My Scarlet Letter by way of a few bigoted Catholics

I’ve criticised the Pope. I’ve frequently criticised George Pell. I’ve got stuck into Tony Abbott. I’ve criticised misleading and potentially dangerous anti-abortion propaganda (about the D&C procedure which is predominantly used for post-miscarriage operations, not abortions) which some conservative Catholics have been involved in.

It should come as no surprise that I share these things in common with a whole bunch of Catholics as well. I hence don’t think you could characterise these things as anti-Catholic. These are just disagreements that I have with some opinions, within a diverse range of opinions held within Catholicism.

None of this stops Catholics from dealing with Catholics, so it shouldn’t be an obstacle to Catholics dealing with me.

My Atheism and secular-democratic perspective

Now I’m an Atheist. I don’t think a God exists; simply because a God hypothesis to my way of thinking, doesn’t represent a parsimonious, or indeed testable explanation for the Universe when weighed against other explanations. That and I find numerous (i.e. all that I have encountered) “proofs” of God to be fatuous.

I’ve been open about this and moreover I’ve been outwardly, unapologetically and unashamedly on the public record as an atheist under my own name. I have the right to be just as open about this as others are about their religion. Indeed, I don’t proselytise atheism rather I discuss it and religion and related topics. If people want to worship God, Thor, Gaia or whatever, it matters not a bit to me. What matters to me as far as they are concerned, is how they get on with others.

I’m probably not half as outward about my atheism as the average member of an Abrahamic faith is. So it’s not at all reasonable that I should face objection from those of Abrahamic faiths, when they don’t object to the outward nature of their own members.

I believe that I apply this standard evenly. I once opined that eventual support for the funding of private schools within the Labor party would not have been likely, or at least less likely (or would have resulted in more secular version of the policy), if anti-Catholicism wasn’t rife in Australia in the first half of the 20th century.

Tolerant secularism and Catholic schools

Said anti-Catholicism (not insignificant in the Labor left at the time), I still believe to have contributed to the split and subsequent DLP wedging of the progressive side of politics. In short, if the anti-Catholicism wasn’t as extreme, (Catholic) private school funding advocates as well as in general the BA Santamarias of Australian Catholicism could not have made the demands that they did, at best gaining more moderate versions of their goals due to less support from victimised Catholics.

An (apparently left-leaning, anti-Catholic) academic from a South Australian University saw fit to send me an abusive email over this one, pointing out that the goal was to develop institutions that were there to indoctrinate Catholic norms. Oddly enough, he never seemed to notice that what I said wasn’t actually incompatible with this claim, nor did he give a rejoinder that falsified my assertion.

My point is two-fold; I don’t have any qualms about getting stuck into someone for anti-Catholic bigotry, be they on my side of the political or theistic divide. Australia’s history where the like of shop signs saying “Catholics Need Not Apply” are a norm, are fouled with an anti-secular-democratic taint (much like George Pell’s pontification) that serves only one useful purpose; a historical warning not to repeat these mistakes again.

It equally to all religions (or lack thereof); no non-religious position (such as say English teacher, IT support staff, plumber, chef or so on) in Australia should ever come with a “X Need Not Apply”. Sure, don’t employ an atheist as the Arch-Bishop of the Archdiocese of Sydney, don’t employ a Buddhist as a Pentecostal Sunday School teacher, but if religion isn’t a part of the skill set, then X-religion/lack-thereof is no grounds to keep people out of a job, or indeed out of a whole heap of opportunities.

While I try my darnedest to apply these standards myself, I also think that it’s fair of me to expect it from theists. And I do expect it. If you discriminate against me, I reserve the right to give you an earful and to make your behavior and lack of character as well known as I deem fit.

Recent developments in the Catholic School system remind me of something I heard on the internet-radio of the Rational Response Squad a while back when I was checking them out (I’m still undecided, although I found Brian Sapient’s explanation of parsimony in relation the origin of the Universe, when debating “Way of the Master”, to be deeply flawed); quotes of Baptist clergy from the founding days of modern America were supportive of the separation of church and state because back then, they were in a position of relative oppression, nowadays however, they are in a position of advantage and seek to break down the separation.

And just as Catholicism in Australia was oppressed in the early 20th Century, now it is the oppressor. The legitimate secular basis for the formation of funded Catholic Schools in Australia (even if not appreciated at the time) was not to sermonise, inculcate in Catholic dogma or preference Catholic spirituality; it was to give opportunity (by way of education) to Catholic students who were robbed of this opportunity by way of popular anti-Catholic bigotry.

