This post relies heavily on the sources that it cites as it develops its reasoning. Should any source be found to be discredited, then any conclusions drawn therefrom should be regarded as questionable. Readers are invited to approach this post in that light.

Methodology

This post examines a selection of articles published under the name of Melinda Tankard Reist. It goes on to perform a critical analysis of those posts, and to invite readers to consider how Melinda Tankard Reist could be affecting the lives of her compatriots.

Melinda Tankard Reist’s “About” Page

Melinda Tankard Reist’s “about” page on her web site can be found at http://melindatankardreist.com/about/. It includes the words “advocate for women and girls”. This contrasts with Global Education’s (http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/globaled/go/pid/517) view of gender equality which includes the words “Men, too, can suffer from gender inequalities. In some countries these include increasing male mortality rates, suicide rates that far surpass those of women, increasing social isolation, and problems related to alcohol, drugs and other substance abuse.”. This prompts the following question: “Is Melinda Tankard Reist covertly pursuing a misandrist agenda?”. I leave it to readers to find any words from Melinda Tankard Reist in support of men’s rights.

“An (un)informed choice”

The link to the piece “An (un)informed choice” at the time of writing is http://www.abortionconcern.org/dialogue/an-uninformed-choice.php. The piece includes the words “Abortion has fostered a eugenic-inspired belief that only certain people should have babies, and only when the timing and circumstances are perfect.”. The piece does not cite any research to support this statement. The piece then draws a number of questionable conclusions from this assertion, including, inter alia, “It restores a woman’s slim and youthful figure to its pre-pregnancy, socially desirable state; a uterine stapling to correct an out-of-control body and prevent unnecessary weight gain.”. Given the lack of falsifiable evidence from the un-cited research, the conclusions drawn from the initial premis must be regarded as invalid.

Melinda Tankard Reist’s Posts

At the time of writing, the most recent four articles at http://melindatankardreist.com/ all address the issue of teenagers’ sexual behaviour, and three of them mention pornography. One of the articles is a guest post. What is noticeable is that none of them appears to cite sources for the social assertions made (such as ‘Only one in four hear that “experimenting with sexualities and pleasure is OK”’). This makes it it impossible to check the validity of such statements, and renders them on a par with “The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world in six days.”.

Melinda Tankard Reist’s Grand Œuvre: “Giving Sorrow Words”

Melinda Tankard Reist’s book “Giving Sorrow Words” (ISBN 1 875989 67 6) gave rise to this comment “What is not disclosed in the book is that recruitment for the interviewees for the book was done through anti-abortion networks throughout the country.” at http://directaction.org.au/issue5/anti-abortion_movement_feminist_fakers. That link then goes on to explore the potential reaction of women are perfectly happy with their abortions, and then encounter the book: they are at risk of having the same guilt complex experienced by Catholic women who use contraceptive devices against the edict of the Pope.

It cannot be claimed that the book gives a balanced overview of the issues confronting women before an abortion.

“Another day, another fresh wave of e.hate”

The article to which the above heading is a title can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/another-day-another-fresh-wave-of-ehate-20120121-1qbgj.html. The article includes the words “This can be summarised as ”MTR really needs a good f—”.”. It is perhaps worthwhile mentioning that not everybody has the same facility with words as does Melinda Tankard Reist herself. Moreover, there are people whose command of their mother tongue is very poor. (I write from personal experience, and I will not cite the evidence on which I base this claim, as to do so would be to violate my students’ privacy.) It can be argued that there are people for whom that is the only way in which they can express their outrage at Melinda Tankard Reist’s words. The article cited appears not to take this factor into account.

(Astute readers will notice that this post is my equivalent of the responses which caused the “f—” quote above.)

My Anonymity

Readers are entitled to ask why I have posted this piece anonymously. The reason is simple. I live as part of a family unit, and I have a responsibility to members of that unit. I also have a responsibility fellow Australians, which responsibility I seek to discharge as best I can.

Before going any further, I must take a detour to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Reading the preamble makes it obvious that the Declaration lays duties upon governments. Reading the articles of the Declaration make this even more obvious.

We can now look at a letter sent by Melinda Tankard Reist’s lawyer to Jennifer Wilson (twitter: @NoPlaceforSheep, blog: http://noplaceforsheep.com/). That letter cites Article 12 of the Declaration, and then goes on to state, inter alia, “Australian law protects Ms Tankard Reist against your breach of her rights …”.

