Evolution of Creationism - my upcoming radio piece

This coming Friday (2nd December 2005) I have been invited onto the ABC Radio National program "Perspectives" to deliver an essay on "The Evolution of Creationism".

Perspectives is a short segment appearing each weekday evening at 5:54pm, just before the news (or later, depending on where you are, check the website for air times). Various people, usually eminent in their field expound on every subject imaginable. I feel overwhelmed and privileged to be in their company.

The Perspectives program goes out Nationally and then Internationally via Radio Australia, plus whoever comes in over the Internet or reads the transcript on the ABC site. Listener figures in Australia approach six figures, and overseas even the ABC don't know.

Radio National is AM 576 in Sydney (here for other areas), or alternatively listen to the permanent streaming broadcast.

I will follow this post with a full transcript, additional commentary and audio shortly after the piece airs on the radio on Friday. Please feel free to check back here then.

A Bouquet for Jacarandas

Has anyone noticed it's been a glorious year for Jacaranda flowers? Jacarandas are native to South America and I'm not sure how widespread the species is elsewhere, so I'll describe them for my overseas readers. Jacaranda trees grow to a prodigious height of over 20m. The bark is flat & silvery on the boughs but rough at the bole. Leaflets are only 1cm long but are arranged into compound fronds up to 40cm, giving the tree one of its alternative names, the fern tree.

For maybe eight weeks a year, in late Spring, the Jacaranda blooms so heavily it's branches are bowed. Clusters of amethyst flowers shaped like long, curved bells change the complexion of the whole tree. Deciduous, the tree looks spare and skeletal over winter, but come Spring, I have always taken Jacarandas as the very harbinger of happy, outdoor times, warm afternoons and new growth. Then, in December, she sheds her mauve dress and it lays on the ground like a discarded shawl.

In my town, whole streets are lined with Jacarandas and for whatever reason they are a sight of special magnificence this year. It warms my heart to see them, for I feel a special connection with the Jacaranda.

When I was small, I grew up as much at my Grandparent's home as in my own. The family property at Glenhaven used to be a farm and orchard and my great-grandparents were the local postmasters.

Glenhaven Post Office, painted 1973.

Over time, urban development encroached and the property was whittled down from scores of acres to a single acre by the time I was born. But at the centre of that acre, imperial and defiant, was a giant Jacaranda.

This tree was so big people used to park outside the fence and paint it. She was a local landmark, a queen, and she marked the seasons of my life with her blooms from ages nought to fifteen, when my grandparent's ill health forced us to sell up the remaining plot after over 120 years. My sister and I had climbed her trunk and lain along her lower branches since we could walk. The dog's kennel was at her buttressed feet.

By the time we had to sell my Grandparent's property in the late 80's, even our acre was an aberrant luxury, an anachronism of lawns and groves, surrounded by grotesque McMansions on a quarter-acre or less. When we sold, it was on the condition that the property kept its boundaries, and that special features like our Jacaranda would be saved. This softened the blow. In fact, it was the real-estate agent himself that bought the property. Assurances were made. They were lies. All lies.

Naturally, within a short time the Jacaranda was chopped down and three more houses were built on the acre, with the real-estate agent laughing all the way to damnation.

We had taken some seedlings of the original tree and planted them at my parent's property, and a row of them line our front fence and are dotted elsewhere on the property, along with a real prize, a rare white Jacaranda.

A rare white Jacaranda

These trees are now about my age, 30+, and are doing well. I've noticed with some satisfaction that their blooms are deeper, more numerous and superior to those of some other Jacarandas that were already on the property, and in time will also make excellent climbing trees.

Jacaranda flowers give way to disc-shaped seed pods. When they are dry they open like bivalve molluscs to release their seeds. I've seen millions of such seed pods, but once, and only once, something different...

A regular two sided Jacaranda seedpod

Bizarro mutant three sided Jacaranda seedpod.

Years ago, the big Jacaranda threw a seedpod with an extra side, a "trivalve symmetry", if you will. We've kept it all this time, like a four leaf clover. I've never seen a mutation anything like it before or since.

