutions bear striking similarities. As their sanctity is subjected to unprecedented scrutiny, they may face unprecedented accountability to the law of the land.

With the Gillard government’s launch of the Royal Commission into “institutional responses to child abuse,” Catholic Cardinal George Pell has had to reconstruct paedophilia more as a crime than a sin. By biblical definitions, sins disobey divine laws and make a “separation between you and your God.”

Under Catholic Canon Law, sins are forgivable through the sacrament of confession and the fulfilment of the prescribed penance. Contrary to popular misconceptions, absolution is neither an absolute guarantee nor a revolving door. If the sin is a crime, the confessor may be told “no absolution without first confessing to the victim, handing yourself in to the police, and treating your addiction.”

The confession can remain confidential, and the sin can remain forgivable, but “conditions apply.” Sacred laws and secular laws are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sins should be surrendered to God, but crimes should be surrendered to the courts – and the two can be both compatible and concurrent. Enough experienced clergy have declared that child abuse is rarely confessed, as paedophiles tend to be more pathological and do not see themselves as sinners.

In past practice, such perverts were (mis)managed and transferred internally as serial sinners who are forgiven and “will try not to sin again.” Instead, they could have been treated as serial criminals who infiltrated and polluted their holy order and need to be stripped of their collars and cloth then surrendered for punishment as well as penance.

Cardinal Pell should have focused less on the “seal of confession is inviolable” and more on “nobody is above the law of the land.” Even Jesus Christ was subjected to trials in both courts, albeit unjustly. His charge of blasphemy was heard before the Sanhedrin Court under Jewish law, and had this charge upgraded to treason before Governor Pilate under Roman law. Contrary to the false witnesses, Jesus never shunned secular obedience nor the law of the land, but instructed his followers to “render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.”

Hence, this does not challenge the theology of forgivable sins, but couches them into dual accountability, which is integral to this message of Jesus.

Criminal courts have never been perfect, but they cannot be skirted. If these institutions and leaders have nothing to hide, then they should have nothing to fear.

Just as the confessional has been exempted from the mandatory reporting of child abuse as a criminal offence, Israel expects to be exempted from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. It expects those harmed by its “apartheid policies” to remain silent and relinquish their right to access the ICC, or face further financial bribery from its American accomplice.

Ironically, Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s vindictive “talking point” after the recent UN decision was that, “The Palestinians will quickly realize that they made a mistake when they took a unilateral step that violated agreements with Israel.” And yet the only unilateral step is the latest roll out of 3000 Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Netanyahu seeks a bilateral solution by pretending that “our conflict with the Palestinians will be resolved only through direct negotiations,” as if they were two equal sides. But the real solution is multilateral by taking the territorial violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity to the ICC.

With some Israeli leaders believing that they have a divine right to all of the Promised Land that was given to Abraham and his “seed,” this would resonate with the defence of some Catholic leaders that Canon Law is above the law of the land. The parallels extend to paradoxes about those skirting the criminal justice system: How can “men of the cloth” who ostensibly represent holiness stoop to such evil acts? How can descendants of Holocaust survivors on the holy land preach “never again” yet practice or condone such inhuman acts? How can authorities charged with the custody of weaker parties, holy lands and minors betray that trust with crimes?

Both authorities may need to literally surrender land for peace. While the church may need to sell estates to pay for civil damages and criminal trials, the Israeli government may need to roll back the settlements so that Palestinians have a viable sovereign state.

There is growing disquiet among both church laity and Israeli citizenry over the skirting of criminal culpability. These voices prefer their leadership to “come clean” so that those corrupting their core values are exorcised: voices like veteran Israeli soldiers who testified against abuses in Breaking the Silence; voices like the Catholic laity who reconcile Canon Law with secular law.

The public faces of these powerful institutions – Cardinal George Pell and Benjamin Netanyahu – do not need to fear the criminal courts. But when they were silent about the unholy atrocities committed by their lower ranks, there were screams by those violated. By facing the law of the land, they are reconciling with the rest of the human family. This may earn them greater respect and openness, to replace the suspicion and resentment.

Joseph Wakim established the Streetwork Project for exploited children in Adelaide in 1986, was appointed Victorian Multicultural Affairs Commissioner in 1991, and founded the Australian Arabic Council in 1992. In 1996, he received the Commonwealth Violence Prevention Award for his anti-racism work. In 2001, he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) for his anti-racism campaigns.

