Climate change - the basics

Climate change - the basics

By Ranting Panda, 23 October 2022

In understanding climate change and global warming, it may help to distil the issue down to the most fundamental components:

1. Hotter weather causes more severe storms. Warmer oceans tend to create stronger cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons. Heat fuels the intensity of bushfires. 
2. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and affects global temperatures. 

Neither of these points is disputed in modern science. It would be surprising to find a climate change denier who would actually dispute either of these points. 

The main dispute they have is whether the world is warming and whether humans are the cause of it. 

The fact that the world is warming has been quantified in numerous studies, which I'll cover in more detail below.

CO2 emissions have risen dramatically since the mid-20th century and are around 50% higher than they were prior to the Industrial Revolution. Humans are contributing around 36 billion tons per annum of CO2 and other GHG. By comparison, volcanoes contribute around 200 million tons per annum. To make things worse, deforestation is reducing carbon sinks, so less CO2 is absorbed. Agricultural practices release more carbon from the soil, while our heavy reliance on beef has seen a dramatic increase in cattle populations, which produce significant levels of methane, also a GHG. All of these activities are caused by humans and are within our power to control.

Climate deniers have some regular talking points for rejecting the science behind anthropogenic climate change.

They will say that it is part of the common cycles of the Earth, or that back in the day there were hot days, strong cyclones, bush fires etc. They seem to think that scientists aren't aware of previous weather events. However, scientists benchmark and peer review. That's what they do. They actually account for previous weather events and climate changes. Scientists are not stupid, nor are they ignorant. No scientist wants to be known for getting something wrong, so they will test and review their hypotheses ad nauseum before publishing them.

However, there are many who still dispute the very obvious evidence of anthropogenic climate change, so the following points challenge some of the false claims made by climate change denialists.

The world is not warming

The first thing that scientists do is benchmark things. They analysis data to benchmark the current climate and then analyse data to determine how current climate compares to years gone by. These analyses show that the climate is clearly warming. Nineteen of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000 (NASA n.d.[c]).

It is just part of the natural climate cycles of the Earth

Climate change needs to be forced by some external factor. In this case, it is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Funnily enough, scientists are an inquisitive lot, so they have measured the current CO2 concentration and compared it to concentrations of years gone by, going back millions of years. They know that prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were 280 parts per million and that today they are 400ppm.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it acts as an insulator to retain heat in the world, somewhat like a doona or a big old blanket. This is not in dispute by any scientist. We know therefore, that increases in CO2 concentration will force the planet to warm.

Milankovitch cycles

Milankovitch cycles are essentially the angle of the earth's rotational axis. Funnily enough, the axis doesn't go straight through the north pole to the south pole. It's a little off-centre. Milankovitch cycles are comprised of three key elements:

• the shape of the Earth's orbit (eccentricity)
• the angle that the Earth's axis is tilted at (obliquity)
• direction Earth's axis of rotation is pointed (precession)

Eccentricity is on a 100,000 year cycle. Obliquity is on a 41,000 year cycle. Precession is on a 25,771 year cycle. On such long cycle times, insignificant changes to Milankovitch cycles over the last century cannot account for the dramatic increase in CO2, global warming or climate change (Buis 2020). 

Scientists are making it up

Yeah, but science! Climate is controlled by the laws of physics. Let me illustrate. Most people know that cyclones only form over warm water. Even the most ardent climate denier will agree with that. It is also known, that the warmer the water, the more intense the cyclone will be. Warm water helps create and intensify cyclones.

Ocean temperatures are increasing because of global warming, particularly because of the albedo effect. Albedo measures the ability of a body to absorb or reflect heat. Lighter bodies reflect heat, darker bodies absorb heat. The ocean is a dark body and has a low albedo. In other words, it absorbs almost all solar radiation and heat. Water expands as it heats, which is one of the causes of rising sea levels. As oceans warm, their ability to diffuse CO2 reduces, which means that more CO2 remains in the atmosphere. 

Ocean heat content (Kaufman n.d.)

Increased warming is also melting land ice, particularly the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, both of which are already contributing to increased sea levels. Think this isn't a problem? The Antarctic ice sheet covers 14 million square kilometers and is on average around 2 kilometers thick, although is more than 4.7 km deep at its thickest. It has the ability to raise global sea levels by around 200 meters if it were to all melt.

 

Heat is also one of the key ingredients in the intensity of fire. The hotter the weather, the more intense the fires will be.

This is all basic and proven science. Scientists are not making this up.

It's all speculation and the 'other side' should also be taught

Ok, so what other side? That heat doesn't intensify storms, cyclones, hurricanes, or typhoons? That heat doesn't intensify fire, warm water or melt ice?

Scientists have quantified increases in CO2 concentrations. This is not in dispute.

Scientists have quantified that the world's climate is warming. This is not in dispute.

The only thing in dispute is whether anthropogenic carbon emissions are driving it. Scientists have run models showing what the climate would be like if there wasn't the increased anthropogenic carbon emissions. These models show that if there had been no change in anthropogenic carbon emissions since the industrial revolution, the world's climate would likely be in a cooling stage now.

Climate change deniers will often state that 3% of scientists dispute anthropogenic climate change. However, studies have found that the conclusions in those papers were faulty and unable to be replicated. Unlike the 97% of papers that found that global warming is real, is problematic and is largely caused by human activity. It should also be pointed out that of that 3%, not all of those scientists actually study climate in any form. This would be tantamount to asking everyone with a trade to comment on the effectiveness of electric vehicles compared to internal combustion vehicles. While some trades would be related, e.g. mechanics, auto-electricians, and even electricians installing EV charging stations, other trades wouldn't have a clue, e.g. butchers, bakers or carpenters. So when unrelated science fields are removed from the survey results and only climate scientists and associated scientists are included, more than 99% believe in anthropogenic climate change and 100% agree that humans are either primary or secondary causes of increasing CO2 emissions.

The sun is warming the planet

The Earth has seen a dramatic increase in warming and greenhouse gases. Yet, there has not been a corresponding change in solar irradiation or warming that would account for the dramatic changes experienced on Earth. The solar energy that Earth has been receiving has followed the natural 11-year cycles of the sun, with no significant changes over the last century that would explain Earth's global warming.