- Nathan Zamprogno

Toddlers, Wood glue, Leprosy and Weltschmerz

I've always been brought up to believe that if something is worthwhile then you need to participate in it and not just attend it. Thus, my wife and I involve ourselves in the life of our local Church. Last Sunday I was on the video desk and my wife was running the toddler's program. Problem was, my wife was sick and no one could fill in for her. As I got up that morning, my wife gave me plaintive looks between bouts of volcanic upchucking, and she just knows I can't resist her when she does that. Metaphorically I felt tiny hands dragging me inexorably into the land of drool. I found someone to fill in on the computer for part of the service.

"These kids are between 2 and 4. I can do this", I thought. The children's program does run with a program from week to week, a glossy workbook with a dozen lessons drawn from the Bible, illustrated with "Miffy" style cartoons, and accompanying line templates for use in colouring in, games and so on.

It is entirely saccharine, and unbearably American, but it was the program and blast it, I was going to do my best to present it. Now where were we up to? Ah. Lesson Eight. I read the first line of the lesson plan, and no, I'm not making this up.

"Imagine Naaman's terror as he realised that the patch on his skin was Leprosy. It was a sentence to slow death (2Kings 5:1-16)"

Oh...Kay... It took me a minute to realise that this line is actually part of the teacher's preamble to the lesson, but really and truly this was the foundation of the study itself.

I ended up winging it and getting the kids to make crowns out of paper plates with the centres cut out and paddle-pop sticks glued around the edge like the Statue of Liberty. My scripture was "Receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised those who love Him" (James 1:12). I was pleased.

Observation which is undoubtably true for all time and across the Cosmos: Small children and PVA wood glue do not mix. Which is to say, they do mix, and all to well. Toddlers should come with warning labels for things like that.

I've got to say that the intellectual stimulation I got from wrangling that scripture with a bunch of three year olds had more meat to it than I've gained from a lot of paid pastors.

Take my three year old, for example. He's got absurdism down cold. When most of us argue with our kids then it's over something. My boy has grasped the nettle of the Nihilist Weltschmerz, even at his tender age, and has completely surpassed the need for an object to debate.

His new game goes like this:
(toddler walks into lounge room with revalatory sparkle in eye)
"Daddy?"
"Yes, my boy?"
"OK. OK. OK..." (pauses to draw breath for most important utterance ever made)
"You say 'No', and I say 'Yes'."
Me: (digests abstract significance of this suggestion) "...and, that's the game?"
"Yes. Go!"
Me: (sighs) "Ahem.... 'No.'"
Him: (delightedly and loudly) "YES!"
Me: "No."...

And so we go until The Wife is holding her ears and telling us we can stick our Weltschmerz where the sun don't shine. I don't know. Why can't I get my boy to take an interest in something useful, like superstring theory? I suppose there's always next week.

Is this the lamest joke in the Universe?

My old friend Scott Lawlor and I used to want to be comedians. We used to write skits and Scott, being more motivated than I, actually got gigs at theatre restaurants and on radio. I, by way of contrast, have pursued politics for arguably the same end.

If we wanted to do some writing, mostly we'd get together and fall about laughing at jokes we made up that were absolutely hysterical to us, but... not to anyone else. First rule of comedy: Other people must get the joke.

For reasons unknown one we did years ago has sprung back to mind. I've googled for it and it seems that no one, ever, anywhere has come up with anything as nearly as lame as it, which is astonishing and must be redressed. Therefore I must add it to the blogosphere at once.

"There was political intrigue inside the fridge. The 'conservative' foodstuffs faced off against their bitter Labour rivals, who were lead by a cooked chook. The left-leaning foods were determined to undo their foes, and so the drinks, from their exclusive vantage point in the door crisper, decided to infiltrate the conservative camp and report back with any information they could obtain. The other Labourite foods were skeptical at this plot, until the chook reassured them they had successfully placed a mole, a cunningly disguised bottle of Chardonnay in the conservative camp. Privately, the other Labour foods had misgivings about both the mole, and their leader. What did they say?

'Can a chicken catch a Tory with a white wine source?'"

Everyone I've ever told this too moans, some possibly to the point of hospitalisation. You have been warned. I blame Scott.

Blogger, heal thyself!

This blog has intentionally never sought to become a sinkhole for personal musings about my bodily functions. But sometimes biology intervenes, forcefully, and discussions of politics and metaphysics become trite and seem like just so much wordplay.