I have no desire to expose other members of my family unit to this sort of treatment.

Conclusion

It would seem that Melinda Tankard Reist has a not inconsiderable following. There is the link above to the Sydney Morning Herald. She also appears to be a public speaker. As such, she has influence over a significant number of people.

Having laid the groundwork, I can now invite readers to ponder the following question: “What is the morality of her writings?”.

This post was prompted by Richard Glover’s question “What about Christianity do you see as misanthropic?”, and I felt that his question deserved a longer response than would be appropriate in a comment box, so here goes.

What Is Christianity?

Before I can answer Richard’s question, I need to make clear my own understanding of the nature of Christianity. (Hint: those who would disagree with me should start here.) I see Christianity as having two parts: a core, and society’s response to that core.

Society’s response to the core is as varied as the individuals who come into contact with that core. At one extreme, we have individuals who believe in what is essentially a personal God, a basically benificent creature who has no relationship to the God of the Old Testament. These people interpret the Bible in a very flexible fashion. At the other extreme, we have people who believe that the Bible is a true and precise record of God and all of creation; such people for example include Young Earth Creationists, and those who allow their relatives to die by preventing routine life-saving medication.

Groups in society display an equally wide range of responses to the core. At one extreme we have countless organisations doing good work in the name of Christianity, looking after those members of society who are unfortunate or poor. At the other extreme, we have examples such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions.

The responses of individuals and groups to the core vary through time and place, and are governed as much as anything by the mores of the society in which they live.

What Is The Core?

By now, you will probably have inferred that by the core I mean the Bible and all that springs immediately from it. I believe that the core is misanthropic. In the best of scientific tradition, I am now required to justify that claim.

At the bottom of all this is the question of whether or not an individual accepts the scientific method. I have faith in the scientific method (okay, I chose that word deliberately!) because I have found that it works for myself and (more importantly) for those who rely on me. The scientific method relies on using falsifiable evidence: if the evidence and interpretations claimed can be reliably repeated, then there is a chance that the claim is true. The more often the repetition is observed, the more often the claim is likely to be true. I base my life on this. I am aware that many (most?) people choose not to go down this analytical route.

We now come to the Bible, and its central thesis, which is of a virgin woman giving birth to a male child, and that child ascending to heaven after his crucifiction. None of the evidence in this is falsifiable; as such it must be immediately dismissed. Moreover, since science has shown us that there is a difference in mass between X and Y chromosomes, how did one of X chromosomes in Mary’s womb get converted to a Y chromosome without killing Mary by all that mass being converted to energy? Anybody who claims that an “angel did it” is relying on evidence that is not falsifiable.

The above is merely one example of claims made by Christians based on evidence that is not falsifiable. The claim by Christians that other people believe the same thing used as justification for their own positions also ultimately lacks the quality of falsifiability.

So Why Is Christianity Misanthropic?

By denying the scientific method, the core of Christianity causes teachers to teach falsehoods, such as “DNA wasn’t invented then”, “It was Noah’s flood that caused the Grand Canyon”, and “The Earth is only 6,000 years old”. This misleads learners. This is unacceptable in a civilised society.

On the basis of the above, I conclude that (the core of) Christianity is misanthropic.

The Australian Book of Atheism is a collection of 33 essays by Australians on the subject of atheism. The collection itself is well organised, covering personal experiences, education, social and cultural, politics, philosophy, and religion and the brain. It is a body of thought which demolishes the positions of theists and agnostics alike.

The book has far too many highly quotable gems to be included in a review, so I must limit myself to just these few:

• “An orchestrated ‘Euthanasia No’ campaign emerged, led by The Australian’s Paul Kelly, Sydney businessman Jim Dominguez, Labor’s Tony Burke, and then federal Liberal Party backbencher Kevin Andrews. They argued that those believing in God had a duty to rid the nation of [the Northern Territory law permitting euthanasia].” (p196)
• “It seems that our federal government values our troubled youth so much that they wish them to be guided by unqualified groups and individuals with a religious agenda.” (p339)
• “… look at the association between powerful religious and spiritual religious experiences and permanent or temporary dysfunction of particular regions of the brain.” (p418)

Praise must go to David Horton’s “Agnostics are Nowhere Men” which is a masterpiece of closely argued logic. Agnostics can expect to find this to be an extremely illuminating essay, and emerge as convinced atheists.

