Shouting 'fire' in a crowded church?

An interesting decision on religious vilification was recently handed down by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The decision is titled Investigation report no. BI-205 (23 August 2016).  It concerned the broadcast by United Christian Broadcasters Australia Limited (t/as Vision Christian Radio) of a lecture by Biblical apologist Chuck Missler as part of the 66/40 series.  The lecture discussed the Book of Revelation and included these passages -

This beast, of course, is the one that was described in Revelation thirteen. It’s a political system on the one hand and/or the leader of that system on the other, and here it’s presented as a scarlet coloured beast. That’s a very interesting colour. That’s the colour that’s been adopted by the Vatican as its primary thematic colour. ...

Verse four: “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication”.  Well purple has a lot of different meanings – it certainly was the imperial colour of Rome, every Senator and Councillor wore a purple stripe as his badge of his position, and the Emperor of the empire was arrayed in purple. And scarlet is the colour that’s been adopted in a similar fashion by Roman Catholicism. ...

Let’s move on, Revelation seventeen verse six “I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus ...”. ... Now as you’re following this I want to recommend, I don’t normally do this but I want to recommend another non-biblical source that you ought to have for your library, if you’re a serious Christian. And that’s a book by Dave Hunt called “A woman rides the beast”. Dave Hunt is a sound scholar, thorough researcher, he does have some views that I happen to have a slight disagreement with, one of which I explain to you as we get to it. But I have an extensive library on this subject - the classic work in this area is one by Alexander Hislop, published in 1881 and it is in most serious libraries. However it’s very dated, it’s also somewhat argumentative and not as perfect a reference as you’d like. Dave Hunt has repaired that, he’s done a thorough amount of research, it is extremely well documented, it is very controversial, because he doesn’t pull any punches. He makes a very clear linkage between the woman in Revelation, which isn’t the beast, it rides the beast, he makes that distinction. Many prophecy buffs that write books are insensitive to the fact that the Pope is not the Antichrist. The Vatican rides the beast, it isn’t the beast and so, but there is a clear linkage to the Vatican. That doesn’t mean it is limited to the Vatican but the Vatican certainly qualifies. The history of the Roman Catholic Church is part of what you need to acquaint yourself with if you’re going to understand your bible. There is no organisation on the planet earth that has murdered more Christians than the Roman Catholic Church. One Pope, one afternoon, murdered more Christians than all the Roman Emperors put together, and you need to understand that. I’m not going to get into that heavy here because there’s more to be done... but when you understand the history of the medieval Europe, and you see verse six, you immediately, draws you to a recognition of the abuse, of Christians specifically, by the Roman Catholic Church.

“I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the Saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus”. You can’t even find a second choice that comes close to them as an identity here. And that’s one of the reasons, I think, that John says “I wondered with great astonishment”. If he was shown the blood of the martyrs at the hands of pagan Rome, he wouldn’t be surprised – pagan Rome was the enemy of the church. But to find the so-called “Christian church” guilty of murdering martyrs astonished John. There’s a clue right there that the source of the blood of the Saints is in a surprising place.

A complainant alleged that this broadcast breached cl. 1.3 of the Open Narrowcast Radio Codes of Practice, relevantly providing that "Narrowcasters will not broadcast programs which are likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify any person or group on the basis of ... religion"

The Authority dealt wih the matter this way by noting that the speaker intimated a connection between certain passages of the Bible and the Catholic Church, particularly referring to the Vatican, Roman Catholicism, the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.   This was considered sufficient to establish that "for the purposes of clause 1.3, the group of persons identified is members of the Catholic Church and the relevant basis is religion".

In considering whether the broadcast was likely to incite hatred against or vilify a person or group based on religion, the Authority asked if the broadcast "was likely to have urged a reasonable person to share feelings of hatred against or vilify any person or group on the basis of religion".  The terms ‘hatred against’ and ‘vilification’ are directed towards the provocation of of a very strong reaction in listeners: it is not enough to induce a mild or even a strong response. 

In this case the Authority considered that the broadcast "was sectarian and to some extent critical" and that "some listeners may have considered the statements to be critical of the Catholic Church by associating it with the Antichrist, blasphemy, a counterfeit religion and claims of murder".  However, the relevant clause had not been breached because

Dr Missler did not use explicit language during the program that would have been understood by an ordinary reasonable listener as directly urging, stimulating or encouraging them to share feelings of hatred against or vilify a person or group on the basis of their religion or current religious practices and beliefs

and

[to] the extent that some listeners may have understood that the program was inciting them to share feelings of hatred against or vilify of members of the Catholic Church on the basis of their religion, it was not explicit or extreme enough to provoke the strength of audience response contemplated in clause 1.3 of the Codes

As such, the broadcaster did not breach clause 1.3 of the Codes.

Interestingly, the Authority was referred to but did not consider relevant the history of antagonism in which a strand of Protestant thought has considered Catholics to be inherently disloyal and murderous.  For example, the 'Chick tract' Are Roman Catholics Christians? (Ontario 1985) includes these passages -

Nor is it difficult to imagine a ready audience for these views among those who consider the Catholic church to be deceitful -

Note the refusal to use the names adopted save in quotation marks

... or demonic -

In this context, the broadcast is arguably a kind of auditory equivalent of the "Deutschland erwache" flag.  Strictly in itself, it carries little or no threat.  In context, it operates as an incitement to people of a certain strain of thought to view part of the community as a mortal enemy.  'Awaken' indeed.