Recently, I had the flu. Not a take-to-your-bed-and-make-the-wife-pat-your forehead flu, just a bad case of the sniffles and aching joints. By, say Wednesday I was over the worst of it. On Friday, the family was over for dinner and I noticed a dull ache in my upper-left chest. I put it down to the last pangs of the flu, took some paracetamol, and tried to ignore it.

On Saturday it was still there, stronger, so I took some more painkillers and went into the City to see The Producers on stage (which was actually rather good).

By Sunday things had not improved, but I was on the roster at my Church. By now the pain had travelled up my neck and down my left arm. I looked awful, or so people told me. My wife asked me how many painkillers I had had by the time we were at a wedding reception after Church. When I realised I was popping Paracetamol and Ibuprofen like a junkie and the pain was as bad as it had ever been, she (how shall I say this?), tactfully and demurely suggested I seek medical attention.

Well, those who know my wife will see my last statement as a heroic euphemism. I married into a medical family, full of nurses, paramedics, midwives and such. When I, as a typical male, suggested that all I needed was a cup of tea and a lay down, she responded with a gesture that only our fairer sex are issued a hazardous materials license to dispense. Those of you who have received "the look" will sympathise, the look being a stare and posture of such withering scorn and do-not-argue-with-me-ness that I dared offer no resistance. So in short order I was laying in the Coronary Care Unit of Hawkesbury Hospital for two nights, poked with holes, dangling with leads, and rigged to machines that made rude noises if I rolled over too quickly because it made the traces go "burp" on my monitor.

By Tuesday I had convinced everyone I was not dying and was released. A visit to the Cardiologist since then has convinced me that sadists can gain a respectable face in such a profession. They invite you in with the promise of interesting machines and flashing lights but then put you on a treadmill, again wired like a substation, with the firm intent of making you go "pop". "We need you to keep going until you reach your target heart rate, Mr Zamprogno" she said. "Easy", I thought, as they started me off at a gentle stroll. "I did the Six Foot Track last year, and that's 42km from Katoomba to Jenolan Caves in two days with a 20kg pack, AND with people 10 years younger than myself". The treadmill kicked a notch in its program forcing me to a gait where it was hard to decide between a power walk and a jog. "But," my mental narrative continued, "you crashed and burned about 5km from the end and had to get a lift, remember?" Grrr. Click. I was running like I was trying to outrun a giant spider. "Can... I... stop... now?" I gasped. "No" was the curt reply. In the end, I made my target heart rate (which is 220 minus your age, if you ever wanted to know), but only just.

Then came the lecture. It turns out the pain is nothing permanent, but the unfortunate conjunction of work-stress, high blood pressure and the leftover effects of my Flu. I need to be more active, have less stress in my life, and eat right. With grudging acknowledgement, all these points are true. I've arrived at the point in my life where being young is no longer enough to preserve my vitality and health.

I need to start consciously getting out there and doing things for the benefit of my health in and of themselves, and I'd like to start by going swimming or to the gym regularly. I need some accountability partners. Any takers?

Can I be a Christian and believe in Aliens?

Note added September 2006 to this post: I track all my posts using the excellent (and free) service StatCounter. Since I posted the below nearly a year ago I have been astonished at how much traffic this post has generated by people Googling on the question "Can I be a Christian and believe that life exists elsewhere in the Universe?" Although I originally penned the post just to blow my own horn about being a high-ranked participant in the SETI@Home program, the comments I make lower in this essay answer your question. My suggestion is that if you've arrived here asking that question, please skip over the self indulgent bits and stick with me, I have something to say to you. Let me encourage you to post your comments, too. If the context of you needing to ask the question is because you hold (or disagree with) Young Earth Creationist belief, then you'll also get something out of my other article on this subject.

Original post follows:

For the next twenty-four hours, I am the SETI@Home/ BOINC user of the day, which is a one in 233,272 opportunity. This article is in commemoration of this auspicious occasion.

I have a lucky conjunction of circumstances. I work with computers, and I am a Christian. Why lucky? Two reasons: One is I have one more tool, prayer, in my kit when dealing with a balky LDAP servers or firewalls than mere mortal, faithless geeks. The second is that it allows me to indulge in a secret hobby that will one day change the entire course of civilisation.

