I was impressed by
this article on astral travel.
I also want to do a "cross-link" and cross-post.
The "cross-link" is to mark the second anniversary of the passing of a politician whose electorate we used to live in. The post is
"In memorium - and an exhortation to engage", and is a fairly long list of extracts from political emails, which I won't cross post here, but it also includes the following, which I will cross-post, as I consider spiritual activism needs to be undertaken jointly with physical activism:
The following extracts
are from selected emails I’ve written over the years to a former member of my home
state’s Parliament (the Legislative Assembly) when I lived in her electorate. Her
passing, two years ago this week, was early and untimely.
I’ve corrected some of
the typos.
(Also, please note that I have written many other emails on these matters,
but to other Members of Parliament.)
My main personal reason
for this post is a sense of mourning; however, it may help to show others that there
is a point to engaging – politely and constructively (which can be difficult when you're frustrated, but does lead to better outcomes) - with
your elected representatives. My correspondence was not the only, or
even of any particular significance, on these issues, but there were
changes on some of these matters - not always as timely or as far as I
wished, but enough to show me the value of being engaged - and that
engagement has, partly as a result of other positive experiences with
politicians, led to me joining a political party, albeit more to the
left than this particular MLA.
Some of our correspondence
was hard copy, which allowed us to, for instance, share a love of walking barefoot
(with a reply having my typed name crossed
out and replaced with “fellow barefoot advocate”, for instance).
She wasn’t family, our
relationship was too narrowly focused, official and limited to be a
friendship, and her politics were more to the right of mine but she
accomplished a great deal (especially on domestic violence), was a good elected representative, and I miss her.
Blessed be, Fiona Richardson.
The other article is also from
my political blog, and was originally posted at
https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-commentary-on-todays-appeal-court.html.
*****
The Appeals Court of my home state has rejected an appeal by a
well-known neochristian figure against his conviction for child abuse.
Child abuse victims - including the one at the centre of this case - and
supporters / allies have welcomed this decision, split 2-1 though it
was, but there is a possibility of an appeal to Australia's High Court
(partly because of the split), so the matter has not been resolved.
The decision has brought a few things to mind for me.
Firstly, irrespective of the outcome of any further appeals, I do not
like the person convicted, but that dislike is not based on any
potential child abuse, it is based on his homophobia, transphobia, and
dedication to and proselytising of an inhumane interpretation of
neochristianity. In fact, I have read articles - long before these
charges were laid - where others of his faith were critical of him for
similar reasons.
He also, in my opinion, developed an utterly inadequate response to
child abuse when it started to become public, but that may have been due
to much of the rest of his neochristian church as much as him.
NONE of that means he is a child abuser. I'm aware
of some people linking having power to child abuse, but I'm also aware
of at least some abusers going out of their way to be personable, which
doesn't, in my opinion, apply to this person.
Secondly, I am thinking of the victims - which includes me, although my
abuse was not at the hands of religious people. Some religious people,
including priests, are also thinking of the victims - see, for instance,
here.
For those who need them:
- Lifeline on 13 11 14
- Kids Helpline on 1800 551 800
- MensLine Australia on 1300 789 978
- Suicide Call Back Service on 1300 659 467
- Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36
- Headspace on 1800 650 890
- ReachOut at au.reachout.com
I mentioned that I've been abused
(and sexually assaulted). I've
done my fair share of being counselled, but today is still stirring up a few
things, and one of those is some events at school where I realised,
after I watched the film
"Spotlight", that I was being "groomed"
(the abuse that happened was without prior grooming - and was outside the family).
I was fortunate that I realised I felt uncomfortable, and had enough
strength of character, stubbornness, or whatever to politely decline any further contact of that
nature.
As this trial has been proceeding, I've been wondering whether that person I declined contact with actually committed any abuse, or if I was wrong
(I was not wrong to back out of further contact), or if I was a one-off for that person - who, you will notice, I am carefully not giving any identifying information about
(as I could be wrong about their intent, and I backed out before anything happened). I've done some internet searching for the person concerned, but without any result, and I suspect I will never know.
That was the third point. The fourth is the vehemence of the well-known person's
supporters, who are prepared to disbelieve the jury's assessment. Now, noting that there is a difference between freedom of expression or valid criticism and the unreasonable behaviour known as "
scandalising the court", that
disbelief is not limited to the judicial system, it occurs in many other
areas of life, including politics, assessing climate change - even on
the issue of whether the earth is flat or round
(for the record, I say round).
There are circumstances where such scepticism - aka objectivity - can be
useful - for instance, when considering Russia's infamous "show trials",
or Chinese propaganda, or when choosing how to react to something on
social media.
The current situation, in my opinion, is not one of those situations.
My standard response when asked about controversial court decisions is
along the lines of "I wasn't in court, so I didn't get to see all the
evidence and hear the testimony, so I don't know". When it comes to
child abuse, however, one of the biggest problems is not believing the
victims - a point made very eloquently in "Spotlight", and something I
have knowledge of from my life as well
(although not directly).
My opinion is that this person's supporters need to recognise that there
are two matters they are possibly conflating: their feelings about the
person, and their feelings about their faith - which is bigger than any
one priest. It may help them to acknowledge and meditate on that. If I
can separate my dislike for the person concerned from the charges before the
courts, they can do the same for their like.
People are complex creatures - after all, even the truly evil
John Howard
did some good with the national gun laws. I don't consider the person
whose appeal was rejected today has done anything to offset anything,
but his supporters do. Maybe they should also reflect on the complexity
of humans as well.
