Comparing the Ugly Rant to the Arrow Keynote.

April 3, 2012

/ by Scott

In the past few days we’ve posted a few examples of the kinds of things that typify the kind of things ACCESS supporters say.

One we called “An Ugly Rant” – and it got a lot of comments from FIRIS supporters – 50 likes on Facebook, and 26 comments on the thread – which is a lot for a website with a regional focus on a policy issue like ours.

The other post we put up, however was from the Keynote speech at an ARROW Leadership meeting. This post only got one response!

I’ve been concerned that posting the “Ugly Rant” gets people talking – but posting “Keynote Speech” seems to be less interesting to people. To me, the opposite is true. The Keynote Speech – is something that we should talk about and understand, and to take a cue from, “meet toe to toe”. The Ugly Rant, on the other hand is nothing special – another whelp of anger from a person clinging to the fringes of literacy.

The Keynote Speech however – comes from a place much closer to the levers of power – and therefore is something that leads to rule making, and the handing out of money and political favors.

ARROW for those of you not following closely is a group that is closely allied with ACCESS. The chairman of ACCESS is on the board of ARROW, the Chair of ARROW is a leading funder of ACCESS, the CEO of ACCESS is on the board of ARROW. Both groups are animated by a similar theological framework, and both are strategic, church led activism to explicitly promote religious identity. Both are hostile to the core values of a secular society, and especially so to the core value that church state separation is among our highest values.

The “Ugly Rant” – is naked in its hostility, it is easy to laugh at and easy to mock – that is why we got so many comments mocking it and condemning it. The Keynote Speech, on the other hand is veiled, its hostility and intentions are disguised and coded, it speaker is charming and well groomed.

“The Ugly Rant” and the ARROW Keynote – are, however, really saying the same thing – the main difference is in the education and sophistication of the keynote speaker – Tim Sims. Sims is a person with a large network in the business world in Australia. His education is first rate. He received an MA from Oxford University and an MPA from Harvard where he was a Kennedy Scholar (this is a fund which pays people from the UK to attend Harvard and was given to honor JFK).

It is this last fact that moves what he says from alarming, to beyond the pale, as Sims is using his degree in Public Administration, on a scholarship funded in honor of JFK, at a school named in honor of JFK, to advocate (as a matter of personal conviction) the erosion of the values that Kennedy worked so hard to promote. It would be like finding out that a person on a Jonas Salk scholarship at the Columbia School of Medicine, had moved to Australia to advocate preventing vaccinations!

Listen again to Sims:

Now listen to John F. Kennedy:

http://youtu.be/xUl6T2hQIbk?t=1m9s

What is terrifying to me is that Tim Sims can talk like he does with no fear of having to answer for his comments, or even consider that he might have to defend the outrageous nature of these views. It gets worse, secular society has become so complacent about the threat posed by thinkers like Sims, that politicians talk like Sims too (eg. John Howard), and it seems that everyone, politicians and citizens alike seem to have forgotten how to talk like Kennedy.

In case this post seems a bit removed from the topic of “Religions in School” it is that, in addition to the overlap in leadership between ACCESS and ARROW – the argument Sims makes is exactly the argument that got us “Special Religious Instruction”.

Here was how it was phrased during the Cold War, by the then Minister of Public Instruction, who worked to repeal the “secular” provision in the education act of 1872:

The churches are responsible for the Christian teaching in the community, and I am wondering whether there is any chance of agreement among them as to what could and should be taught in our schools. It does not need any great political sagacity to realize that no alteration in the education system, with respect to religion, can even be suggested, much less achieved, without the unanimous support of all churches. It is very difficult to develop character or to train children in the importance of family life and Democratic citizenship under the present system. (Kent S. Huges, 1948, letter to the CCESS)

When intellectuals and politicians put things in these dire existential terms – what they are really doing is stoking the “ugly rant” and pandering to fear. In this case it is a fear of the very values and ideas that make Australia both free – and great.

In order to combat the Ugly Rant – we must understand how to confront “The Keynote”. Leaders of the stature of Kennedy are rare, and as we’ve seen, gifts made in their honor can easily be perverted to promote the opposite of their ideals.

News

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

John van den Akker

April 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm

I’m not sure why you would be at all surprised that Sims can make the statements he does without fearing censure of some sort.

Consider the fact that there has to be any discussion as to whether or not there should be an independent government enquiry in to the incidence of sexual abuse in the Catholic church and the means by which the church has dealt with it. Can you possibly imagine if the sort of criminal sexual activity that has taken place within the confines of the church had taken place instead within our schools, there would be people marching in the streets for an enquiry.

Go and have a look at the website of the Australian Christian Lobby and in particular the comments which are being posted there on the subject of the mooted introduction of same-sex marriage and then consider that both Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott have spoken in the past at conferences organised by the ACL.

In the same vein, how did John Howard (when PM) think it worth his while to meet privately with members of the Christian sect (read “cult”) the Exclusive Brethen.

I don’t think your post about the Arrow keynote is removed from the Religion in Schools for one moment – though I have to admit that the zeal and eagerness obvious within Access at the idea of having the opportunity to push their insidious nonsense on to children who do not have even the beginnings of the means to filter the truth from faith based bullshit is far more upsetting.

Heike

April 3, 2012 at 9:45 pm

You are right of course that this is a frightening thing. I think the rant touched so many of us because these ranters are the people we are most likely to come into contact with. They come to us. The Arrow participants work at a different level, and in a different world. If they start to affect us in our daily lives we call them out but otherwise, not so much. I don’t really know what we can do either apart from teaching those around us to have effective bullshit filters. I’d like to hear what others think.

Jacinta cashen

April 3, 2012 at 10:22 pm

Thanks for writing these things and sharing. My biggest problem is having the time to make sure i am an informed citizen and then working out where to spend my energy. There is just so much to care about.

Rod

April 6, 2012 at 10:29 am

I think Heike makes an interesting point – most grass roots parents are more likely to be confronted face to face by the Ugly Ranter than the Keynote speaker.

But what think Scott is saying (and I agree totally) is that the Keynote speaker has a potentially huge impact on the social and political environment under which we all operate. It’s that environment which gives the Ugly Ranter permission to operate and feel vindicated, as well as giving ACCESS the power to keep doing their SRI indoctrination project. Tackling the Ugly Ranter won’t slow down ACCESS at all – it’s just a distraction for us. Lifting our sights, getting informed about the pwoer games, and tackling the high level players is what will really make a difference.

Scott rightly points to the hypocrisy of the Keynote speaker, and his easily persuaded politician cronies, when they claim to be supporting democracy and a fair society, but by their actions promote one particular religious outlook at the expense of others. They will happily take away the rights of us and our children in order to do just that.

Andy Goss

April 12, 2012 at 2:16 am

Sims’ little homily, and indeed the entire Arrow concept, is based on the misapprehension that management has any significant influence on the workforce outside of the running of the business. Most employees view management with caution, hoping they are competent at their jobs, but with few illusions about their characters, the reliability of what they say, or the coherence of their thinking.
Arrow looks like another networking thing, all about contacts. Religion is just another management tool for them, even if they genuinely believe it.