Indeed, if not overly exuberant in pointing this out, Catholic schools have conceded this function through the level of their adherence to state curricular (and later curriculum framework) documents. It’s only this secular side of education that attracted state funding; funding the religious aspects would involve favoring a religion rather than providing affirmative action for its oppressed members.

The blatantly anti-democratic blatherings of Santamaria and Mannix are understandable (but not justifiable) symptoms of oppressed 20th Century Catholic Australia. But those times have past. Pell’s modern day anti-democratic rubbish is only understandable as a symptom of anti-non-Catholicism bigotry and hegemonic greed. Gone is the affirmative action justification for state funding of Catholic schools, but rather a more general non-denominational secular funding regime must apply.

I am for needs based funding of private schools, and the needs of Catholic students (that can be taken care of by a secular Government) has changed with the attrition of anti-Catholic sentiment.

The state, in funding student education in the private sector has the right to have certain secular criteria achieved as terms of funding. Without deliberately discriminating against the denomination of a private school, goals for academic, health, safety and civic aspects of the needs of students are all fair terms.

Within a tolerant secular society (which if Australia isn’t, it should be), an expectation of a private school not to discriminate on the grounds of religion (or lack thereof) is a fair term. Sure, one can discriminate on such grounds when ordaining the school priest, but the state shouldn’t be funding the religious aspects of a school anyway.

Antipathy towards the non-Catholic

Perhaps Ratzinger’s opening salvo against atheists was the stroke that emboldened the Catholic education sector in Australia. Ratzinger implied that atheists were afraid of God (and by extension what He represented; judgement for moral infractions). This isn’t wrong because it is offensive (and apologies for being “offensive” are just a backhanded insults in themselves), it’s wrong because it’s simply not true.

The consequences of immoral acts themselves, not judgement, is what I fear (because by my definition of moral, these deeds will hurt people) and I have no more fear of God than the Pope has of the monster under the bed, given that I don’t think that God exists.

Ratzinger invited division between Catholics and atheists by flat out fibbing about atheists. The kind of practice that Catholics were subjected to in early 20th century Australia. Of course, not all Catholics fall into line behind their (excuse for a) Pope so I would be remiss in assuming Ratzinger as overly deterministic, representative or even the wellspring of all Catholic antipathy towards Atheists.

Arch-Bishop Hickey’s endorsement of Intelligent Design taught in the Western Australian Science class (rather than in a non-Government funded religious education within the school), a deceitful means of getting non-comparative theology into a (government-funded) class, is an example of discrimination; against Atheist students and against Theist students who don’t buy into ID (including ironically Catholic students who tow the Pope’s line). While not directed against Atheists, it shows that sources within Catholicism other than the Pope can spawn anti-secular discrimination.

There is another Western Australian example that presents a view hostile towards Atheism, even if the religion of the target isn’t confirmed (and I wouldn’t even confirm them if I knew they were an Atheist).

Super Simmo was recently sacked from an unnamed Catholic School.

“…my contract of employment at the school I was teaching at was terminated yesterday. Why? Because it was found out that I had a blog where views that conflicted with the teachings of the catholic church existed.”

(”Simmo“, 2007)

They may have been political views, they may have been swearing. However, Simmo never identified himself on the blog, and did not show it to students. He didn’t blog from work. It was not pertinent to his employment. The (contrived) problem for the school was with inferences they drew about “Simmo” based on his blog, rather than the blog’s relevance to his teaching. Heck, he deleted the blog but that didn’t save his job.

Atheism by definition is in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore my very own blog is at least equally as guilty as Simmo’s. Any school that adopts the policy used to fire Simmo when I’m looking for a job discriminates against me, and more to the point discriminates against me in a fashion that necessarily gives (undeserved) preference to a religion in a role that attracts Government funding.

Funding that once could legitimately be argued to be offsetting discrimination against Catholics by the broader Australian community is now funding in some capacity at least, not only schools that discriminate with religion as a basis, but the very apparatus of discrimination; teacher employment. Simmo’s old school has invalidated any justification for receipt of funds from a secular Government and that’s even assuming it even has a right to do so without receiving Government funding.

Like the Baptists who over generations turned against the separation of church and state, parts of Catholicism in Australia have turned against the ethos that once offered it protection, all to gain unfair and divisive advantage over others. And they have to gaul to ask for Government funding to do so.

Getting Personal

This whole thing got a bit personal for me recently, with what I perceive to be anti-Atheist bigotry from Catholic quaters towards myself. Not just from a friend, but from someone I’m supposed to be able to call a colleague.