OK, I should caveat that last statement with the proviso that recalcitrant computers are immune to prayer, being in the Dominion of the Evil One, although I got a Tractor going once by praying for it, and that was really cool. Nor have I got anything against atheists in the IT profession, the whole personal hygiene thing notwithstanding, but let's not go there.

Anyway, since 1998 I've been the admin of a modest network of 150+ computers and it's allowed me to participate in the SETI program. SETI, for the clueless, is the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, and for overviews of what that means you can go to plenty of links.

We run a background process or screensaver on some of our computers which quietly downloads chunks of radio telescope data from the Internet, processes it for a few hours to search for complex or artificial signals buried in the radio noise of interstellar space (via some funky Fourier Analysis that has the same mathematical basis as MP3 encoding), and then returns the results. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The SETI@Home program which does the work now goes by the name BOINC and is very flexible about when it uses the computer's spare processing power (we had issues in 1999 with the first generation screensaver because it kicked in at inappropriate times, but BOINC lets me run it with zero impact on any of our users during school hours, behind the login screen but not when users are logged in. I did some cool shell scripting to renice the process down to +19 on user login)

Why should this matter? Well, for one thing, the team I created, "The Wycliffe SETI Alliance" totally kicks butt and is the #1 team in Australia ranked by daily processing.




Since 1999 we've processed more data than 99.951% of all participants worldwide (currently ranked #115 out of all 233,272 users worldwide), and this massive contribution to a collaborative scientific project has cost not a cent.




What I love about the SETI program is that it represents the purest form of exploration. It is an exquisite juxtaposition that the exploration involves no physical motion on the part of it's participants, indeed the process itself occurs entirely in a computational, virtual space rather than the "real world". Yet the realms we are charting for the first time span light years, long eons, and very real star systems. I like to think of it as similar to a group of people kitting up with butterfly nets and pith helmets and setting off to explore the more dangerous reaches of the Mandelbrot Set. Only with SETI, the El Dorado of this undiscovered country is nothing less than the single most powerful revelation in the history of all civilisation.

I appreciate the fact that in my job as an I.T manager, I can play a part in that search. Should the program pay off, the world will change forever, and I can say I played a part. I went on that expedition. I helped find life elsewhere in the Universe.

As a Christian, and working as I do at a Christian School, we devote more time than many do into dwelling on matters of purpose and meaning. I really love working in an organisation where one of the major purposes of our existence is to sit down with young people and challenge them with the big questions like "Why do you believe what you believe?"

It saddens me that a very few, narrow minded and ignorant fellow Christians regard programs like SETI as a "godless quest".

Very many fruitful and thought-provoking discussions have been started over the years regarding Man's place in the Universe when students and staff have observed our participation in the SETI program. Our outstanding ranking in the program, ahead of big, big organisations like MIT, SGI and Sun Microsystems is a real reason for pride. The idea that our little school can take a part in leading edge global scientific research and human discovery is a privilege.

Ultimately, all our various human creeds must be prepared to evolve in response to the inevitable discovery of life elsewhere in the Universe, and the discussion SETI has generated is a step in that process.

If Christians are reactive to the idea of SETI, it is because the history of science since the enlightenment is one of unremitting change in paradigms. The Church has regularly taken the “established facts” of the natural world as proof of Man’s special place in Creation. The Earth was flat. The Earth was at the centre of the celestial sphere. Life was imbued with a vitalism that defied description by chemistry. Organisms do not evolve from common ancestors. If I were a Calvinist I would have gained great comfort in Newton's description of a clockwork, essentially deterministic universe, right up until the elaboration of Quantum theory would have pulled the rug from under me.

And so now, bonehead creationists confidently claim "Earth is the one planet, the only planet that contains the only life that has ever existed in a billion, billion, billion solar systems." Like my hero, Carl Sagan, said "If we're the only life in the Universe, it seems like an awful waste of space."

Or, as someone else has put it, "Either we're alone in the universe or we aren't. Proof of that statement either way would be astonishing and transforming to our worldview."

