Month: April 2007

In His Name

When people talk about Christianity they often criticise (if not overtly then implicitly) the Christian religion for actions that range from overtly evil to highly questionable. The common examples are bombings of abortion clinics and the crusades. In the case of the crusades they often ask how a religion can call itself just if they slaughter people merely because they adhere to a different religion. How the “church” could sanction, even encourage such behaviour. I recently saw a TV program presented by a person who was otherwise intelligent and astute repeating these ideas. I found this a little surprising because this is based on bad logic and a careful analysis of the arguments clearly displays the fallacy.

To put it into context we need to examine the meaning of the word Christian. This was actually a derogatory term coined during the first century to describe the followers of Christ’s teachings. Literally it means “Christ’s little ones”. What he taught was love for all, even our enemies, tolerance of those who are different, grace for those in difficult moral positions, forgiveness, patience, the freedom to allow people to make their own decision, respect for authority, intolerance of abusive power and personal holiness. In fact Jesus himself said they will know you by your love for one another. So in effect a Christian is one who adheres to these principles, not perfect since we all fail in the perfect stakes, but full of grace and forgiveness. So if this defines a Christian then for someone to be a follower of Christ they must necessarily adhere to these principles. As for the “Church” it is an organic group of people who have joined together to mutually encourage one another to follow these principles. Note that a Church is not an institution or an organisation or a man made structure with an organisational structure. These things may co-exist with the organic community but they do not define it or supplant it.

Now let me illustrate the problem. Let us say for example I claim to be a follower of the Liberal party (the right wing political party in Australia). I then proceed to criticise their immigration policy, then criticise their industrial relations policy, criticise their policy in Iraq, oppose their monetarist  policy, I become an active member of the union movement, in fact I oppose every policy the Liberal party has ever proposed and to openly support the opposite party – the Labour party. I make contributions to the Labour party but not to the Liberal party, I hand out how to vote cards for the Labour candidate, and I encourage people to vote for Labour. Am I a liberal, I have done all of this in the name of the Liberal party. Of course not – an absurd notion, no one would for a minute seriously consider me to be a Liberal. Why then do people assume then that people are Christians merely because they claim to be? Someone who slaughters men women and children, or terrorises abortion clinics can in no way of fashion be called a follower of Christ – however much they claim to be. People are not known by their labels but by their actions and as Jesus said to the people of his time who claimed to be doing God’s will – they are known by their father who is not God but Satan. Jesus himself saw through the labels and claims into their hearts, why do we then fall into the trap of accepting the label and fail to see the truth. Doing something in the name of Christ does not make Christ responsible. Does the fact that I hand out how to vote papers for the Labour candidate in the name of the Liberal party Now let me illustrate the problem.  To call an organisation a Christian Church does not make it one any more than calling my house a Mosque make it one.

I think it was Shakespeare who said that “A Rose by any other name still smells the same”. Most of us would recognise a Rose if we saw it and would not call a Lilly a Rose, so why do we call terrorists, rapists, murders, and such like Christians when their actions are totally opposed to anything Christ taught?

It is with great sadness that I read tonight of the passing of another wonderful cartoonist, Johnny Hart. He was the creator of my long time favourites BC and The Wizard of Id. It appears that he died in the saddle so to speak.
The good news is that his cartoons will continue. As with many artists maybe his best work will be created posthumously.

We have quite a complex system of justice with many checks and balances. Often we get it wrong but far more often we get it right. Often those who are victims or the innocent are upset with the outcome, but far more often it is the guilty are upset that justice has been one. Not only should justice be done but it should also seen to be done, which are not necessarily the same thing.

Some of the rules cover evidence, the way the guilty is treated, witnesses, the conduct of the advocates and the prosecution, even the conduct of the state. All of these rules apply equally to those accused of petty theft and to those accused of serial murder. It makes no difference in law – the rules of the court must be adhered to to ensure a balanced and fair trial. There are very good reasons for all of these rules and we weaken them to our peril. One of the wise men of the ancient world, the king Solomon said that it was a wise king that brought justice to those who could not defend themselves, and over many hundreds of years out system of justice has striven to do just that. We are right to be proud of the system that we have inherited from our forebears and it is beholden to every generation to uphold the time worn principles on which our justice system is founded.

It is easy to pass judgment in the media, or with whispered half truths. How easy it is for a state to slander and undermine the truth with the resources available to it. This is why the Westminster principle of the separation of powers is so important. Legislature, Judiciary and law enforcement should be independent so that evidence can he tested impartially and independently to see if has any veracity. Every accusation should be tested in the court to establish the truth.

Evidence obtained under duress is inadmissible. It is considered as unreliable and not allowed to be heard. The accused is permitted to hear and challenge any evidence that comes before the court. The accused must not be held without charge and that charge, when made, can be challenged to prevent abuse by the state.
But what of the plea bargain? Obviously the idea is that it saves the cost and burden of a lengthy trial where the accused admits their guilt and thereby demonstrates remorse and in return accepts a lighter penalty. There is however a fundamental flaw with the plea bargain. The evidence is not brought before the court. It is assumed that the person offering the plea is indeed guilty and not coerced. One would hope that the system of justice in the west is such that one pleading guilty is not doing so out of fear that there may be a perversion of justice and that they are indeed innocent. I am sure that the movie type scenario is the exception rather than the rule. However the recent challenges to old convictions by reason of the new science of DNA testing makes one wonder how many innocent people were executed or are still incarcerated.

But what of a system where even these protection I spoke about are suspended. Where there is no appeal process as we have in civil courts. Where the rules of evidence have been weakened to allow evidence obtained by coercion. Where the accused does not have the right to challenge certain evidence due to its “sensitive” nature. What if the accused had been held for over five years without charge, where they allegedly had evidence obtained from them and others using coercion? What if they were offered a way out – merely by agreeing with their accusers?

What do we know of David Hicks’ guilt? I contend that we know absolutely nothing. We have heard innuendo and rumour but none of this innuendo has been tested. We do not “know” that he is a terrorist, whatever that means. We do not “know” that he was a member of Al Qaeda. And his admissions mean nothing. The statements of a person under duress are worthless. I am not saying he was not a terrorist, but neither does anyone have the right to accuse him of being a terrorist. Nothing is proven and we will never know.

What this whole exercise demonstrates is that the protections from state abuse are precious and we erode them at our peril.