Perhaps the strongest indicator that the cause of Earth's warming is coming from the Earth itself, is that the surface atmosphere has warmed while the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) has been cooling. If the sun was causing global warming, then the stratosphere would also have warmed (NASA n.d.[b]). It is clear that the cause of warming is terrestrial and not solar. 

Solar irradiation cooling compared to global warming (NASA n.d.[b])

What about the Medieval Warm Period?

Again, science! Scientists do actually include such episodes in their research. Guess what? The world is warmer now than the Medieval Warm Period. So what caused the MWP? There was increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation that brought much warmer water into the North Atlantic, which caused increased temperatures in Europe. The MWP was largely confined to western Europe and Britain, while other areas of the globe experienced much cooler temperatures. 

This differs to today's warming trend, which is global and not simply confined to western Europe or other geographical areas.  

The hockey stick graph was fabricated

The infamous hockey stick graph. Perhaps the most controversial graph in modern history. 

The graph was a combination of raw instrumental data and proxy data, measuring temperatures from the year 1400 to 1998. The raw instrumental data (e.g. thermometers) was used to record temperatures since 1950. The proxy data was used for data prior to the 20th century. Proxy data is often used in scientific analysis as a substitute for raw measures when scientific instruments are not available. Proxies are generally a good substitute as they provide indications of the phenomena being studied. For example, tree rings are wider during years of higher temperatures and humidity. Ice core samples capture C02, which can indicate higher temperatures. Proxies used by Mann et al in preparing the hockey stick graph included ice core samples, ice melt, ice accumulation, coral growth, tree rings and tree growth trends. They took into account natural climate forcing factors, such as volcanic activity and solar irradiance. 

Original hockey stick graph showing temperatures from 1400 (Mann et al, 1998, p 783)

Some have queried the use of proxy data, however an analogy of the use proxies may assist. Dr Chris Cogswell runs a podcast called The Mad Scientist. When discussing proxies used for determining historical climate data, he provided an analogy to simply explain their effectiveness (Cogswell 2017). 

The analogy looks at measures of household income. We may have data from some households in which we know specifically how much they earn. This is similar to the modern temperature records where we know exactly what the temperatures have been over the last few decades. However, say we also want to measure wealth in areas where we don't know the actual income. The specific data shows that wealthier households also tend to have larger houses in more upmarket neighbourhoods, they have more holidays and vacation in expensive locations, they own more vehicles which are generally more expensive. These measures are proxy indicators of wealth. Applying those will provide a good estimate of household wealth. However, like any scientific study, the data needs to be calibrated for accuracy. In doing so, it may be determined that the amount of holidays does not necessarily indicate wealth. After all, it may be that executives are under great pressure and expectations, so end up holidaying less, while workers at lower levels in the organisation may have more opportunity to holiday. Of course, location of holiday could still be an indicator of wealth. The hockey stick report by Mann et all (1998) discussed calibration of its data as well.

In 1999, Mann produced a new report measuring temperatures from the year 1000. The revised graph is shown below. 

Revised hockey stick graph showing temperatures from 1000CE (Mann et al, 1999)

Although the original hockey stick graph was questioned at the time, there have been a multitude of studies since, which have used numerous other methods for reconstructing historical climate patterns. These reports have confirmed that there is a significant increase in temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels since the industrial revolution and in particular, since the mid-20th century (Skeptical Science, 2016). 

Further studies have considered data over much longer periods than Mann et al did. Current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the highest they've been in around 1 million years.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are the highest they've been in around 1 million years (NASA n.d.[a])

Conclusion

Global warming is happening and it is forcing climate change. It is imperative that we reduce our carbon emissions to net zero as quickly as possible. The big concern is that we reach a tipping point, in which the world will continue warming under the weight of the increased atmospheric CO2 reservoir which will drive greater feedback, that is responses to warming, which in turn contribute to climate forcing factors that continue increasing GHG and forcing up temperatures. The tipping point is a point of no return, because at that point, our ability to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be outside our control and the world will continue warming uncontrollably. Sea levels will continue to rise, species will become extinct (as we are already starting to see), some plants will be unable to grow. All of this will affect our ability to continue an existence as we know it. 

Sources and references

Beernick, E, Lakey, A, Zarzuela, K, 2017, It was hotter in the Medieval Warming Period than today - brief responses to climate change denialism statements, 25 October, viewed 23 October 2022, CPSG 200 Science & Global Change Sophomore Colloquium, https://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/elevator/elevator16.html

Benestad, RE, Hayhoe, K, Nuccitelli, D, Lewandosky, S, Hygen, HO, van Dorland, R, Cook, J, 2014, Learning from mistakes in climate research, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

Buis, A, 2020, Milankovitch (Orbital) cycles and their role in Earth's climate, 27 February, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Cogswell, C 2017, Climate Change and Climate Denial, Episodes 20 and 21, 16 May, 31 May, The Mad Scientist Podcast, https://www.themadscientistpodcast.com/episode-20-climate-change

Deacon, B, 2022, Strong Antarctic polar vortex adds to south-east Australian rainfall and flood risk, BOM says, 23 October 2022, viewed 23 October 2022, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-23/antarctic-winds-drive-rain-south-east-australian-flood/101537816 

Earle, S, 2021, A Brief History of the Earth's Climate, New Society Publishers.

Kaufman, M, n.d., The carbon footprint sham, viewed 23 October, Mashable, 2022, https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham

Mann, ME, Bradley, RS, & Hughes, MK, 1998, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, 23 April, Nature, Vol 392, Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998, http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

Mann, ME, Bradley, RS, & Hughes, MK, 1999, Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millenium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, 15 March, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 26, pages 759-762. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999GL900070

NASA, n.d. [a], Graphic: the relentless rise of carbon dioxide, viewed 23 October 2022, https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

NASA, n.d.[b], Is the sun causing global warming?, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

NASA, n.d.[c], Vital signs, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

NASA, n.d.[d], Evidence, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

National Science Foundation, n.d., Ice sheets, viewed 23 October 2022, https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/science/icesheet.jsp

Pearce, F, 2010, Controversy behind climate science's 'hockey stick' graph, 3 February, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change

Romm, J 2018, Climate Change: What everyone needs to know, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, New York.

Saunders, T, 2022, A shift in wind direction across Sydney is behind the city's record wet year, 22 October, ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-22/sydney-record-wet-weather-2022-due-to-shift-in-wind-direction/101562826

Skeptical Science, 2015,  How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?, 7 July, viewed 23 October 2020, https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Skeptical Science, 2016, What evidence is there for the hockey stick, 12 October, viewed 23 October 2022, https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

---0---

Overturning Roe v Wade is a death sentence for many women

Overturning Roe v Wade is a death sentence for many women

by Ranting Panda, 26 June 2022

Conservatives are at it again: forcing their religious beliefs and vacuous 'moral' codes on the rest of society. This time, they have managed to overturn the1973 US Supreme Court case Roe v Wade, which had legalised women's rights to access abortion. 

Conservatives think that they are saving lives by banning abortion, although the opposite is true. When former President George W. Bush defunded family planning clinics that either undertook abortion or even gave advice about abortion (the so-called 'Gag' Order), abortions rose by 40% compared to when his predecessor, President Clinton, had continued funding these clinics (Bendavid, Avila & Miller, 2011). Research from the University of Colorado Boulder, indicates that banning abortion will result in a 21% increase in the deaths of women from unsafe abortions (Stevenson 2021). This is replicated globally, in which access to sex education, contraception and medical abortions is essential to reducing the rate of abortion and the likelihood of women dying from the procedure (Amnesty International, n.d.).

All that conservatives have managed to achieve is to drive abortion underground. Perhaps they have forgotten the deaths of women and the horrible disfigurements of babies born after botched backyard abortions. Interestingly, there is a higher rate of abortion in countries that ban it, than in countries where it is legal (Guttmacher Institute, 2018). 

So-called 'pro-life' groups claim they are defending the rights of the unborn, however they are actually creating worse conditions for abortion than if it were legal. Firstly, the main reason that women seek out abortion is because of poverty (Oberman, 2018). Conservatives oppose every means of providing such support. Ever see a Conservative support welfare, community housing, public education, or socialised healthcare? Of course not. These 'pro-lifers' are too selfish to share their income through tax redistribution, not to mention, they are terrified that community programs equate to socialism. They protest against raising the minimum wage, let alone providing welfare to address poverty. Welcome to Capitalism 101: selfishness, avarice and complete disregard for women or the lives of babies born into poverty. Conservatives think that socialism is anything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport.

The religious right has been pushing their agenda of Christian Nationalism for years. The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade is a major step in progressing Christian Nationalism, which regresses modern society to the days of patriarchal rule, where women were nothing but chattels for men to control and rape. The Supreme Court decision is a highly sexist, retrograde one that makes women nothing but breeding incubators to fulfil the sexual desires of men. Those same men are not held to account for their women they impregnate.  

'Pro-lifers' claim that they are concerned for the lives of children, yet they refuse to part with their precious firearms, even though school shootings are a regular occurrence. The deaths of hundreds of children from gun violence isn't enough to concern the pro-lifers who treat their access access to guns as a basic human right. As at the end of May 2022, the United States has seen more than 250 mass shooting events in 2022. On 24 May 2022, 19 children were gunned down in Uvalde, Texas. Since then, there have been another 38 mass shootings (Ladir & Rabinowitz 2022).  

Access to guns is not a human right. Access to abortion is a healthcare requirement and a basic human right enshrined by the United Nations. Forced pregnancy, including the denial to safe abortion, is a crime against humanity under international law (Amnesty International, 2020, p 10).

Pro-life conservatives bemoan a 'leftist agenda' being thrust upon them. You know, the sort of things that actually don't impact them at all, such as the right for same-sex marriage. Yet, it is conservatives who are constantly thrusting their beliefs onto everyone else in order for control and to appease their sensitive, snowflake feelings of entitlement and supremacy. They are the first ones to whinge about their liberties being infringed if someone so much as wishes them 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas', or dares to suggest that Black Lives Matter, or that Critical Race Theory shows there's more to history than the white supremacist colonialist fairy-tale. 

The control that these conservative extremists are trying to exercise is nothing short of totalitarianism. They want to dominate others with their nationalist agenda. They claim their religion or morality is superior to everyone else's. They claim they are doing the 'work of the Lord'. They claim they care for others, when they only care about themselves. There's a big difference between caring for others and controlling others. Ironic then, that US conservatives spent decades demonising Islam as depriving women of freedom, only to do the same thing in the name of their perverted 'christian' values and warped sense of 'democracy'. 

Conservatives will not stop at abortion. These extremists will now target same-sex marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas said as much in the decision to overturn Roe v Wade. For conservative Christians there have only been two big issues they are concerned with: abortion & homosexuality. Neither of these issues were even mentioned by Jesus; not that these bible-bashing hypocrites have ever followed Christ's teachings. 

There is also concern that other rights which were enshrined prior to Roe v Wade could be at risk, including the right to contraception and the right to inter-racial marriage (Papenfuss 2022).

It is a dangerous place to be in when conservatives are dominating with their fascist politics. 

References

Amnesty International, 2020, Forced pregnancy - a commentary on the crime in international law', 30 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IOR5327112020ENGLISH.pdf

Amnesty International, n.d., Key facts on Abortion, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/

Bendavid, E, Avila, P, Miller, G, 2011, United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa, World Health Organization Bulletin, 27 September, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260902/

Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Highly restrictive laws do not eliminate abortion, 25 September, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2018/highly-restrictive-laws-do-not-eliminate-abortion

Ladir, J, & Rabinowitz, K, 2022, There have been over 250 mass shootings so far in 2022, The Washington Post, 8 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/02/mass-shootings-in-2022/

Oberman, M, 2018, Motherhood, abortion and the medicalization of poverty, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 18 October, viewed 26 June 2022, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073110518804221.

Papenfuss, M, 2022, Decision Destroying Roe Threatens Legal Right To Interracial Marriage, Experts Warn, Huffpost, 24 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roe-v-wade-same-sex-interracial-marriage-clarence-thomas_n_62b64cd3e4b0cf43c864baaf#

Stevenson, A, 2021, A research note on the mortality consequence of denying all wanted induced abortions, SocArXiv, 1 September, viewed 26 June 2022, doi:10.31235/osf.io/sb5f2

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

By Ranting Panda, 28 November 2021

The Australian federal government recently unveiled its Religious Discrimination Bills. In summary, the Bills propose protection for people to discriminate if their religion gives them the excuse. As an example, the Bills allow certain organisations to fire or not hire people who are LGBTIQ+, or for schools to expel or not enrol LGBTIQ+ students (Elphick & Taylor 2021). The Bills can be viewed at https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/religious-discrimination-bills-2021.

The object of the Bills is to recognise 'the freedom of all people to have or adopt a religion or belief of their choice, and freedom to manifest this religion or belief either individually or in community with others ...'(s 3, Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). This may seem fine in that people should be able to practice their religion or beliefs, however, religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. Well ... Christian religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. It's a different story for people of other faiths who have been persecuted, lambasted and demonised for their religious beliefs. This has particularly been the case for Muslims, who are often the target of horrendous vilification at the hands of right-wing media commentators, Christians and others, who feel empowered to act out their bigotry and xenophobia.

The Religious Discrimination Bills were proposed in the wake of the marriage equality plebiscite, when some Christians were called out for discrimination against and persecution of LGBTIQ+ people. The plebiscite was about equality, which is a bridge too far for many Christians. In a nutshell, a lot of Christians felt persecuted because they couldn't persecute others. The plebiscite resulted in marriage equality for LGBTIQ+ people, who were given the same rights to marry that everyone else takes for granted. Why did Christians feel persecuted? Because they wanted the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ+ people, based on a twisted interpretation of scripture. 

Marriage is not the only area they wanted to be able to discriminate. Christians wanted the right to force their values on others, such as in the area of abortion, and ironically, religious belief. After all, instead of simply loving their neighbour, they only have to love their neighbour who is Christian, not Muslim, not LGBTIQ+, or requiring an abortion. Funnily enough, the bible is very critical of divorcees. Up until the mid-20th century, divorcees were anathema to the church, but now the church is highly accepting of divorcees. There will also come a time when LGBTIQ+ Christians can attend church and be open about their sexuality, gender identification and relationships. 

The Bills make it legal for a religious school to require all staff AND students to be adherents of that religion 'if such a requirement is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of people of that religion' (s 7(1), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). How weak does your religion have to be, that your feelings may be hurt or your beliefs susceptible to injury by allowing someone not of that religion to work at the school? Similarly, s 9 of the Bill allows for religious hospitals, aged care providers, and disability services providers to discriminate based on faith. What value does it add if a Physics teacher is a Christian or not? Teaching English, Physics, Biology and so on, has nothing to do with the teacher's religious beliefs. Obviously, if the class is a religious education one, it may help for a teacher to be of that religion, but other subjects should not be even discussing religion, let alone requiring the teacher to adhere to that faith.  

The Bill does however, state that while people can make statements of belief that could be seen as discriminatory, they can't make those statements if they are malicious, threatening, intimidating, harassing, or vilifying others (s 12(2), s 15(3), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). 

The Bill is part of a package of three Bills. One of those is the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, which amends various federal legislation, including several human rights laws, namely Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Marriage Act 1961, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Charities Act 2013, Age Discrimination Act 2004, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. To be fair, some of the amendments reaffirm the universality of basic human rights. However, if enacted, these amendments would allow for such things as educational institutions being able to refuse to provide goods, services or make facilities available for LGBTIQ+ people. 

Not every Christian or Christian organisation agrees with the Religious Discrimination Bill. For instance, the Uniting Church in Australia released a media statement on the Bill, which included the comment, '... we maintain any permission given to individuals or religious organisations that allows them to discriminate on the basis of religious belief must be carefully balanced against the rights of people to be free from discrimination and live with dignity. It is our view that the Religious Discrimination Bill does not achieve that balance' (Uniting Church in Australia, 2021).

By contrast, on 3 December 2021, the Victorian Labor government passed the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, which amends Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act (2010) to make it unlawful for schools and religious bodies to 'discriminate against an employee because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or other protected attribute'. In other words, they can't sack people for being LGBTIQ+ or discriminate in their hiring practices. Additionally, they can't refuse service on these grounds either. (AAP-SBS, 2021). If the Commonwealth's religious discrimination Bills are passed, they would override Victoria's much fairer legislation. 

The Commonwealth's discriminatory Bills come at an interesting time for people of faith. Most of the people who support the Bills are right-wing conservative Christians. For many years, these same people have been forcing their beliefs on others. It is one thing for people to have the right to practice their beliefs without harassment, it is entirely something else for those same people to force those beliefs on others. Yet, that is exactly what has been happening. They have forced women to have unwanted pregnancies, forced LGBTIQ+ people to hide their true sexuality and identity, forced LGBTIQ+ people to comply with the myopic view of marriage that many Christians have (i.e. marriage can only be between a man and a woman), forced other religions out of an area (such as campaigns that prevented construction of mosques), and attempted to tell other religions what they could eat or wear (such as campaigns against halal food and religious clothing, particularly burqas). 

It's not Christians in Australia who need protection against discrimination, it is the people who Christians discriminate against who need that protection. 

Unfortunately, far too many Christians live selfish lives. They wouldn't know what the Bible said if it bit them on their self-absorbed arses. The Bible is clear about sharing wealth with others, yet this is socialism in the minds of many of these Christians, who practically worship capitalism. The Bible says to care for others ... but again, socialism. Caring for the welfare of others is anathema to much of conservative Christianity. 

Coincidentally, it is right-wing conservative Christians who have been particularly vocal and active in anti-vaccination protests across the globe. Vaccinations help to protect the community, particularly those most vulnerable to respiratory conditions, but caring for others isn't high on the list of priorities of these Christians. They vociferously argue against being forced to be vaccinated, claiming it is a violation of their human rights. What privilege it must be to never have experienced human rights abuses, and then claim such abuse when asked to help the community. 

They carry placards claiming 'my body, my choice', which is particularly ironic, considering that these same people have been actively campaigning against abortion, in which pro-abortionists argue 'my body, my choice'. For Christians, other people's bodies are only important when it is their own. Choice is only important for them, not for others who may want to make different choices. 

In fact, the involvement of Christians in anti-vaccination protests highlights that their only concern for human rights is when it is their own. They have never protested against the treatment of refugees, such as Australia's mandatory detention policy, but make a vaccine mandatory and they lose their collective minds. There's a big difference between getting a little prick that will save lives and help protect the community, to being locked up for years without charge for committing no crime while being denied the very basic rights to freedom that most of us take for granted. Yet, these so-called Christians are more concerned with being forced to protect the community, then actually doing something to protect the community. They are more concerned with being given life-saving medication, than caring about the persecution and torture of innocent people. First world problems, much!

