My Religion

‘Religion’ [inverted commas]

Religion is a term that can refer to many different things including belief, philosophies, culture and community. Here I am going to talk about ‘religion’ in terms of a personal belief that exists in all people (including both those who do and do not believe they encounter a spiritual realm) which gives us a framework to function. Religion as I will refer to it is the driving force behind the christian, muslim, jew, atheist, agnostic, etc. Religion is not the monopoly of those who call themselves ‘religious’ but the meaning that each of us find. It is the truth that points us to a capital ‘T’ Truth.

Loss of innocence

My basis in religion stems from growing up in a baptist church with my immediate family members involved in churches of various denominations. There are some critical points in my lived experience which caused me to deconstruct what I once knew to be infallible truth, and have in turn pointed me to what I understand to be Truth.

Hell

Hell for me was a place where people who hadn’t committed their lives to Jesus ended up. I was never really sure whether it was fire and brimstone, or simply a separation from God. But I was taught that it is the place my friends end up if I don’t convert them. When someone who mentored me in the social justice space hung himself, I tried to synthesise my belief with a new lived reality. My friend wrote on his note ‘if there is a God, I hope he forgives me.’

I only have my lived experience to back this up. I know that a God who deeply loves humanity and could even deeply love me would not be a God who would throw my friend into the depths of hell for eternity for not towing the party line. Like Rob Bell, I began asking ‘does God get what God wants?’, and believing in the God who wants relationship and restoration, I could only answer yes.

So from that perspective, I don’t actually care whether Hell exists in another realm. It could, but nothing in my world would fall apart if it didn’t. What I do know is that hell exists on earth now - in Australia’s detention centres, in occupied Palestine, and for people trapped in situations of domestic violence.

Depravity

Though I may have struggled to admit this, depravity was the lens through which I saw the world. I believed that humans at their very core were broken not bent. The only way to resolve this brokenness was to wrap it up with orthodoxy (right belief), and then fix other people’s brokenness through orthopraxy (right practice). I had to remind myself and others of our shared depravity, and that I had the magical cure to offer them.

It was a radical change for me to come to the understanding that at our very core, at our deepest level, we are the image of God. We have within us the Truth that we are seeking. It’s the Truth which other truths guide us towards. Rather than adding doctrine, theology and religious practices into our lives, we must strip back the lies, hurt and pain which stand in the way of us becoming at one with our very essence. Only then can we delve into and derive energy from the image of God inside us.

This has lead me to believe that good can exist where I was told God was not. There is the capacity within every living human to contribute to a wider vision of what could be. There is nothing I can do to remove the image of God and truth within me from myself or from another human.

Reconstruction

It’s much easier to deconstruct than to reconstruct. For many of us, our lived experience propels us into deconstructing the systematic religion we once believed. A life without reconstructed religion or philosophy is appealing. It presents itself as freedom gives the illusion that happiness is attainable.

Perhaps more problematically, such a deconstructed understanding tends to hold up happiness as the central virtue. Yet it cannot derive meaning or purpose in suffering, and it doesn’t have the foresight to sacrifice for the ‘other’. The identity of the deconstructed self is entirely fluid, unreliable, and is unable to hold to principal through trials in order to better understand itself. The deconstructed self can only exist in the immediacy and no one should dare to predict where it may be tomorrow.

While at our very core we have only the capacity to love and to do good, surrounded by this is are our capacities to be selfish, to hate, and to destroy. I believe we can be active in engaging the deepest level of ourselves and others and in doing so bring about a kind of ‘heaven’ on earth and to some degree, within our own lived experience. This could have many facets, but for me includes:

1. A commitment to a specific community to draw energy from
2. Seeing the outsider as sacred and inviting them in (the greatest example I perceive of this 'enemy love' is the Crucifixion of Jesus and the way he responded to a violent system)
3. An openness to learn and adopt the truths of others which point to Truth.
4. Understanding heaven and hell are lived realities for many people
5. Pursuing a world which releases people from manmade ‘hells on earth’ and enables heaven to take root among us.

'Generosity Cap' : stepping towards a refugee solution

I have been involved in refugee advocacy for over three years. I have said a lot about what is morally wrong with how the state of Australia treats asylum seekers, and how the nation of Australia views them. I have also discovered that many on ‘my side’ of the fence, as it were, are somewhat more reluctant in putting forward a tenable ‘solution’, or at least a step in what we may believe is the right direction.

This is understandable as there are many contradictory ideological perspectives that can group together to attack how the state and nation view those seeking asylum. It is far easier to bond together on what we are against, rather than what we stand for. The reality is that those who are against the current treatment of asylum seekers do not all stand for the same thing, so we have grouped together around what unifies us.

Saul Alinsky says that ‘the price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.' Many of us are terrified of the word ‘solution’, because its heritage in Australian political discourse makes it seem synonymous with ‘deterrence’ rather than something that actually addresses the reasons as to why people are seeking our protection.

So here is my first try at a ‘solution’. I think this is humane, realistic, and a step in the right direction.