Tucked away at the back of the book so that it is easily missed is an appendix titled “The Cost of Advancing Religion”. The costs that it lists are astronomical.

This book is required reading for everybody who takes an interest in religion, specially those within any form of religious hierarchy.

Publication Details

• Title: The Australian Book of Atheism
• Editor: Warren Bonett
• Publisher: Scribe Publications
• Paperback ISBN: 978-1-921640-76-6

Introduction

One of the functions of a civilised society is to protect its members from fear and terror. I will take it that we all agree that brandishing a knife or a gun in a victim’s face causes such fear and terror, and that we all know that laws exist to protect all of us from such threats.

This post examines this duty to protect in the context of religion.

Observations

My thesis is that while society protects its members from overt forms of violence, it is woefully inadequate when it comes to covert forms of violence. Moreover, some sections of society are keen advocates of such covert violence, and the rest of society just shrugs its shoulders and pretends that such covert violence does not exist, or at least excuses it on the grounds that “it is religion, so it is okay”.

Readers can at this point expect me to find evidence for my claims so far.

There is a Facebook discussion on “Astrology, Global Warming and Creationism” where “Annette” writes “The children were a bit disturbed by the ‘reward/punishment’ concepts and by being told by a few of the other children that they would go to hell if they weren’t Christians” (my emphasis). We have a similar sentiment expressed by “Xx.jessielovesart.xX” at http://www.kidzworld.com/forums/express-your-faith/t/915814-dinosaurs-and-re?page=1. A Google search using the phrase ‘christianity “go to hell”‘ produced over 5,000,000 results at the time of writing. This would suggest that the concept of unbelievers going to hell is well-established in the Christian mind. Readers may also have their own anecdotes along similar lines.

Children will ultimately get the idea of unbelievers going to hell from adults. Children will also get the same message from their peers, who themselves have been taught by adults. In the school context, we can lay the blame for such learning entirely on the teachers, more often than not through Religious Instruction lessons.

An article entitled “Judgment Day” is available from the familyradio web site. In this case, the audience for the hellfire-and-brimstone message is not children, but listeners, most of whom can be expected to be adults. A little bit of mental arithmetic on that piece assures us that 97% of humanity is going to hell, and will be doing so before the end of 2011.

Discussion

There can be little doubt that instilling into children the fear of going to hell if you are not a Christian is widespread. (Again, a Google search using the phrase ‘children “fear of hell”‘ produced over 800,000 results.) This is a form of threat: “Believe what I tell you, or you will scream in agony in Hell for the rest of eternity.”. This is an extremely powerful message to any child; it is as strong to a child as a gunman facing a victim.

There are individuals in every society whose mental faculties are not as strong as the majority. Such people are easily lead. In the absence of being able to form their own well-informed opinions, it is inevitable that they will believe the statements emanating from organisations such as familyradio.

We now have two vulnerable groups of people who are being actively targeted by the hellfire-and-brimstone merchants.

An individual trained in the martial arts is perfectly capable of disarmed an armed attacker, and doing so with ease and almost complete safety. This comes down in part to the individual’s bodily preparedness. In the same way, an atheist can scoff at the statements of the hellfire merchants. This comes down to the individual’s mental preparedness.

Contrast this with the inability of the two vulnerable groups to defend themselves against Religious Indoctrinators (RI). People who have been victims of RI and have turned to atheism for comfort describe their experiences in much the same way as victims of physical violence. The article “Extinguishing the Fear of Hell” provides a graphic example of this.

I think that we now have enough evidence to conclude that the covert violence inflicted on society by the RI is just as real and just as damaging as by the overt violence of gunmen.

Government Complicity

The governments of Australia are doing nothing to address this issue. To make matters worse, they are funding RI to promote this sort of activity, as demonstrated by the Tim McKenzie case.

The cause of such government complicity is easy readily identified: Christianity. We have John Howard’s love affair with Christianity. We have Kevin Rudd’s avowed Christianity. Then there is Julia Gillard’s enthusiatic support for the School Chaplaincy Program at the behest of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Australia seems to regard itself as multicultural. There is active government support for multiculturalism. And yet we have daily Christian prayers said in the legislative bodies throughout the land.