(Moore & Risso, 2020)

Many right-wing conservative Christians are selfish. They have no concern for anyone else's rights but their own. No wonder they attend anti-vax rallies and also support the discriminatory Racial Discrimination Bills.

They claim to be pro-life when they oppose abortion, but show they are pro-disease and pro-death when they attend anti-vax rallies to stop people from being given life-saving vaccinations. They want Jesus to save them, but reject life-saving vaccinations. Perhaps Jesus sent the vaccination ... 

Then there are those completely deluded kool-aid drinkers who see mandatory Covid vaccinations as the Mark of the Beast articulated in the Book of Revelation, Chapter 13, verses 16-18. In case you're not familiar with that particular scripture, it states, 'It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666'. The Covid-19 vaccination is apparently the Mark of the Beast. I kid you not. 

Mind you, those who claim this have been eagerly awaiting the anti-Christ because they believe that we are in the end-times prophesied in the Bible ... just like many others before them for the last 2,000 years or so. They have rattled off a plethora of candidates for the anti-Christ. This litany of superstars includes The Pope, Hitler, Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev, and pretty much every American president since the founding of the US, except for Donald Trump, who these right-wing conservative Christians have practically lauded as being Christ incarnate. This hall of fame extends way back for millenia, and incudes Napoleon and the various Caesars. Every generation has claimed they are in the end-times, so pardon me if I'm a little sceptical that this generation is the last one before the Apocalypse ... but I digress ...

There is no reasoning with people who have this mentality. For them, everything is a conspiracy. If you quote fatalities from Covid, they will argue it is government propaganda. If you present evidence of the efficacy of vaccinations and that they save lives, these mental giants will quote some obscure and entirely fictional finding that they saw on YouTube or social media. If you criticise their selfishness in opposing the vaccine, they will argue that they are freedom fighters. Of course, they never argued for the freedom of refugees and asylum seekers who faced mandatory detention, even though the Bible considers refugees and asylum seekers as the 'least of these', and calls for their care and concern by Christians. Matthew 25:31-46 states that, 'whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'.

In fact, this is the parable of the sheep & the goats, which states that the sheep are those who are concerned for others, while the goats are those who are only concerned for themselves. The parable goes on to explain that the goats will be sentenced to eternal punishment. Funnily enough, the selfish anti-vax Christians accuse pro-vaxxers of being sheep. Oh well, this would make the anti-vaxxers the goats in this parable ... I guess they better start cranking up their heaters & get used to fiery torment. They tend to also not believe in climate change, so perhaps their support for carbon emissions is their way of practicing for an overheated eternity in the fires of hell. Just sayin' ...

Through their support for the Racial Discrimination Bills, anti-vax protests, end-times conspiracy theories, the lies and bigoted fear-mongering of Donald Trump and Scott Morrison, locking up refugees and asylum seekers, or vilifying other races and religions, it is clear that many right-wing conservative Christians lack the ability to love their neighbour, lack grace and humility, lack wisdom, lack critical reasoning, yet abound in selfishness. They wallow in a persecution-complex, while having the freedom to persecute others.  

The Racial Discrimination Bills are not needed. It would be more accurate to rename them the Privilege Protection Bills. The last thing that Australia needs at this time is to further empower discrimination of others. If anything, the government should be providing greater support and strength to those who are truly discriminated against, persecuted and vilified, instead of empowering the privileged and sanctimonious Christian-class. Instead of these unnecessary and damaging Bills, the Australian government should be focussing on the important challenges facing Australia, including equality for all, climate change and Covid. 

References

AAP-SBS, 2021, Victoria has passed new laws that make it unlawful for schools to sack LGBTIQ+ staff, SBS News, 3 December, viewed 3 December 2021, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victoria-has-passed-new-laws-that-make-it-unlawful-for-schools-to-sack-lgbtiq-staff/45e09ac5-f7eb-411b-83cf-d6fc240a7ed7.

Elphick, L, & Taylor, A, 2021, Schools can still expel LGBTQ+ kids. The Religious Discrimination Bill only makes it worse, ABC News, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-26/religious-discrimination-bill-lgbtq-students-teachers-religion/100651222.

Moore, G, & Risso, A, 2020, Anti-vaccination and 5G protesters defy COVID restrictions, 7 News, 30 May, viewed 26 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/anti-vaccination-and-5g-protesters-defy-covid-restrictions-c-1069448. 

Uniting Church in Australia, 2021, Religious Discrimination Bill must protect all, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://uniting.church/religious-discrimination-bill-must-protect-all-people/. 

Updated 4 December 2021

Critical Race Theory - the importance of truth-telling history to address racist systems

Critical Race Theory - the importance of truth-telling history to address racist systems

By Ranting Panda, 21 November 2021

Are you woke? You know, alert to the needs of others and, in particular, to the discrimination or persecution that others may be experiencing. Of course, if you're right-wing, you probably disparage those who are woke as being politically correct do-gooder snowflakes who are trying to take away your right to discriminate or persecute others. Many right-wingers will blurt out the old dog-whistle, 'Wake Up, Australia' ... or whatever their country of choice is. They want others to wake up but not be woke. 

Woke is often used in relation to racism, which seems to trigger those right-wingers who like to portray themselves as never being offended by anything. Yet, the moment that someone criticises one of their sacred cows they splutter and choke like an old hand-cranked car trying to start on a cold morning. Case in point is the removal or criticism of statues of prominent people from days gone by. Many of those people were slave-traders or slave owners, massacred innocent people, or committed other human rights abuses. The woke who raise these issues are accused of 'rewriting history'. The offended conservatives who make this accusation conveniently ignore or are ignorant of the fact that this isn't rewriting history, it is telling history as it was. Removal of a statue is acknowledging the real history, not rewriting history, not glossing over or sanitising it like naïve conservatives would like.

Confederate statues in the United States are treated as sacrosanct by many conservatives. Yet, these statues were not installed by the Confederacy during the American Civil War that raged between 1861 and 1865. They were installed during three critical periods in US history in which racism and slavery were revered. The first period was in the 1880s to 1890s, some 20 years after the civil war, in order to crush reconstruction efforts and continue the disenfranchisement of black people following the end of slavery. The second period was from the 1900s to 1920s, following the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, which saw a dramatic increase in lynching of black people and the establishment of Jim Crow laws that legitimised discrimination on racial grounds. The third period was in the 1950s and 1960s, which coincided with the centennial of the civil war and was used to counter the civil rights movement that was fighting for equal rights for black people who still suffered from racist laws and institutions in the US. This period celebrated white supremacy and installed further confederate statutes. 

