Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Dogmas change but habits remain

By Mark Christensen - posted Friday, 31 May 2013


Several centuries ago in darkened squalor, many of our Western European ancestors found the courage to brazenly question the political authority of a vast Christian establishment, its incessant moralising and the efficacy of its heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all doctrine.

Stick to these rules and rituals and you'll be saved a place in heaven beside the holy father. Yeah, right, as if he'd make it that easy!

The Reformation and Enlightenment were bold and heroic movements that rightly celebrated humanist ideals, the right of conscience and private judgements on big issues as well as small. As Immanuel Kant agued at the time, it was a hard-earned opportunity to finally grow up, a chance for the common man to free himself from an undignified reliance upon the received orthodoxy of an entrenched elite.

Advertisement

So, how does Australia rate in terms of maturity? Have we repaid the blood-soaked debt of our revolutionary forbearers and those who subsequently fought in combat to protect the cause? Are we, huddled here today in material comfort and political stability, honouring the true character of reason and democracy?

Science and technology has certainly all-but vanquished religious dogma as a political force, driving its lies and manipulations from the public sphere. Ecclesiastic views carry the same weight as any other. And a good thing.

But what has emerged in its stead? And is it poised to realise our time-honoured, ennobling convictions? And if not, why not?

Other than a bounty of materialism, you'd be hard pressed arguing modern democratic culture is the champion of self-determining individuals. More than anything, the state is principally seen as a maker of rules and imposer of punishments, a complex bureaucracy of centralised bribes and threats designed to make for a safer, secure, all round better society.

Take a hot topic like gambling in sport.

Put aside for a moment whether you think it right or not, and ponder the intellectual paradigm within which social and economic issues are examined and acted upon.

Advertisement

Elected representatives, having already made priest-like promises, are automatically expected to solve our problems by crafting new laws and regulations. True, a matter such as gambling is now considered objectively using science and reason, rather than the revealed truth of the Bible. And the debate is significantly more open, robust and transparent thanks to democratic procedures and a free press.

But when we boil it all down, how different is the ultimate intent of the state from that of the institutions it bested? Is our culture most concerned with personal freedom or the collective desire to control?

Peter FitzSimons, who has been instrumental in bringing pressureto bear on the government, free-to-air TV and Tom Waterhouse, is typical in presuming the essential purpose of democracy is to impose the will of the majority, and by doing so redeem humanity.

When I tweeted a sarcastic "Thank You" for saving us and our kids from advertised gambling, while noting his campaign categorised him as a moralist little different to those religious crusaders he so despises, The Sydney Morning Herald columnist replied: "So the church is the last word on morality? Please. Have you been following the Royal Commission in Melbourne on paedophilia?!"

And here we have the great moral contrivance of secular society.

As with the past, our cultural elite is only interested in compounding fear, hatred and cynicism. Open discourse regarding the true role of government and what we really signed up for with democracy, is consistently avoided. It's all about exercising raw political power in the sacred name of right and wrong. Shame, bully, ridicule, do whatever is necessary to reform those deemed undesirable.

And when confronted about such pontificating hypocrisy, immediately shift the debate to previous atrocities perpetrated by Dead White Male organisations who, interestingly, were brought undone by the very same arrogant, misplaced faith in social engineering.

Eddie Maguire's recent King Kong comment serves as another great example of how the rank emotionalism trumps all common sense.

Also writing in The Herald, Sam de Brito went on a rant in an article titled "Get real about racism".

Apparently, we "don't get it, because there are no consequences for being an ignorant, smug arsehole in this country". Australians have never given full acknowledgement to "the anger, the shame, the frustration, the bitterness and sorrow of what was taken from indigenous Australians".

And de Brito's healing solution for overcoming the well-intentioned yet appalling actions of a previous culture animated by Western moral superiority? His answer to how the "maggot" Maguire needs to learn his lesson?

It's as simple as it is ignorant: punishments proposed by morally superior and smug intellectuals.

Like the medieval church, the core business of the Australian government, usually at the behest of the popular media, is to make clear statements of belief for the purpose of formulating detailed doctrinal orthodoxy that is then imposed upon the willing and unwilling alike. It is certainly not encouragement of individuals to think for themselves, trust their own moral instincts or have their conscience cope with the consequences of their actions.

Which is fine and well. We can remain indulgent adolescents, and have the likes of FitzSimons and de Brito continue to convince us secular crusades based on their better versions of absolute truth is a winning formula.

But let's at least have the balls to admit that such a mindset will never honour the great sacrifices of the past.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

55 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark is a social and political commentator, with a background in economics. He also has an abiding interest in philosophy and theology, and is trying to write a book on the nature of reality. He blogs here.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark Christensen

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 55 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy