Holy Bifurcations!

This billboard in Ballarat was recently snapped by Bridgit Gread of GrodsCorp.

(Source: Bridgit Gread)

There is that old bifurcation, if you aren’t with X you are against X. (Versions of) Matthew 12:30, Bush Jr, even frigging Palpatine (I’m sure that Lucas wasn’t thinking of Matthew’s attribution to Jesus, even if he was thinking about Bush Jr at the time).

By implication in this billboard, if you don’t vote “Lord”, then you are categorically against Jesus. The problem with this implication is that the terms are restricted to that of Lewis’s Trilemma. Another false set of categories, this time a trifurcation.

Not only are you restricted to three categorical positions, if you participate, you are forced to accept the specific terms of Lewis’s theology and I for one have a problem with this.

At least on grounds of reason. I’m not so narrow-minded that I can’t see that Christians of various theologies may have differing definitions of lordship. Hence, if one cannot tick for Lewis’s version of lordship, you have the potential for Christians to be cast as anti-Christ by the terms of this billboard.

Quite absurd indeed. But that’s what you get if you combine a false dichotomy rendition of Matthew 12:30 with a trifurcation from the rubbish theology of Lewis.

But it’s not just Christians being potentially cast as anti-Christ that is problematic. There are more possibilities than listed and of the existing possibilities, they are not mutually exclusive. Nor are these excluded possibilities necessarily anti-Christ.

Jesus could have been both a liar and a lunatic. Jesus could have been neither.

He could have been a mortal man, mistaken about his divine heritage but right about a lot of other things (e.g. see much of the Sermon on The Mount). This is hardly lying, lunacy or lordly in as far as Lewis recognised the terms, and not a few atheists take this position; a position that is far from anti-Christ.

“Fictional” is also another term that could be added to the ballot. “Obscured by millennia and the limits of translation and human intellect” is yet another. Indeed, Jesus could be a fictional representation of a man, mistaken about his divine heritage… etc.

Atheist and theist alike can come up with reasonable additions to the ballot and we shouldn’t feel compelled to just one of the three because of a rhetorical “voting is compulsory”. Why aren’t we able to run our own candidates?

There is also another imposition upon the target of this billboard (i.e. you and I). It doesn’t just casually invoke civic principles of mandatory voting (in a non-analogous situation – the state doesn’t, nor at least shouldn’t enforce one to chose from discrete, pre-selected theological positions*), it actually uses the Coat of Arms of Australia.

After some consideration, I won’t use a zoomed-in shot of the Coat of Arms, lest it itself be misconstrued as an use of the Coat of Arms. I’m criticising someone else’s use of it. Suffice to say, it is vaguely visible to the left of the words “Ballot Paper” and from the higher resolution version that Bridgit sent me, it is clearly visible.

There are civic ramifications to the use of the Coat of Arms. There is an implication of authority, which even if only rhetorical is inappropriate. Even considered as purely rhetorical, combined with the above entangling of civic responsibilities with purely religious objectives, in the use of the Coat of Arms we have some pretty authoritarian, sectarian bellicose.

We clearly have a massive dis-inhibition towards the separation of Church and State and quite likely a massive sense of entitlement to special treatment. What gives the publisher of this billboard such power that they can command you to participate as a captive audience in their proselytism, and wave the trappings of state in mock authority?

Clearly, nothing of our secular society does nor should.

“Individuals can apply to the Awards and Culture Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for permission in writing to use the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. The Awards and Culture Branch has discretion to grant permission in limited circumstances, including for the purposes of education, and for Australian teams competing in international competitions.

Use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms without permission may breach the Trade Practices Act 1974, the Trade Marks Act 1995 and the Criminal Code Act 1995.”

(Use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms General Guidelines, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2008 )

Somehow, I don’t see these “limited circumstances” encompassing sectarian proselytism, especially since that would require the Commonwealth to give preferential treatment to a particular religion (the applicant) which is prohibited by the Australian Constitution.

So who was behind this billboard? Who feels such entitlement to the trappings of Government that they should be employed to proselytise? Who is subverting the concept of compulsory voting by equating it with a “choice” amongst three narrow, pre-determined religious terms?

I’d like to say I know and I’ll be pressing Bridgit about it, but I’m afraid that even in the hi-res version of the photo the publisher’s logo, or at least what I assume is their logo, is still too vague to make out. If you see this one anywhere in Victoria, drop us a line!

~ Bruce

* Under some “religious education/instruction” schemes, State Governments have a history of doing just that in allocating children to particular pre-determined faith groups. Aside from the convention of keeping Church and State apart (something the State Governments aren’t bound to), this is just bad teacher-centred pedagogy.