And now for a dash of clear thinking of an unclear kind, thanks to the Sydney Anglicans

(Above: the pond celebrates the importance of the Santa frock on a Sunday).

And now, it being Sunday, it's time for a brief note on the persecution of religions, thanks to Archbishop Jensen and his Law Service Address 2012.

We have to cut to the chase, a long way down the speech, but this isn't an hour's service with a long-winded lecture in the middle about morals, and the decline and fall of the west, declining and falling since the fall of Rome, so we have to get to the meat, cut to the chase, though the pond has to confess it was deeply startled by the thinking, and wondered whether a typo or two had crept into the transcription of the address:

... I am interested in a discussion I had recently with a Senior Counsel.

We were talking about anti-discrimination legislation and how it may affect Islamic religious schools and indeed Islamic religious freedom. Thus, to take one case in point, why should a Islamic religious school have the right to appoint an Islamic religious gardener? Surely a person’s religion makes no difference to their capacity to carry out the function of a gardener?

My colleague pointed to the difference in the way we answer the question ‘what are human beings?’ If you think of the job of the gardener in merely functional terms, as the work of an autonomous individual, earning a living among a lot of other autonomous human beings, there is no reason why it has to be a religious person. But if, following the idea of the Islamic image of God, you see the gardening as an Islamic vocation, an Islamic calling, the work of one who cultivates the earth as an Islamic image bearer, and if you connect the Islamic gardener with the very life of the Islamic community he or she serves, the outcome is different. The Islamic gardener is not merely an employee but a member of an Islamic body dedicated to the service of its Islamic members. I would want to employ an Islamic person who could pray for the Islamic students at least five times a day and who would model in an Islamic way what it means to be made in the Islamic image of God.

Hello theocracy. Hello Iran.

Using taxpayer dollars and taxpayer subsidies, no doubt, to support irrational prejudice and discrimination against those of a non-Islamic faith.

But it was admirable, in a perverse way, for Jensen to see an Islamic gardener as even more noble than Chauncy the Gardener.

It led the pond to thinking that this was also a handy line of argument for scientology schools eager to put out their paws for taxpayer cash, while promoting the thoughts of L. Ron Hubbard.

This could easily be done by a quick cosmetic brush applied to Jensen's thinking. A little lipstick, a little powder, a little eye-liner, a little rouge on the cheeks - not too much, not like a vulgar tart, but more like a demure Anglican girl - and hey nonny no, on we go:

... I am interested in a discussion I had recently with a Senior Counsel.

We were talking about anti-discrimination legislation and how it may affect Scientological religious schools and indeed Scientological religious freedom. Thus, to take one case in point, why should a Scientology religious school have the right to appoint a Scientological religious gardener? Surely a person’s religion makes no difference to their capacity to carry out the function of a gardener?

My colleague pointed to the difference in the way we answer the question ‘what are human beings?’ If you think of the job of the gardener in merely functional terms, as the work of an autonomous individual, earning a living among a lot of other autonomous human beings, there is no reason why it has to be a Scientological religious person. But if, following the idea of the Scientological image of God, you see the gardening as a Scientological vocation, a Scientological calling, the work of one who cultivates the earth as a Scientological image bearer, but only if cleared by an E-meter at vast expense, and if you connect the Scientological gardener with the very life of the Scientology community he or she serves, the outcome is different. The Scientological gardener is not merely an employee but a member of a Scientology body dedicated to the service of its Scientology members, who might be unclear if they walk in an unclear garden. I would want to employ a Scientological person who could give the students a decent clear over an E-meter while raking the leaves, and who would model what it means to be made in the image of L. Ron Hubbard, volcanoes and possibly Thetans, at least if they're not clear of Thetans.

By golly, the logic is impeccable, a real treat.

Using taxpayer dollars and taxpayer subsidies, no doubt, to support a blind and irrational Scientological faith, which somehow sees an E-meter and a scientological gardener as more noble than Chauncy the Gardener.

Oh okay, you've got the pond dead to rights, plumb in the cross-hairs.

Everything above is a mere idle Sunday fantasy.

Here's what Jensen actually said in his address, along with much other guff about religious freedom, which apparently should include the freedom to discriminate wildly against gardeners of the Chauncy Gardener kind:

... I am interested in a discussion I had recently with a Senior Counsel.

We were talking about anti-discrimination legislation and how it may affect religious schools and indeed religious freedom. Thus, to take one case in point, why should a religious school have the right to appoint a religious gardener? Surely a person’s religion makes no difference to their capacity to carry out the function of a gardener? My colleague pointed to the difference in the way we answer the question ‘what are human beings?’ If you think of the job of the gardener in merely functional terms, as the work of an autonomous individual, earning a living among a lot of other autonomous human beings, there is no reason why it has to be a religious person. But if, following the idea of the image of God, you see the gardening as a vocation, a calling, the work of one who cultivates the earth as an image bearer, and if you connect the gardener with the very life of the community he or she serves, the outcome is different. The gardener is not merely an employee but a member of a body dedicated to the service of its members. I would want to employ a person who could pray for the students and who would model what it means to be made in the image of God.

Hello theocracy. Hello Iran. Or maybe just hello discriminatory Sydney Anglicans ...

And can we do the same to women and gays? Who'd want a gay gardener, even if Chauncy the Gardener liked to watch?

Dennis Watson: Ah, tell me, Mr. Gardner... have you ever had sex with a man?
Chance the Gardener: No... I don't think so.
Dennis Watson: We could go upstairs right now.
Chance the Gardener: Is there a TV upstairs? I like to watch.
Dennis Watson: You like to uh, watch?
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Dennis Watson: You wait right here. I'll go get Warren!

And so we've ended up in the current school funding mess, with money shovelled down the throats of scientology schools and Islamic schools and fundamentalist Christian Darwin-denying creationist schools, and churches operating as arms of government in matters of employment and safety nets and services, as well as education, and surely the take home message from this should be that if you want to do discrimination Jensen-style, then do it on your own dollar, do it on your own prejudiced, discriminatory dime, and take your paw out of the taxpayer till.

Righteous are those who keep clear of Caesar's coins ...

Meanwhile, the thought of all those legal eagles in their parade of frocks listening to Jensen reminded the pond of Chauncy Gardener in another way:

Morton Hull: Do you realize that more people will be watching you tonight, than all those who have seen theater plays in the last forty years?
Chance: Why?

Why indeed ...

(Below: a booklet picked up by the pond while promenading past the local Athena school, which operates under the banner of Applied Scholastics. The pond couldn't help but admire the new building work done on the taxpayer dollar - at substantial expense - to help promote the thoughts of L. Ron Hubbard. Thanks Archbishop Jensen, the pond is now clear).