The civil war was fought over the right to keep slaves. Conservatives don't like to hear that, so will often argue that any teaching otherwise is rewriting history. However, they are the ignorant ones who refuse to face facts. In defending confederate monuments, they are defending racism, slavery and murder. In 1931, sociologist and civil rights campaigner, W.E.B. Du Bois, commented that monuments to Confederate leaders should be inscribed with 'sacred to the memory of those who fought to Perpetuate Human Slavery'. (Palmer & Wessler, 2018).

This acknowledgement of history is an important element of Critical Race Theory. It challenges the sanitised version that has been taught in schools and which national pride is often based upon. It's obviously much easier to have pride in the nation if it was founded on a wholesome and benevolent settlement in which native populations welcomed colonial settlers with open arms, where everyone was invited to work in harmony for the betterment of a society based on love, equality and unity. Of course, the reality is that most colonisation was based on rape, massacre, subjugation, racism, and white supremacy, often in the name of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, whose teaching of 'love thy neighbour' seems to have been confined to the four walls of church buildings and never applied in the actual encounters with others who may have been of different cultures, beliefs or colour. 

So, what actually is Critical Race Theory (CRT)? It is the telling of history as it actually happened and it goes further to explain the origins and perpetuation of racism in society to identify solutions to dismantling racism. While some may like to think that everyone is treated equally, the fact is that there is still significant racism, and rather than being non-existent, it has been normalised. Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, is one who regularly spouts racist, and often highly inaccurate, vitriol against indigenous Australians and other minorities. It's no great surprise that Hanson put forward a motion in Australian parliament to reject CRT. Disturbingly, the motion succeeded (Anderson & Gatwiri, 2021).

CRT is not just a matter of studying history, but in studying the impacts of it in the context of structural and institutional racism. It originated in the 1960s and 1970s by scholars researching the cause and continuance of racial disparities in the areas of legal and criminal justice, education, employment, and wealth (Anderson & Gatwiri, 2021). Anderson & Gatwiri (2021), describe some of the principles of CRT as being:

• Race is a social construct, rather than a genetic one. That is, racial differences are based on social experiences, rather than biology.
• Systemic racism perpetuates white supremacy through practices of people and institutions, whether deliberately or not.
• People are not defined by one aspect of their identity, but instead by multiple, intersectional aspects, such as race, gender, religion, age, class, disability, nationality and so on. 
• CRT aims to educate people about discrimination and privilege, to question who benefits and who suffers from existing systems.

Many on the right-wing oppose CRT because they claim it is aimed at making white people hate themselves, or as historian Geoffrey Blainey once described this approach, as a 'black armband view of history'. CRT is not trying to demonise white people, which would be counter-intuitive to its purpose. It aims to address existing racist structures and practices, and identify ways to address them. 

It is also important to understand what CRT is not. After all, opponents of CRT will often make outlandish claims about what CRT is trying to achieve. Trump inaccurately described CRT as a '... Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation, that even young children are complicit in oppression, and that our entire society must be radically transformed' (Karimi, 2021). The following list describes what CRT is not (Ketchell 2021). 

• CRT does not assert that 'one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex'.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex'. 
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex'. 

One of the many arguments put forward against Critical Race Theory, or for that matter, any attempt at addressing systemic racism, is that people of today are not to blame for the actions of people a century or more ago. However, if those systems are still in place, then they should be dismantled. This can be challenging for some people, particularly those who benefit from those systems. Just because one person has the privilege of not experiencing racism or discrimination, does not mean that others don't experience it. When indigenous people in Australia campaigned for land rights so they could restore their connection with their traditional lands, there were many conservatives who sincerely believed that indigenous people would be legally granted the right to throw them off the land and to take over people's dwellings. You know, just like white settlement did to indigenous people. This acknowledgement of massacres, slavery and displacement is not rewriting history, it is the correct telling of the history of Australia. Some of the racist laws in Australia have been removed, such as the policy of Terra Nullius that was used to displace indigenous Australians, the White Australia Policy that actively segregated and disenfranchised indigenous people, and many other laws and policies (Pearson & O'Loughlin, 2021). Racism continues in the way that policing is conducted, in recruitment practices of some employers, in the attitudes and casual racism of many non-indigenous Australians, as well as in the language used by certain politicians to further their racist agendas in order to secure conservative votes.  

Another argument by opponents of CRT is that people should stop living in the past. Hmm ... those same people usually make a big deal of commemorating Anzac Day, Remembrance Day or other national days of significance. It's not those who which to discuss history who are rewriting history, it's those who refuse to discuss it outside their myopic knowledge of the past. Discussions around Australia Day, usually result in conservatives white-washing history, refusing to acknowledge the past or wanting to understand why anyone is still upset with forced displacement or racism. When Yassmin Abdiel-Magheid dared to raise some less than savoury elements of Australia's military past on Anzac Day, she was literally driven from the country following threats of rape and death by conservatives who refuse to acknowledge that perhaps there have been some unsavoury events in Australia's military history. 

Australia may no longer have a White Australia Policy and terra nullius may have been over-ruled, however, that doesn't mean that racism no longer exists. Racism isn't only confined to indigenous people. For instance, the political discourse in Australia, and for that matter in the United States and many European countries, is full of xenophobic fear-mongering and racist dog-whistling. The danger of this is that it empowers casual and overt racism. For example, Australian senator, Mehreen Faruqi, has described the horrendous racist abuse that she has experienced in Australia, even though as a senator, she is working hard for the betterment of Australian society (Faruqi, 2021). Mehreen is Muslim and was born in Pakistan. She isn't the first or only overseas-born politician in Australian parliament. However, politicians such as Julia Gillard, Larissa Waters, Tony Abbot, and Mathias Cormann, have not suffered the racism that Mehreen suffered. Those politicians are white and born in western nations. Another Australian politician, Anne Aly, is a Muslim who was born in Egypt. She has also reported horrendous racism in Australia. She was called an 'ISIS whore', and threatened with being 'gassed in ovens like Holocaust victims' (Christmass 2021). 