Image from here

To this extent, then, one may submit that the Authority is using too stringent a test for claims under cl. 1.3.  A better test may, perhaps, be to ask whether the broadcast would be understood to incite a listener to shun contact with the group discussed.

A time (not?) to judge

Hi everyone,






The other day the ABC's "AM" program covered the harsh treatment meted out to captured members of the Waffen-SS by France in the aftermath of the Second World War.  My gut said this was an inappropriate story.  I fumed on Facebook:

Pretty disgusted that the ABC ran this story. For pity's sake, the Waffen-SS was not the German army: it was the military wing of the Nazi Party. Anyone who served in it should have had no protection under the laws of war. They certainly cannot be heard to complain that they were harshly treated

My good friend Māra offered a different view, pointing out that -

Not all SS was evil. In the Baltic States young men were forced to join them. Some of them did it by choice in order to fight Russians who had occupied our countries. My father was one of them and for this Russians sent him to Siberia when they won the war and the world superpowers sacrificed the Baltics to Stalin to protect their own interests.

Image from here

The exchange left me thinking how hard it is to judge other people's actions fairly.  The Third Reich worked little but evil, but clearly there are pleas in mitigation to be made for many who served it.  If that's so, then it's even harder to be confident that one can or should condemn those who served causes where there was genuine justice on both sides (as was done by the people who recently defaced Confederate graves in North Carolina).






All this being so, ought we judge, condemn or disappprove people today whose actions appear worthy of condemnation, like the Oregon militiamen or, indeed, ISIS?  Or is this just a cowardly retreat into deliberate indecision?

Screw them all

I reached a snapping point driving to work this morning.  My radio was tuned to 97.7 FM, which is ABC Goulburn Murray.  What did the tagline for the broadcast say?  It informed me I was listening to "774 ABC Melbourne (and ABC Victoria)".  This was followed by the weather for Melbourne.  And the traffic. For Melbourne.  And then stories with no apparent importance to the Goulburn Valley or indeed anyone in regional Australia.


People following the news will have read of the now-approved changes to the ABC's regional broadcasting schedule.  We're assured that this simply means

extend[ing] the 'Breakfast' programs and introduc[ing] a new feature-based program ... to run from 10am to 11am. ... The local 6.30am, 7.30am and 12pm news bulletins will still be produced locally and remain unchanged. Other bulletins will be produced externally, with local stories dropped into the bulletin.

And if you believe that these changes won't morph into local radio simply relaying broadcasting for Melbourne and Sydney, I have a beachfront property at Mildura on which you like to make an offer.


This is of a piece with the reports in the last ten days that only

four of 109 new mobile phone towers promised to fix Victoria’s blackspots have been built, ... [leaving] Victorians in some of the state’s most fire-prone regions at risk of missing out on vital emergency information

Recycled radio, patchy phone coverage, and the thousand-and-one other slights are handed to people who live outside the major cities. Can you imagine western Sydney or the Melbourne sandbelt being treated like this?  No, you cannot.


Screw them all.  Screw. Them. All.  It doesn't matter how 'passionate' your local MP is, or what a 'great advocate' they claim to be.  If they can't deliver, all you've got is someone who can talk the talk and not much else.


Come the next election, vote for anyone, as long as you put your sitting member last and their main rival second last. 


It's time to be angry.

How to save the world

I traded a few Facebook messages with a dear friend yesterday morning and said something that was actually quite good.  This post is based upon that idea.

As some of you will remember, I have a bit of a fraught relationship with the ABC's current affairs programs, AM and PM.  I usually listen to at least a part of them, out of a sense of duty and sometimes from morbid curiosity.  Yesterday morning, though, was especially disheartening: an interview with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, a man whose financial probity has been questioned.  He, for his part, was giving an interview that ran heavily to key messages and ideas clearly thoroughly vetted by focus groups.  The news then moved on to the government MP and Speaker of the House, Bronwyn Bishop, who has her own financial irregularity issues.  It nauseated me to think that we are lead, now, by men and women whose words and deeds are never more than petty and venal, and who think we're stupid enough to believe them when they speak in soundbites.

It nauseated me most because the world in general and humanity in particular is such a beautiful thing.  Every day we see and hear of physicians who use their considerable brainpower to alleviate the sicknesses of ordinary schmoes like me.  Scientists show us new things about how the universe works and engineers find a way to put that knowledge to practical use.  Men and women from the Dalai Lama and Pope Francis down find a way to lead devoted and holy lives.  Artists create things of beauty and athletes bring out in actions all that is best in the human spirit.

Maryanne Jacobsen, 'It's the little things that count'

available for purchase at Paint Dance

The world today, in short, looks like a bank of swans being ruled by a murder of crows

I'm not about to suggest that we need a new political movement.  From at least as soon as the Fifth Monarchists cut a deal with Oliver Cromwell, power has tainted purity.  It strikes me that there's no point asking (as they did) "who shall rouse him up?" if, before rousing him up, we need to do a whole lot of unseemly bickering first.  And escaping the world with a personal version of Noah's Ark (or, more accurately, Jamshed's Var) is as economically precarious now as it was in Winstanley's day.

Banner of the Fifth Monarchists

But in all that we do these days, wouldn't it be better if more of us ignored the jackanapes and scoundrels who populate politics, and do things that express the best angels of our nature?  Paint a picture.  Learn first aid.  Write a poem.  Join the Country Fire Authority.  Dance.  Volunteer at an Opp Shop.  Offer to mow the lawn of the old lady down the road.  Plant a tree.  Make something.  Most of us aren't going to save the Amazon rainforest, but pretty well all of us can have a front yard that's pleasant for other people to look at.