When these sacred cows get systematically overturned by scientific progress, Christians who pin their faith on these "facts" become lost, confused, and frequently, belligerent. I believe that participation in a program like SETI, far from being a Atheist's wet dream aimed at ridding us of God (religious troglodytes frequently believe that scientific enterprises are run by conspiracies with this agenda), is a noble quest and one of the things I am most proud of. It encourages Christians to challenge whether their faith is really based on natural "facts" that require material proof (which is also why the Intelligent Design movement will cause such harm to the faith of many people as its credibility as a scientific theory gets shredded.)

It's worth noting that there are some Christians who are happy to embrace the idea of other intelligent life in the Universe and who have issued a discussion paper on the subject. I wish them well. They are ensuring that Christians will have an answer when (or if) the news ever breaks that a signal has been detected. Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, will probably all go and commit suicide.

Lastly, as a shameless plug to anyone who wants to join The Wycliffe SETI Alliance then go to this link and join us!


- Nathan Zamprogno

Nobody can stop the music

If proof were ever needed that the Recording Industry Just Don't Get It, Have Never Had It, and indeed shall Never, Ever Seem To Have The Sense To Get It, then one need look no further than the long delayed, keenly anticipated introduction of the Australian iTunes Music Store.

Poor Apple! Their experience with the music store overseas has by now definitely taught them that "if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas", and the probable reason Apple have an woo-woo phobia about their executives not being photographed is because the labels (those who would play ball, anyway) have given them a great big wedgie. I mean, a Dilbert-sized wedgie where your underthings are now flapping around your ears.

Why would I be so unkind? I've been looking forward to a legitimate means of buying music for my iPod since, well, my first one (I've had three, upgrading each time Apple upgraded their design). Welcome to the 21st Century, where advanced technologies allow us to dispense with archaic methods of distribution like physical shiny, circular disks sold from large, industrially decored music stores housed in shopping malls with exorbitant rents the cost of which is no doubt passed on to me as a part of the price. Why, with the costs of digital distribution amounting to a mere sliver of the physical costs of a CD plus the retail costs involved in wages, freight, hoarding, rent and so on, we could all look forward to recording companies seizing the initiative and offering really competitive prices, yes?

O, ho! ho! Actually, if you believe that then I should tell you that there are also tiny pixies inside your radio with a great range of impressions, but you knew that, didn't you?

Let's look at a couple of simple comparisons. I love Audiobooks, and I was pleased to note when I checked out the Australian iTunes Music Store that there was an audiobook section. From the word go, everything seemed so dear. "Hang on," I thought, "you're so used to browsing the U.S music store, remember these are Australian prices, that you can actually pay for instead of merely browsing", pressing your nose to the glass, so to speak. I picked something randomly. "Very Good Jeeves", by PG Wodehouse (under "Classics") Australian Music Store price, AU$60.99. Yep, you read that right. Over sixty dollars for an Audiobook! Gad! How much would I pay if I walked into Dymocks (a large Australian book retailer) and bought the same Audiobook? $19.95

Buying from a biggish bookstore is less than a third as much. Are they serious? Ok, I'm a geek. What about music that actual humans listen to?

Missy Higgins "The Sound of White" is listed as $19.99 at HMV's website. If I wanted to buy that album through iTunes I would have to do so song by song and would pay $21.97. Crowded House's "Recurring Dream" isn't available as a "set price" either, so I'd pay $57.46 to buy the collection through iTunes versus $22.99 at HMV. Even if I bought one CD from that set it's still 50% dearer at $32.11 from iTunes.

Most of the tracks at the Australian Store are $1.69. Tracks at the U.S iTunes Store are 99 cents. At today's exchange rate (75.1 AU cents to the US$) if pricing were equal then Australians should be paying only AU$1.32. That's a 28% premium on exactly the same music, which costs exactly the same to produce and distribute digitally. If this isn't an infraction of the AU/US Free Trade Agreement then I don't know what is.

Technology has moved ahead in so many ways in the last decades that its efficiencies have given us a quality of life scarcely imagined a century ago. I can pick up a device little bigger than a matchbox and talk to a friend in the UK. I can dispatch pictures and text to a colleague in Queensland to secure an international trade in Peru (via Denmark). We can sequence DNA with a device that, in one hour, replaces the manual work of a year. I can store, on my desktop Firewire drive, 400 Gigabytes of data, which, when I started in the computer industry a decade ago, would have cost as much as my entire house does now. But what happens when we bring the newest technology to the selection and delivery of TV, film and music? It costs more, and we get less. Against this backdrop of advancement and value, what do these anomalies signify? That the media distribution paradigms of record companies, TV studios and film houses are irretrievably broken, and that, in some cases the only solution would be for certain bodies like the RIAA to literally vote themselves out of existence, which I can't see happening anytime soon.