Posted on

Clerical Error: Look East for reason why celibacy vow should be axed

http://bit.ly/TZCelo
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/clerical-error-look-east-for-reason-why-celibacy-vow-should-be-axed-20121114-29ce4.html

Published: November 15, 2012

The royal commission into ”institutional responses to child abuse” will not have the authority to review one vexed issue: the mandatory vow of clergy celibacy.

While we should be careful not to confuse correlation with causation, one compelling question cannot be avoided – why do Eastern Catholics and other churches with married clergy rarely encounter claims of child sex abuse?

As a Maronite Catholic, with an uncle who was a married priest with four children, this choice of celibacy or marriage has been functional since the church’s foundation.

Catholic churches in the East, the birthplace of Christianity, have always had married clergy.

There is no evidence that the reverence or sanctity of their clergy is compromised by matrimonial or paternal responsibilities.

Their capacity to empathise and advise is actually enhanced by first-hand experience.

The ordination of married men as priests may not directly redress the child abuse stigma that has dogged the church hierarchy. But it may inject a new breed of ”fathers” who should be instinctively protective of children, and thereby permeate the culture of the clergy.

For the first millennium, married priests were commonplace in all churches. Then in 1074, Pope Gregory VII announced anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy, as ordination marked the end of married life – “priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives”. This was enshrined during the First Lateran Council in 1123, when Pope Calistus II decreed that clerical marriages were invalid.

At that time, the Roman Catholic Church in Europe was understandably concerned about illegitimate children tainting the priesthood and children of married priests inheriting church property.

Today, the Roman Catholic Church allows married men to become deacons, yet their freedom to marry does not compromise their commitment.

Another compelling question cannot be avoided: why are Eastern Catholic churches flourishing in Australian congregations, and harvesting a new generation of priests, both locally and abroad? They are sowing seeds in fertile soil that is aerated with a healthy mix of celibate monks and married priests.

In many of their masses for youth, the pews overflow so that it is standing room only. Roman Catholic visitors are perplexed at how their Eastern counterparts seem to be swimming against the tide.

The Eastern Catholics are not tainted by the litany of abuse scandals, and many of their priests are family men who have much more to lose than their priesthood if they abuse their power.

Being close-knit communities, any suspect behaviour cannot be dealt with by relocation to other parishes as the global grapevine grows all the way back to the home country.

To be fair, the healthy growth and spiritual glue of Eastern Catholics may also be attributed to the geographic proximity to the birthplace of Jesus, the recent canonisation of several saints, the leaning on pillars of faith to survive wars, and the post Arab Spring prayer that Christian minorities do not become an endangered species.

In the short term, the royal commission revelations are likely to deter Australians from pursuing priesthood, and the clergy is likely to attract fewer recruits among their faithful flock.

While the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, hopes a royal commission will vindicate the Catholic Church canopy and shed any remaining bad apples, the tree trunk and its branches may become a no-go zone during the cull.

But this may be the perfect time for in-house renovations and reform.
Although the Vatican may have no ”appetite” for reviewing clergy celibacy, Cardinal Pell could whet his appetite by revisiting the vibrant Eastern Catholic churches. He could then respectfully request that the Vatican revisits the question of celibacy among the clergy.

Rather than argue the case for married priests, as if this was a dangerously radical idea, his proposal could be to revisit what used to be the norm for priests in the first half of the church’s history.

Rather than asking why married men should be allowed to become priests, the more pertinent question is why not?

This is not some risky venture into unchartered terrain, but a return to the roots of the church and a grafting with the Eastern branch of the same tree. It would open the doors to a pool of clergy with a wider diversity of life experiences. They would inevitably enrich the clergy culture and it would also help close the doors to opportunistic paedophiles who traditionally sought shelter under the branches of ”forgiveness”.

In all my encounters with Eastern Catholic clergy, there was never a hint of suspicion about sexual predators or grooming among married or celibate priests. Yet the celibate Christian Brothers who taught me seemed incomplete and craved affection.

Married men are already in a position of responsibility and authority, and should therefore be less likely to crave positions of power.
Even Jesus chose a wide cross-section of people, many of whom were married men, to be his ministers to the four corners of the world.

If married priests can provide hope as both ”small f” and ”capital F” fathers, then this may be the perfect time to learn something from the East, where it all began.