{"id":11239,"date":"2022-02-19T12:40:21","date_gmt":"2022-02-19T01:40:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/?p=11239"},"modified":"2022-07-22T00:37:40","modified_gmt":"2022-07-21T14:37:40","slug":"why-does-stan-grants-opinion-about-religion-pass-as-analysis-on-the-abc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/2022\/02\/19\/why-does-stan-grants-opinion-about-religion-pass-as-analysis-on-the-abc\/","title":{"rendered":"Why does Stan Grant’s opinion about religion pass as ‘analysis’ on the ABC?"},"content":{"rendered":"

We recall the controversy surrounding <\/span>Emma Alberici\u2019s 2018 article<\/span><\/a> about corporate tax cuts. Subsequently, the ABC judged it to have crossed the line from analysis into opinion.\u00a0 According to <\/span>ABC Editorial Standards<\/span><\/a>, analysis articles must be impartial, presenting a diversity of views without favouring any single view. \u201cThe primary purpose of analysis (including live commentary) is to aid understanding and provide richer context and information, rather than to pass judgement or sway opinion”.<\/span><\/p>\n

With that in mind, consider Stan Grant\u2019s analysis of the religious discrimination debate, \u2018<\/span>Does Australia have a God Problem<\/span><\/a>\u2019 , and his previous article \u2018<\/span>With Christianity receding and many abandoning hope, today\u2019s Christmases are not like those of my childhood.<\/span><\/a>\u2019 Both overtly favour Christianity while bemoaning the rise of secularity and secularism.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the first article, Grant takes us on a swashbuckling ride charting the retreat of faith from the Middle Ages until now. The pretence of analysis is achieved by quoting selectively from academics.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Grant quotes academic Olivier Roy, “secularisation has given way to large-scale de-Christianisation”, and “a serious crisis surrounding European identity and the place of religion in the public sphere”.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

France is afraid of God, according to Atlantic<\/em> writer, Rachel Donadio. Charles Taylor, author of <\/span>A Secular Age<\/span><\/i>, describes how \u201cmodernity cannot but bring about a death of God\u201d. Without faith, liberalism is “unsure of its moral basis”, according to political philosopher Judith Shklar.\u00a0 The assembled snippets suggest modern societies are void of meaning and moral grounding without faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

Grant takes out the hammer with Christian theologian John Milbank: \u201cSecularity itself, Milbank says, relies on an \u2018ontology of violence\u2019; it \u2018assumes the priority of force and tells us how this force is best managed and confined by counter-force\u2019.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Some will bristle at the idea violence is somehow inherent to secularity.\u00a0 This sounds like the old trope of atheism equals immorality \u2013 we can\u2019t be good without God.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Some will bristle at the idea violence is somehow inherent to secularity.\u00a0 This sounds like the old trope of atheism equals immorality \u2013 we can\u2019t be good without God.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

However, Milbank\u2019s theories reference the historical rise of the nation and the ideas of Thomas Hobbes where the state holds primacy over faith. When Milbank says violence, he often really means power, noting competing interests in a pluralist society. But, without any explanation, the reference to Milbank is misleading at best, and disingenuous at worst. Where is ABC\u2019s editor?<\/span><\/p>\n

Grant’s piece culminates as follows: \u201cJohn Milbank argues that Christianity itself can reconcile virtue with difference in a way that is \u2018living together in agreement, rather than mutual toleration\u2019. He says it is a justice of a \u2018real peace, that is more than just suspended warfare\u2019.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Endorsing fringe theological views is more than mere \u2018analysis\u2019. Dispensing with modernity and retreating to politics of pre-modern Medieval times, radical orthodoxy contains the following tenets: <\/span>rejection of\u00a0modernity altogether; <\/span>human knowledge relies on the Divine; truth has no grounding except for an inclination towards the Divine; <\/span>without God there\u2019s only a <\/span>\u201c<\/span>nullity at the heart of things\u201d; <\/span>s<\/span>cience should be governed by theology.<\/span><\/p>\n

Outside of the halls of theological debate, no one has ever heard of John Milbank. His writing is like an encyclopedia of golden-age thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n

Grant would probably deny endorsing Milbank\u2019s views. But having characterised modernity as a collection of liberal democracies emptied of moral certainty, Milbank presents as a solution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Further, our religious freedom debate had nothing whatsoever to do with Milbank\u2019s \u2018radical orthodoxy\u2019. Besides Stan Grant, what politician, interest group, or media commentator has referred to these views? Though the debate was feisty and hurtful, it would be a stunning result if our elected leaders decided to do away with Enlightenment values, science and liberal democracy and head straight back to the year 1500.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Prior to Christmas, the ABC published Grant\u2019s, \u201c<\/span>With Christianity receding and many abandoning hope, today\u2019s Christmases are not like those of my childhood.\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 A familiar tale of \u2018Christianity under attack\u2019 which concludes with the following <\/span>ex cathedra<\/span><\/i> pronouncement: \u201cOur world is immeasurably poorer for the loss and derision of faith and the substitute of cynicism.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Clearly, this is an opinion. It\u2019s also just plain wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

The developed world is <\/span>measurably<\/span><\/i> richer and better off today than in the centuries when Christendom ruled. Counting the ways \u2013 in wealth, health, medicine, infant mortality, longevity, leisure time, working hours, conflict, crime, even income equality\/inequality \u2013 <\/span>we live with comforts scarcely imaginable several centuries ago<\/span><\/a>. And all with a corresponding decline in religiosity.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

If the recent debate between faith and reason has told us anything, it\u2019s that certain faith-based beliefs and the rights of LGBTI and transgender people are irreconcilable. Waleed Aly <\/span>highlighted the zero-sum nature of the contest<\/span><\/a>. Allowing faith-based employers full licence to act in accordance with their faith undermines the rights of those they employ and service, particularly LGBTI and trans folk.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The other takeaway is that our community has little patience for legislation allowing religious groups to discriminate.\u00a0 Religious freedom should not weaponise discrimination, and the rights of individuals should take precedence over the desire of services providers to maintain a certain faith-based ethos. Human rights trump human beliefs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, I think the ABC should call Stan Grant\u2019s articles \u2018Opinion\u2019 rather than \u2018Analysis\u2019. I, for one, can\u2019t wait to see what he\u2019d come up with once freed from the shackles of analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Photo: Inset image by ABC Local<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We recall the controversy surrounding Emma Alberici\u2019s 2018 article about corporate tax cuts. Subsequently, the ABC judged it to have<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":490,"featured_media":11240,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[384,385],"coauthors":[206],"class_list":["post-11239","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ethics-religion","tag-abc","tag-stan-grant"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11239","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/490"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11239"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11239\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11250,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11239\/revisions\/11250"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11239"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11239"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11239"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=11239"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}