Refugee Camp: Sven Torfinn for the Guardian

'Generosity Cap' : a refugee solution

7.5% of Australia’s gross population increase should be reserved for protection visas with a minimum of 30,000 to be granted each year. Currently Australia’s population is increasing by approximately 400,000 people each year. 30,000 is a reasonable figure - we need the numbers regardless.

An additional 10,000 places should be made available for permanent protection reunion visas, where a refugee in Australia can sponsor a family member when they have the means to independently support those who they are being reunited with.

It’s difficult to come up with a number like 30,000 or 7.5%. One way of looking at it is to first consider that Australia has about a 1% share of global wealth.  There are just over 50,000,000 refugees in the world. This means that Australia’s fair share is around 500,000. It is difficult to assess over how many years the 50 million refugees have been ‘produced’. The UNHCR reports that there were 10 million new refugees last year along. It would take us about 17 years to become host to over 500,000 first generation refugees or 13 years if we are to include reunion visas. 

It is worth noting that resettlement is not always the best option. Many refugees are looking for peace, not resettlement. It would seem that the 5 million Palestinian refugees are not all desiring resettlement in Australia. But for many of the 50 million refugees in the world, resettlement is their only option.

This intake can only be increased by individuals or communities committing to hosting an asylum seeker, or asylum seeker families for periods of at least 3 years. Those who are hosted for three years by members of the public will not count towards the 30,000 cap. This is a fair compromise between collective responsibility towards those in need and individual. This is a ‘cap’ that is determined by the generosity of Australian citizens.

Maximum 10,000 refugees can be resettled through arriving by boat or claiming protection once in Australian territory. Only those who are found to be genuine will be resettled. Once the 10,000 cap is reached, asylum seekers will be forced to relocate either back to their home country or to a regional refugee camp which is co-sponsored by the Australian government unless Australian individuals and communities are willing to commit to hosting them.

Those who arrive by boat and are found to not be genuine should have the right to appeal. If they are unsuccessful or choose not to appeal, they should be sent back to their home country where possible. In the rare cases that they are unable to be sent back, they should be given temporary residency in Australia.

The Australian government should once a year check on the status of those who have been sent back through a trusted humanitarian organisation over the course of five years. If it is found that forced deportations have resulted in those who were thought to have not been refugees being persecuted then this policy must be reconsidered.

At least 20,000 refugees from camps, primarily in the Asia-Pacific region should be resettled in Australia each year. This should lower the number of boat arrivals and drownings at sea. There should be incentives for employers to hire refugees so that they can become ‘economic contributors’ as soon as possible (acknowledging that various studies have shown that refugees are currently contributing greatly towards Australia’s economy).

The Australian government should invest in online infrastructure to make it simple for members of the public to be able to host refugee families during their initial resettlement in Australia.

What are your thoughts?

Not so Super

One of the joys of attempting to navigate towards the Kingdom in the unKingdom/non-Kingdom kingdom of our world is working out the least worse decision when there is no clear singular moral option. I think this is the case for superannuation. Money can be a very bad thing - we know what it does to us yet we still submit to it. However, I think superannuation is nearly unavoidable. So if you have super or are considering investing in a super fund then keep reading.

There are a plethora of ethical and topical considerations which cannot be ignored when it comes to where we invest our money. This is why I recently emailed REST who I currently invest with to find out more about their ethics. This was my email:

'I am a member of Rest Industry Super. I am hoping that you can clarify the following points for me as to my investment with Rest.

1. Does Rest invest in companies who manufacture weapons?
2. How does Rest ensure that my investments cause no harm to the environment?
3. Does Rest adhere to a transparency code?
4. Does Rest adhere to a charter of ethics?
5. Does Rest invest in gambling, alcohol, tobacco, or any other industries that are commonly considered to be unethical?'

I sometimes agitate by asking too many questions, but I didn't really consider the above questions unreasonable. This was the response I received:

'Sustainability is one of many important investment considerations our investment managers seek to take into account. We don’t classify underlying investments we hold as you require and we do not restrict investment on any singular consideration. We invest in a range of assets such as shares, bonds, property and infrastructure.'

I found the above response completely inadequate from a customer service perspective and from an ethical perspective. To not restrict investments according to particular 'singular' considerations means that anything is up for grabs... weapons, gambling, porn - you name it!

Australian Superannuation had been suggested to me as the default option for people working in the NGO (NFP) sector. Unfortunately they have removed their restrictions on unethical investments in 2010.

I also had a look at Crescent Wealth, Australian Ethical Super, Cruelty Free Super, and Christian Super. My criteria was that my fund of choice must have a clear stance on various ethical issues, most importantly, weapons manufacturing. They also must have a good standing with SuperRatings.

The list is as follows, from good to bad:

1. Christian Super - for it's clearly defined stance on topical issues and great ratings
2. Australian Ethical Super - for it's somewhat defined stance on topical issues and good ratings
3. Crescent Wealth - for it's clearly defined stance on topical issues, good treatment of animals (generally), clear stance on weapons
4. Australian Super - Good ratings/awards
5. REST - ....?

To clarify - Christian super is not first because I identify with the term Christian. That would be like taking a how-to-vote card from the Christian Democrats. Christian Super seem to have the clearest stance on the issues which I feel strongly about (not sure what they are? read the rest of my blog!).

Thoughts?