Phillip Jensen, and the deeper moral issues of the day ...

(Above: yes it's Sunday, and the pond is always on hand with mega bonus offers).

It's always a funny peculiar - as opposed to ha ha - thing to talk about freedom of speech with those of an ideological or theological bent.

There's Phillip Jensen of the Sydney Anglicans having an anxiety attack about the media attention paid to crazed Qur'an-burning Pastor Terry Jones of the Florida Dove World Outreach Center (some dove), and the lack of attention being paid in the Australian media to Pastor Youcef Ndarkhani at the hands of the crazed regime in Iran, as Jensen explains at length in What the Media does not report:

The media were quick to tell the tale of the lunatic fringe, of an American backwoods Christian pastor burning a Quran. It caused a stir all around the world - in part because the media went to such lengths to report it. But somehow, in Australia, they don’t tell of the Christian pastor who refuses to recant his beliefs on pain of death, in front of one of the most tyrannical and oppressive regimes of the world – surely that is a story worth telling. Does this illustrate our media’s incompetence, or bias, or political correctness or just plain censorship?

Now the worthy Dean got himself into a bit of a tangle, because there were actually a few reports in the media (all to do with searching for Yousel v. Youcef) but he updated himself, and maintained the rage about publicity stunt v the central moral issue of the pastor.

It turns out, in the course of his column, that Jensen thinks that the Qur'an is a cult item, the subject of idolatry, and a false idol at that, it's just that Jones should have settled for verbal abuse rather than reaching for the firelighter.

Yep we're off in strange fruit land once again, the kind of land where one cult denounces another cult, as shown most recently by assorted American Christians denouncing Mormonism as a cult, and therefor Governor Mitt Romney as a cultist unsuitable as a candidate for the Presidency (Rick Perry Refuses To Disavow Pastor Robert Jeffress Over Mormonism Comments).

It surely helps in the world of cultdom to have centuries to add a patina of gravitas and conviction as a way of lording it over the newcomers ...

Naturally the cultists have hit back at the other cultists, as The Salt Lake Tribune takes a view:

In his book “Hell? Yes!” Jeffress asks, “Is it right for God to send a ten-year-old girl to hell just because she has never heard of Jesus Christ?” Jeffress says yes: “The objection assumes the innocence of the little girl. … she is guilty of sin and is deserving of eternal death.” Of course, he says, “Hell will not be the same for everyone,” and that sinful little girl roasting in hell will presumably roast at a lower temperature than, say, a mass murderer will.

Oh dear, just when limbo might have come in handy.

It was about that moment I had a strange, aberrant desire to check out what the worthy Dean and the Sydney Anglicans had to say about Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas. Nary a peep, but maybe I mis-spelled his name and someone can set me right.

Abbas, you see, is subject to constant intimidation from Egyptian regimes - including their lackeys like YouTube - for daring to ask questions, and for showing videos of police brutality, and he takes a slightly different tack in relation to matters of religion, as he noted back in February when discussing appointments to the new constitutional panel, including a Coptic Christian judge and a former Muslim Brotherhood MP (naturally there were no women in the mix):

Wael Abbas, the best-known human rights blogger in Egypt, who was sentenced to prison by the Mubarak regime last year, said it was a "worrying" choice.

"There is no such thing as a moderate Islamist," he said. "We want a secular state that respects all religions and which belongs to all religions."

Wael Abbas is braver than the pond - way braver - but it's unlikely you'll find any of the cultists of various hues shedding either tears or offering up prayers as he fights the brave fight.

Wael Abbas turned up in episode three of the 2008 documentary Empire of the Word, which focussed on Forbidden Reading, and what was interesting in that programme to be reminded of the diversity of banning and censorship that went down in the twentieth century.

Allowing for Adolf's spectacular book burnings, none were more active at banning and censoring than Christian wowsers wanting to suppress the works of authors like Henry Miller and D. H. Lawrence. (In the usual way of it, they've turned the TV series into an online game, with the link to the game here. Is there nothing sacred in the new age of documentary interactivity?)