In an effective market where quality and demand freely allows commodities like media to find their own price point, technologies can serve to ensure that the chain of distribution does not impose a disproportionate tax on their success. When entire industries are based *solely* on archaic, unfair and greedy distribution models, then it is time for them to go.

My Interview on National Television

Author's note: Those interested by this essay will also appreciate the original essay I wrote about Family First that appeared about nine months before this interview was taped. Full details are elsewhere on this same website at THIS LINK.

This is a verbatim transcript of my interview with Jana Wendt, for the Sunday Program. Recorded May 18^th 2005. Sections of this interview were subsequently used in the program broadcast on the 3^rd of July which largely dealt with the HillSong church but also touched on the Family First connections.

JW= Jana Wendt
NZ= Nathan Zamprogno.

JW: Nathan, how long have you been a member of the Church?
NZ: I joined in May 1988, so that would be seventeen years.
JW: What does the Church mean to you?
NZ: The Church gives me an avenue to express my faith as a Christian. We believe that, as Christians, your fellowship with other believers is an important part of how you express your Christianity; with other believers. I grew up in that church. I found my wife in that church, now I'm raising my family in that church.
JW: And why particularly Assemblies of God? What does it have to offer?
NZ: I've never gone "church shopping". I've always grown up in the one church. For me, I like its relevance to people. It isn't "old and dusty", it's contemporary, it meets people where they're at, it does excellent work in the community, and it has a vision that I support.
JW: And can you conceive of your life outside of that church?
NZ: Only in the sense that I can't conceive of life outside of being a Christian. I mean, there are other churches, but I strongly believe that God has placed me in my church, and I'm not going anywhere unless I feel called elsewhere.
JW: In the lead up to the last Federal election, it was said that Family First, despite claims to the contrary, was directly linked to the Assemblies of God. Was that true?
NZ: Family First have admittedly had their genesis in the Assemblies of God church, and are trying hard, I hope, to disentangle themselves from that genesis. There were associations, and things that occurred in the church, that gave me cause for concern, yes.
JW: What kinds of things?
NZ: Well for example, the fact that on the one hand Family First were so keen to deny that there were any links whatsoever, and yet it was patently obvious that they were drawing the majority of their candidature, their support, their financing from Assemblies of God, or church-related networks; not formally, but informally.
JW: Do you know if there was any "from the pulpit" support in AOG churches for Family First candidates?
NZ: The thing that gave me the most concern I suppose was that there was always this patina of "we can't tell you how to vote", but that was always followed by actions that were contrary to that statement. So that, ministers of religion, indeed, Pastors of Churches were standing as the candidate, drawing in parishioners with no interest in politics, even church staff to stand as dummy candidates in other seats to bolster the campaign of another person.
JW: Why do you say "dummy candidates"?
NZ: Because Family First said in their own press releases that "the majority of their candidates were local"[1], and yet there were ten people from my own church, including five paid staff who were standing in seats as far away as Cessnock and Bathurst and how had absolutely nothing to do with the areas they were purportedly seeking to represent.[2]

JW: So what was the purpose of standing dummy candidates?

NZ: The Party was up front about it. They said "we want to stand as many lower house candidates as we can to support the campaign of our Senate candidates, which is where we have our only real chance."[3]

JW: So you're saying they stood those candidates in order to successfully play the "preference trading game"?

NZ: Yes, and in as much as they were up front about it, that was above board. I just didn't think it was ethical to do so.

JW: So you're saying that there was support from within Assemblies of God Churches for Family First candidates?

NZ: I think that the church was profoundly double minded about this, and I think there were misgivings at a number of levels. On the one hand, there was a genuine desire to keep themselves at arms length, and to convey that message to people that "we can't tell you how to vote". But if it was followed by "preferential airtime" for a particular party, or allowing parties like Family First to "take the service" for 15 minutes for the purpose of getting supporters, booth workers, membership, fundraising... You couldn't sustain the claim that the Church was keeping itself at arms length[4] when those kinds of things were happening.

