In which the pond has a religious experience thanks to the lizards of Oz ...

The pond has been wondering of late whether the lizard Oz should be renamed, becoming not so much the Catholic Boys' Daily, as the Christian Daily for genteel elderly Christians of a heterosexual persuasion ...

In its darker seedier wild underground life, the pond might be found furtively listening Sami Shah's amusing insights into himself, Islam, Australia and life on RN (when the pond last checked the entire series could be checked out here).

But you won't find any of that heretical stuff in the lizard Oz, which makes white bread seem like a wild experiment in multi-culturalism ...

Indeed, what's remarkable about the lizard Oz is the monoculture - symbolised by that pious splash of candles ... worthy of an illustration for the angry Sydney Anglicans ...

Oh wait, the angry Anglicans have caught up to Jimmy Little ...

Maybe it's more like getting everyone lathered up for a big spend on Xmas shopping ...

Yep, that's nineteen fifties sickly enough ...

Well the pond had done its quota by checking out the gluten-laden Oreo this day, but it simply couldn't resist investigating the Drake-Brockman matter ...

Oh why didn't they just say ... he's got a book to flog.

Nothing wrong with that, though the pond was intrigued to see Christian Humanism written up in relation to a self-published book by Tom Drake Brockman, way back on 14th October 2012:

Some of Drake-Brockman’s thesis: Christian Humanism (i) restores the gospels credibility as divinely inspired works; (ii) uses the title “Christ” (rather than Jesus) so his divinity is restored; (iii) declares Christ’s work was one of compassion; (iv) “born again” is reconceived as reincarnation; (v) Christ was intent on establishing a movement, but a reformed and humanised version of Judaism rather than what has become known as Christianity. 
The author writes, “The reconstructed Christology that emerges presents us with a simple but tantalising proposition: Jesus Christ was not a Saviour with a social conscience but a latent revolutionary humanist whose divinely inspired mission was to show us how to save ourselves — both spiritually and temporally — by translating compassionate love into remedial action and making some tangible progress towards the ultimate aspiration of reclaiming the world for God.” 
There is much in the “churchianity” version of current Christianity that Drake-Brockman does not like — and with just cause.

Now good luck with all that, and there's a public LinkedIn for the author here,  but what puzzles the pond is why the reptiles feel compelled to publish this sort of stuff, and even more remarkably put it behind their paywall, and expect people to pay to read it for their enlightenment and pleasure:

The Old Testament is an example of god's steadfast loving-kindness, mercy, compassion and passion for justice? That wasn't quite the message She seemed to be laying down in Leviticus (as Colbert joked, that's the book where it all happens).

Now as soon as someone tells the pond it all comes down to a word - hesed - the pond can be relied on to let out an extended "oommm," before quickly scarpering.

But it did slowly dawn on the pond as to why Drake-Brockman might have got a run promoting his publication-pending piece. 

Note the canny way that he pitched it tone perfect for the reptiles, mocking secular humanism, neo-liberal excess and self-serving identity politics on the left.

Self-serving identity politics. 

What a dog whistle it is, how it sounds and echoes in the reptiles' ears (do reptiles have ears? No matter, they have metaphors, and that's enough).

Meanwhile, in America ...