Generally with teachers of a theistic persuasion, I’ve had a pretty good relationship. Back in 2005, I went to a UNESCO gig about spirituality (not necessarily the religious/supernatural variety) and values education where a whole range of faiths had participants and we all got along just fine. There wasn’t a hint of antipathy between any party and indeed everyone seemed to be made to feel very welcome.

This is my preferred disposition towards (and from) other teachers irrespective of religion.

I won’t go too much into the details, but I was recently shunned by a friend (as of 2001) who is a teacher, who also happens to be Catholic. Suffice to say, their association with me, observable by other Catholics was ended abruptly after I started wearing my status of “Atheist” on my sleeve.

I don’t have any specific answers as to why, nor do I think I need them (which is good because quite frankly I don’t care to hear either apologies or dissembling). I think I can deduce the answer. Said (ex) friend isn’t the kind of person, in my view at least, to disregard a friendship purely on the basis of religion. You can also rule out the notion of self-preservation against Atheism because I didn’t do anything more than disclose my position (rather passively).

As for my criticisms of some of the views held be some Catholics, well like I said, such disagreements exist between Catholics and they still freely associate, so it’s no grounds for cutting off association with an Atheist.

This leaves behind the (ex) friend’s network, a number of which take their Catholicism very seriously. The only possibility I can think of is that my status of “Atheist” is somehow a social liability to my (ex) friend.

Seriously, can you imagine one teacher ending their association with another on the grounds of race, because their friends find black people repugnant? I guess they may say “black people can’t change their skin colour, but you can convert Bruce” but that would just be disingenuous. I’d never shun a person for being Catholic, or fail to employ them on such a basis.

Heck, if I was in charge of an Atheist private school* that didn’t even receive Government funding, I still wouldn’t discriminate against Catholic teachers seeking work on the grounds of their Catholicism; in fact I’d make a point of it to students so as to model the antithesis of religious bigotry.

I’m not going to end my friendships with Catholics (or theists of other persuasions either), but I’m not going to open myself up to individuals or institutions that practice malice against Atheists (or the “wrong” denominations of theist). Moreover I’m not going to become an ashamed and apologetic Atheist; rather the opposite.

My name is Bruce Everett and I’m an Atheist. Catholic schools, you may not want to employ me but that’s okay. Sure, it lowers my opportunities, but it lowers yours as well. Sure, some of you may want to employ me, but you are a part of the same institution; who in the Catholic school system is weeding out this unprofessional, and grossly unethical bigotry in your midst?

If you want me to take you seriously as an employer, first you need to do a few things.

1. Compensate, without having to be asked by the victim, everyone your school system has discriminated against unfairly.
2. Identify those who engage in unfair discrimination in the employment of education professionals and end both their employment and call for their professional registration as teachers (if they indeed are teachers) to be revoked.
3. Denounce all of Ratzinger’s deceptions about non-Catholics, pointing out why each of them are factually incorrect. I don’t care how verboten contradicting the Pope is, you have people contradicting the Pope on evolution-vs-ID already. Besides, if your Pope told you to kill me, would you?
4. All state funds used in a way that is religiously bigoted, return to the state. With interest.

I don’t expect that I’ll force the Catholic School systems hand on this, just me one teacher. The point is that the Catholic school system shouldn’t need to be forced on these matters, at least not by Joe Public like me. I will never discriminate on the basis of Catholicism, but I will discriminate (fairly) against unfair discrimination. I won’t work in a Catholic School system so handicapped in ethical conduct.

But more importantly, I won’t let this religious discrimination negatively affect my sense of identity. I’m out about my Atheism, and I’m not ashamed about it. In fact, I’ve just signed up to the OUT Campaign; that’s my Scarlet Letter.

The OUT Campaign

I’m fully aware of how this could negatively impact upon my career, social life and so forth. But then argumentum ad baculum never really influenced me. If people want to force my hand somehow, they should consider that I may reciprocate.

What theists (not just those Catholics) who would have me not be out about my Atheism need to consider is just how forgiving I’ll be if they do the wrong thing by me. I’ve often heard from some theists that without God, Atheists don’t have morals. So how forgiving will I be if that’s true?

I’ll leave that one up in the air.

And I’m not about to shut up and go away either. People shouldn’t even bother praying for that.

~ Bruce

* Now there’s an idea; we just need a benefactor to get us started. Let’s face it, with Atheists being more or less hated in the western world, there is grounds for affirmative action, not in endorsing Atheism (or funding the teaching of Atheist philosophy), but in providing opportunity to a minority on the receiving end of popular bigotry.