Racism is not something that exists only in the past. It is very much alive in today's society. The first principle mentioned above, regarding race as being a social construct, is extremely important to understand. It considers that while geography does help shape a person's identity, it isn't the only thing. However, we often see racists judge people based on their nationality, colour or religion. They may label black people as lazy, Muslims as terrorists, or, as we saw with former President Donald Trump, label Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals and rapists. Trump got away with it because racism is normalised and accepted. 

A high-profile example of systemic racism was that of Kyle Rittenhouse, a then 17-year old boy who crossed state-lines to attack Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse was armed with an assault rifle, which he used to shoot protesters; killing two and severely injuring a third. A few days ago, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges, including murder. Disturbingly, many conservatives supported Rittenhouse, seeing him as a patriot. Had it been a Muslim who fired shots, it would likely have been treated as terrorism. Meanwhile, there have been thousands of examples of black people who have been shot dead, simply for the crime of being black. Rittenhouse was white, affording him the privilege of benefiting from the systemic racism inherent in the criminal justice system of the US. Rittenhouse has been photographed with white supremacist group, the Proud Boys, giving the white power hand signal (Hayne, 2021). In the trial, the judge banned referring to Rittenhouse's victims as protesters, and stated that they were to be referred to as 'looters, arsonists, or rioters' (Hayne, 2021). This immediately validated Rittenhouse's actions as self-defence. If it was truly self-defence, if the protesters were truly the ones doing the attacking, then how come it was only Rittenhouse who fired on them? The judge was biased and did not afford an objective trial, even allowing Rittenhouse to select his own jury; a job usually left for a clerk of the court (Graham, 2021).

It is clear that systemic racism still exists in Australia, the United States, and other countries. It is important to acknowledge our racist history and the consequences of it, in order to stop the perpetuation of racism. It isn't just that certain individuals are racist, it is the systems that normalise that behaviour, and perpetuate racism and injustice throughout the criminal justice system, education and employment. 

References

Anderson, L, & Gatwiri, K, 2021, The Senate has voted to reject critical race theory from the national curriculum. What is it, and why does it matter?, Southern Cross University, 22 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.scu.edu.au/engage/news/latest-news/2021/the-senate-has-voted-to-reject-critical-race-theory-from-the-national-curriculum-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter.php. 

Christmass, P, 2021, Muslim PM Anne Aly details horrific stories of racism, sexism and death threats, 7 News, 19 March, viewed 21 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/muslim-pm-anne-aly-details-horrific-stories-of-racism-sexism-and-death-threats-c-2388662. 

Faruqi, M, 2021, For eight years I’ve served Australia. The racist hate and disgusting abuse still crushes me, The Guardian, 30 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/30/for-eight-years-ive-served-australia-the-racist-hate-and-disgusting-abuse-still-crushes-me.

Graham, J, 2021, Was it fair to have Kyle Rittenhouse pick the numbers that determined his jury?, Deseret News, 17 November, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/11/17/22787727/kyle-rittenhouse-selected-his-own-jurors-in-a-lottery-is-that-fair-or-a-form-of-punishment-kenosha.

Hayne, J, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of killing two people at Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, ABC News, 20 November, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-20/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-protest-shooting-kenosha/100603512. 

Karimi, F, 2021, What critical race theory is -- and isn't, CNN, 10 May, viewed 21 November 2021, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-explainer-trnd/index.html.

Ketchell, M, 2021, Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn’t, The Conversation, 30 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752.

Palmer, B, & Wessler, SF, 2018, The costs of the confederacy, Smithsonian Mag, December, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731/.

Pearson, L, & O'Loughlin, M, 2021, 10 things that you should know about systemic racism, Indigenous X, 2 February, viewed 21 November 2021, https://indigenousx.com.au/10-things-you-should-know-about-systemic-racism/. 

Jesus was a virtue-signaller not a vaccination, and science isn't black magic

Jesus was a virtue-signaller not a vaccination, and science isn't black magic

By Ranting Panda, 26 September 2021

Covid has brought to light some of the utter ignorance and arrogance of science-denying Luddite conservatives, many of whom are Christians claiming that they place their faith in God, not vaccines, masks, lockdowns, doctors or other medical professionals. They treat science as if it's hocus-pocus mysticism, while indulging in group-think cultism that glorifies anti-intellectualism. 

They seriously believe that God, not vaccines, will protect them from the virus, even though there have been more than 4.5 million deaths from Covid worldwide. In the United States, more than 850,000 people have died so far, many of those were Christians who had fallen for the racist and anti-science lies of the disgraced former President, Donald Trump, who was more concerned with racial vilification of China, than in actually taking the virus seriously. He was directly responsible for the genocidal scale of victims in the United States. Yet right-wing Christians practically worshipped him and continue to consider him to be a man of God. God knows what God they worship, but it's clearly not the Christian God. This shows just how degenerate conservative Christianity is ... how spiritually irrelevant it has become; steeped in superstition and stupidity.

Today's conservative Christians are incensed that their individual rights are being 'violated' by mandated vaccines, masks and lockdowns. They claim they are being persecuted. Meanwhile, they were nowhere to be seen when real persecution occurred of other people. These conservatives defended Trump and other conservative governments when they persecuted refugees, the world's most vulnerable people, by demonising them, locking them up in mandatory detention without charge, even though the refugees had broken no laws and had not been charged with any crimes. Conservative Christians defended and condoned this persecution. But the moment these cowards are asked to stay home and wear masks, they carry on as if they've been locked up on Manus Island for years on end. Clearly, 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you', is something they only pay lip service to. It shows that they have no concern for others and are only concerned with themselves. 

This has been magnified during Covid-19, when they have shown no concern for the community, for reducing the spread of the virus throughout their neighbourhoods, minimising the risk of infection by others. Instead, they are only interested in themselves. Jesus said to 'Love your neighbour'. In fact, Mark 12:33 says that loving your neighbour is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.

It isn't showing love to your neighbour if you don't care about your neighbour being infected by a deadly virus. The Bible tells Christians to not be selfish, but to be selfless. Philippians 2:3-4 says, 'Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others'. Throughout Covid, conservative Christians have shown that they are selfish, not selfless.

Recently, Pastor Keith Marshall published an article entitled 'What does your faith exempt you from'. Marshall boldly suggested that as a Christian he was exempt from putting his own needs above others, claiming freedom in Christ without responsibility for his actions, or refusing to protect the most vulnerable. This sounds positively socialist. Dare he suggest that Christians were called to put the needs of others ahead of their own need? 