JW: And you know that this happened in assemblies of God churches, that Family First candidates were given preferential treatment?

NZ: I can't[5] say that it happened in my church, I've heard of instances of it happening in other churches

JW: And why do you believe that Family First was so intent on claiming that there was no connection whatsoever?

NZ: Because they wanted to find a broader base for their appeal. If they were seen as a solely church-based party then they would only have the same demographic as the Christian Democrats. I think it's an attempt to try and establish themselves as a mainstream party. So far, they haven't done a very good job of it.

JW: But one of the Senate candidates went so far as to say that suggesting there was a connection was very close to slander, I think were his words?

NZ: I know, and this is an example of the double-mindedness that I found troubling; that they would be so keen to deny the church connection that they actually stepped over a line and brought scorn upon themselves.[6]

JW: What in essence is your problem with this? Family First has family values which presumably reflect the beliefs of The AOG. Why shouldn't there be a connection?

NZ: Because there is a question of "Church and State" that people have largely forgotten about. The Australian Constitution has an "Establishment Clause" (concerning an "official Church") just like the American Constitution does[7], but beyond that Australia has inherited a lot of historical ambiguities in terms of the relationship between Church and State; whether it was State Aid for religious schools in the 1960's, or the growing role of "faith-based" organizations in the provision of welfare and employment services[8]. It's an open ended question and debate will go on into perpetuity. It's a question of spiritual headship. In the Church we make a personal investment in our ministers, and they deserve a degree of qualified deference in terms of the fact that God has put them there. But as soon as they wander in to the political sphere, they need to understand that it's "fair game", and they can't take this mantle of spiritual headship in to the political sphere. Unfortunately, they haven't made that distinction.

JW: But what in essence is wrong with it, if the political party supports the position of the Church itself. Why shouldn't it go out there?

NZ: Because people that go to those churches and hold a different political flavour end up feeling uncomfortable. If they vote left of centre for example there's a danger that people will think less of their Christianity.

JW: Did that happen to your knowledge? Within the Church?

NZ: I believe it has.

JW: So people who were not inclined to vote for Family First were made to think less of a Christian?

NZ: There was probably no intent for people to feel that way. I'm not saying that anybody looked down their nose at those people, but they would have to ask questions about whether it was still "their church", when the church was taking such an overtly political stand, and at one end of the political spectrum. I can't agree with that.[9]

JW: Do you think that members of the church in the lead up to the election felt pressured in some way to vote for Family First?

NZ: I think that the preferential airtime...

JW: When you say "preferential airtime" that is speaking to...

NZ: Speaking to congregations and soforth. I mean, church newsletters that were circulated to every pastor in New South Wales[10] and Queensland[11], that I'm aware of, specifically pushed Family First and the fact that Assemblies of God people were standing as candidates in aid of their candidature. I think that creates a sense of obligation that people shouldn't have upon them.

JW: So if you were a member of an AOG church before the last election, you would have had the strong impression that your church was supporting Family First.

NZ: That would have varied depending on the individual church and how they handled that particular issue. I'm sure it varied from church to church. I'm sure that in some churches you would have felt rather uncomfortable that you were being goaded in a certain direction.

JW: You are taking this step of speaking out on this issue. You are clearly a loyal, devoted member of your church, but you feel strongly about it. Do you think there may be repercussions for you in this?

NZ: Definitely. I mean, I hope not. It won't make life any easier for me!

JW: How do you think it's going to make it difficult?

NZ: I'm not going to answer that one.[12]

JW: Has your feeling about this altered the way you think about your own church?

NZ: It does put your faith in a crucible, and it forces you to think about why you support your church, or why you support your leaders. But my faith as a Christian is rock solid. It's crystallised some things for me, but I'm not going anywhere as a result of it.

JW: And have you spoken to your fellow members of the church about your concerns, about your churches entry into politics?

NZ: I've spoken publicly about my point of view on a website that I maintain. But beyond that it's not my intention to stir dissent because that would be disloyal.

JW: Do you have a feeling that other members of your congregation, other members of the AOG, have similar concerns?

NZ: Yes. Definitely.

JW: Because you've spoken to people with similar concerns?