Conclusion

There is an effective majority of politicians in this country who are blinded by their Christianity and the damage that this is causing to the Australian way of life.

This country needs to stop the Christian tail wagging the Australian dog.

Background

This post was prompted by some teaching of Tim McKenzie of the Set Free Christian Church. There is an excellent piece by PZ Myers of the University of Minnesota describing McKenzie’s errors as to science. Now seems like a good time to examine the ethics of such teaching.

Some Evidence

We have the (to my mind startling) fact that 70 per cent of scripture teachers think that children should be taught the Bible as historical fact (credit: Cathy Byrne).

We also have the attribution to the Education Queensland assistant director-general Patrea Walton that Creationism is part of some faiths, and therefore is part of some teaching (same link). Her biography at the Bullying in Our Community web site states that she “has an extensive understanding of the multiple issues associated with bullying”. I will contrast this with the ostracism of a Year 5 student in Australia’s Sunshine coast for questioning one of Tim McKenzie’s teachings.

The Queensland Department of Education is currently allocating between $5,000 and $10,000 for “Chaplaincy Funding” to schools low socio-economic areas.

We also have the statement “Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell” (my emphasis).

Discussion

We now have a situation where we have the Education Department of Queensland officiating over an education system paying large sums of money to teachers most of whom wish to teach mythology as fact. Given that protective spells are necessarily a part of witchcraft in our culture we now have state supported advocacy of witchery!

The Year 5 student’s ostracism amounts to bullying. Yet Patrea Walton’s biography above claims an “extensive understanding” of this issue. One has to wonder at Patrea’s level of commitment to eliminating bullying.

The primary purpose of education in any civilised society is to empower its children to become well-informed thoughtful citizens. Against this, it could be argued that the Tim McKenzie case is a one-off. However, this would be at odds with Cathy Byrne’s findings. What we have here is government funding which is achieving exactly the opposite effect.

Conclusion

Unless, and until, those religious elements in our society who seek to drag our children into the wayside are eliminated from our schools, our society will continue to suffer.

Background

For readers who are unacquainted with the concept of Intelligent Design, the reasoning behind the proposition of Intelligent Design goes something like this:

• Life on Earth is far too complicated to have arisen from simple mechanisms, particular the simple (and blind) mechanism of Darwinian selection.
• Therefore it must have arisen from something that is itself more complex than life on Earth.
• The something we will term “The Intelligent Designer”.

Discussion

Any serious scientific discussion is prepared to question everything. This is not limited to just the results of experiments, for example, but also question the validity of experimental methods and indeed the purpose of science itself. (As an aside, anybody who asserts that people who argue scientifically accept science “in blind faith” are woefully ignorant of the scientific method, and are crazy to think that they have anything useful to contribute in this arena.)

Given this, it is then perfectly legitimate for scientists to then ask “Who (or what) designed the Intelligent Designer?”. The response of people who feel threatened by this question is “That is not a legitimate question!”, which demonstrates their inability to engage in any meaningful philosophical or scientific discussion. Such individual almost always go on to cite their own holy book, giving reasons (and arguments) as to why that book is correct. This is pure folly on their part, of course, because they have already discredited their own ability to think in the eyes of their audience.

Conclusion

From my own observations, such people, like the poor, will always be with us. It is pointless trying to make them think coherently: their cognitive dissonance is an addiction in their lives. The task of free thinkers is ensure that the damage inflicted on society by such individuals is minimised as much as possible.

In a joyful pluralistic society the hoteliers of course have a right to confine themselves to their own ideals in their bedroom. What has happened here is that they have sought to impose their own sense of values on others, in this case the two gay men. The UK 2010 Equality Act has made it quite plain that lodging are outside the area of personal privacy of the owners of those lodgings.

The judge ruled against the hoteliers, though he has given them leave to appeal. Looking at the commentary in the article (linked above) it seems very unlikely that the appeal will succeed.

I see this event as a small step in the direction of eliminating the oppression that such people seek to impose on the rest of us.

In my view, society sould rejoice in the plurality of people’s ability to enjoy themselves and each other’s company. Those individuals who cannot so rejoice lead sad lives. Moreover, those individuals who seek to impose their own value systems on others are not fit to be members of a joyful society.

This blog is devoted to discussing that last group of people.