Not surprisingly, this caused a lot of consternation among conservative Christians, who were obviously convicted of their selfishness by his words. To be frank, it was a little entertaining reading their comments, which showed just how deluded and degenerate conservative Christianity has become. So a few of their comments are republished here and are representative of much of the commentary about the article.

Many of the commentators claimed that they put their faith in God, not in vaccines or science. Apparently, because God gives us an immune system, there is no need for vaccines ... after all, history shows how well our immune systems have coped over the centuries. 

Of course, there was the claim repeated ad nauseum of one's body being a temple ... hmm ... one can be confident that the Bible was not banning life-saving medication being used in said 'Temple'. Instead, it was more talking about allowing the Holy Spirit to dwell within ... you know a spiritual kind of thing, so it's really this redacted commentator who is twisting the Lord's word.

Many, many commentators banged on about God creating them with an immune system sufficient for pandemics such as this ... sadly, there's millions of dead Covid victims whose testimony from the grave shows that the immune system needs a bit of a kick along.

Then there was this person who doesn't appear to be aware of the significantly higher infant mortality rate before vaccines, and the much shorter average life expectancy before modern medicine … it seems that God did need a helping hand after all. And yes, redacted commentator, the vaccine does help to prevent the spread of the virus as well as reduce the severity of it in those who do become infected. Unvaccinated people account for more than 98% of deaths from Covid (Johnson & Stobbe, 2021).  

There was this irate statement accusing Marshall of virtue-signalling ... but keep in mind that Jesus was a virtue-signaller ...

Conservatives love to throw insults around when people are actually trying to do the right thing by others. For instance, they'll call them do-gooders, virtue-signallers, or politically correct. Christians should actually be all these things. The Bible says that Christians are 'created in Christ to do good works' (Ephesians 2:10). It says to 'let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven' (Matthew 5:16). Political correctness is simply about treating others with respect. You know that thing mentioned earlier about 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you', well, that's political correctness Bible style. 

Many conservative Christians treat the sharing of wealth as though it's socialism ... oh wait ... I guess it is. But then, the Bible does describe how the people redistributed their wealth 'to each as anyone had need' (Acts 4:32-35). One would think the scripture was written by Karl Marx, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Conservative Christians will often argue that the Parable of the Talents is evidence of capitalism being God's chosen economic system. This parable is described in Matthew 25:14-30 and likens the Kingdom of Heaven to a farmer who entrusts his servants with some of his property. He gives them differing amounts 'to each according to his ability' ... already it's sounding like something from Marx. The parable then talks of the servant who received five talents, making another five talents. The one who had two talents, made another two talents. The one who received one talent, buried it in the ground because he feared the farmer. Not surprisingly, the farmer wasn't happy. The talents were distributed according to each servant's ability, so the one who received one, had the ability to be more productive. Firstly, this is a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven, not an economic model. Interesting that the Kingdom of Heaven requires people to do good with what they have. Who'd have thought, huh? Do-gooders in Heaven, ala Ephesians 2:10 and Matthew 5:16!

 BUT ... if one wants to use the parable of the talents as an economic exemplar, then it merely shows that workers should be productive, which is necessary regardless of the economic model; socialism requires productivity, capitalism requires productivity, feudalism requires productivity ... you get the idea. In other words, 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need', which does enable equitable redistribution of wealth and for people to do good works to help each other. 

Yet, many conservative Christians throw insults such as 'social justice warriors' (or SJW) at those who help the less privileged. By their standards, Jesus was the ultimate SJW. He was a do-gooder and a commo. Christ's teachings have a very strong socialist bias. He was about helping the poor and needy, about sharing wealth and showing love to the 'least of these', that is those who most need it, who have been shunned and ostracised by society. Christ did not preach a gospel of selfishness and accumulating wealth, or that one should be only concerned for themselves, or only care for other Christians. How often do we see Christians pray for other Christians, such as in Afghanistan or Iraq, but don't pray for Muslims persecuted in those same countries. Conservative Christians have lost the way.

Jesus was a virtue-signaller ... he hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, drunkards, and sinners. By today's conservative Christian standards, this would mean that he was virtue-signalling to those who lived these lives rather than rebuking them and hanging out with the religious conservatives who didn't take kindly to his politically correct, do-gooder ways. For that matter, his harsh criticism of the selfish, egotistical religious folks, not to mention his temper tanty in the temple, was virtue-signalling to sinners who avoided the temple or criticised the profiteering priests and pious 'parishioners' of the day.  

Not all commentators pulled lemon-sucking, lip-pursing face when they read Pastor Marshall's article. Some pointed out the darker history of Christianity over the centuries, replete with warring in the name of God, subjugation in the name of God, enslavement in the name of God, abuse in the name of God, and killing in the name of God.

As a point of interest, observant readers would notice that the post highlighting some of Christianity's less than savoury accomplishments, received all of two 'likes', whereas those that criticised Pastor Marshall, received hundreds and even thousands of positive reactions. Wow! Way for conservative Christianity to shine!

Some seemed to make the rather tenuous assumption that being anti-vax was an indication of their love for God. 'How do they arrive at that?', you may wonder. To be frank, I've got nothing. But apparently, putting God first, means it's ok to be anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, thus risking harm to their neighbours. 

This tweet explains why it is not ok for anyone, Christian or not, to be so self-centred. 

There's been a disturbing trend towards anti-intellectualism by many conservatives, not just Christians. They treat education as a if it's part of a broader socialist agenda to usher in an era of leftist intellectualism. They treat science as if it's black magic. So here we are ... people believing that God is some sort of wizard waving a magic wand to protect them from Covid-19, while thousands who eschew the vaccine die painful deaths from the virus.

Of course, there may well be people who truly cannot take the vaccine because of allergy or some other health issue. However, those people who can take it, but consciously choose not to, are selfish and have no concern for the welfare of others. Across the globe, the vast majority of deaths from Covid are among the unvaccinated. Lockdowns will eventually end as the vaccinated population reaches a certain point, but this won't end the virus. Instead, it will leave the unvaccinated vulnerable to the more serious effects of the virus, and sadly many of the anti-vaxxers will succumb to Covid because of their own ignorance and arrogance.