Yep, a cult - in all its forms, whether Catholic, Anglican or Calathumpian - which has for centuries persecuted writers and poets and artists for concepts alien to its theology, now expects people to take notice of religious persecution around the world ... even as religious persecution of those with a different take on sexuality or the world still continues in a kind of feeding frenzy.

You see, the Sydney Anglicans are linked arm in arm with what's going down in countries like Uganda (The future of evangelicalism):

Almost 20 years ago I remember being in a meeting where our current Sydney Anglican leaders foresaw the appointment of openly homosexual people to such positions. To all others present at that meeting, it seemed unthinkable. Almost 20 years on, it is humbling and disturbing to see this come to reality, and a powerful reminder that we must hold firmly to the authority of the Scriptures. This is where the battle is being played out.

It's all through the site as in Sydney Anglicans signal support for Africa, and the implications, especially for persecuted gays in countries like Uganda, are serious:

Sydney Diocese can be seen to pose a threat to the stability of the Anglican Communion, to the cohesion of the Australian Anglican Church, and also to other Anglican churches such as those in the United Kingdom, in the United States, in Canada, and New Zealand.

It is also potentially a danger to those third world Anglican churches that are part of the GAFCON organization, because it claims its involvement is in response to Gospel truth. Sydney and its friends are the true believers.

Churches not aligned with it, taking a different view principally on the issue of homosexuality but also on women in ordained ministry, are portrayed as deniers of the Gospel. These claims, from determined, persuasive, well-resourced church leaders bearing gifts of support for, and assistance to, emerging churches, are hard to resist.

Overall, Sydney's influence is of real concern for the future of world Anglicanism. (Sydney Anglicans and the threat to World Anglicanism).

Who'd want to be a Coptic Christian in Iran? Or a persecuted gay in Uganda?

The good Dean can bleat all he likes about persecution, but the obvious answer to that is to ask where the Sydney Anglicans stand in the matter of homosexuality in Africa.

How silly of you to ask. They can't even get along with all those other Anglicans, refusing to sign up to the Anglican communion covenant because of theological flaws:

The Primates Communique said “...while we acknowledge that the efforts to heal our brokenness through the introduction of an Anglican Covenant were well intentioned we have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate.”

And here's the kicker:

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

So much for freedom of speech in Sydney Anglican land. Synod has spoken and the sheep must fall into line. Dissension and alternative views will not be tolerated or expressed on the site ... and reading it, you'd barely have any understanding that this is all to do with the Sydney Anglicans aligning themselves with the homophobic rantings of church leaders in Africa ...

And they wonder why the crowd inside the Wesley Theatre these days looks mostly whiter and older than those on the street outside. Lordy, lordy, guess who's missing out on the Asian market big time ...

Here's the thing. If you want to take a stand against persecution and repression of free speech, you can't pick and choose.

Sadly if you believe in the right to be offensive to all, you have to accept the Bolter's right to be profoundly offensive, just as you have to recognise that Christians, Islamics, Scientologists, Mormons and others are profoundly offensive on a daily basis, and routinely play a part in the persecution of minorities ...

You can have fun fiddling at the edges - who didn't have fun at the sight of the Bolter copping a pounding and pretending he was a victim as opposed to a word mongering, power wielding member of the Murdoch elite - but in the end if you're going to stand up for freedom, you have to stand up for the cult of secularism in all its rainbow hues.

Because secularism is the only way to sort out the mangled tangle of state and religion, and keep all the religious cultists in some kind of order, and allow for civilised debate and discussion and a relatively free framework for freedom to say what you think ...

So when the Sydney Anglicans decide to stand up for persecuted secularists, why they'll be standing up for their own kind ... because the rest is a rabble of cultists ranting at each other ...

(Below: the uncivilised debate amongst the cultists).