NZ: Because people have approached me saying "I agree with what you've said. I'm glad it's your neck on the block and not mine."[13] We'll see if any change results.

JW: And is there any potential damage to the church in this involvement?

NZ: Yes! I believe the integrity of the political process and the integrity of the church are both damaged when the entanglements between church and politics become too enmeshed. There needs to be a greater attempt at keeping them at arm's reach. If Family First can leave the orbit of the church where they found their genesis, they can achieve that. They've either got a bright future or they're heading for oblivion over precisely that issue.

JW: How sophisticated a party do you think Family First is today?

NZ: Well resourced, well funded, well organised, still just starting out. That's why I say they've either got a bright future of are heading for oblivion: The churches, the charismatic churches are very well organised. They're very... corporate.

JW: Do you think that the AOG realise that there is a downside to this kind of political involvement?

NZ: I think that in the fallout from the last election there's had to have been some soul-searching, but how that manifests itself we will only see in future elections[14], State and Federal.

JW: And why shouldn't AOG churches be patting themselves on the back, after all, they have a new Senator?

NZ: They do, and rather unexpectedly. They won that success and they're entitled to any degree of self-congratulation they want.

JW: If you look at the coming political term, how do you think Family First will conduct itself in the parliament?

NZ: They will vote overwhelmingly with the Government, being a conservatively aligned party. They'll stick their head up and they'll get some airtime by articulating certain issues through their prism, which is "we put families first". That's to be expected.

JW: Do you think they are being taken seriously by the Government?

NZ: In the sense that they are fellow travellers on the conservative end of politics, I think they're being seen more as an ally than a threat.

JW: And what do you think is the possible value of the "family impact statements"?

NZ: It's just another lens, another prism through which you can see all government policy. If we can look at all policies for the impact that they could potentially have on families then that's a good thing.

JW: Do you think that for the Prime Minister to have agreed to family impact statements that he was making a significant concession or not?

NZ: No, I think he was merely being very pragmatic and a very canny politician.



(interview break)



JW: What is it that worried you about this attempted public separation between the AOG and the political scene?

NZ: The claim that the church is keeping itself at arms length from the political process cannot be plausibly sustained when you have somebody who is a Pastor, preaching from their pulpit on one Sunday, and then putting on another hat and saying that they are a Family First candidate for the Senate the next day, and then going out and saying that suggestions of connections between the party and the Church amounts to slander... That's so transparently ridiculous it brings both the Church and the political process into disrepute.

JW: And that is in fact what happened in some cases?

NZ: Oh yes, definitely. In Queensland.[15]



JW: You want more Christians in politics?

NZ: I would love all Christians of conviction to join a political party because the Gospel is a call to social action as well as a message of salvation. I'd rather see them though outwork their faith in a mainstream political party of their choosing, rather than be drawn off into the fringes of politics and into a party that has no constitution, no branch structure and big impediments to popular appeal.

JW: That's a very pragmatic call that you're making, isn't it?

NZ: Yes, I suppose so.

JW: And that's what needs to be done. Can you encapsulate what it is the AOG Churches believe in?

NZ: The AOG is a mainstream, Protestant church. We believe Jesus is our Lord and Saviour, and we believe those other mainstream trappings of the old and new testament. I suppose what we add to that it a contemporary relevance. We have to meet people in the culture that they're at. We also believe that if you live your life according to the model of Jesus then you will live a satisfied, fulfilled, maximised life as well.

JW: And where do the AOG churches stand on issues like Creationism?[16]

NZ: The AOG is full of closet Creationists, but Family First would be very unwise to let that cat out of the bag.

JW: But in terms of the AOG's beliefs, many of them would believe in Creationism.

NZ: Certainly, and unfortunately.

JW: So that's not something that you believe in?

NZ: No.

JW: But when you say that the AOG is part of the mainstream, that is what we would call a fundamentalist belief, is it not?

NZ: The word "fundamentalist" has had a number of unfortunate labels attached to it. I mean, in it's purest sense it means you believe in "the fundamentals" of the Bible. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a "crazy", or that it's a cult or anything like that.

JW: But one of the "fundamentals" of the Bible was that the Earth was created in seven days.

NZ: People would argue that point (laughter)... Look, I would argue that point!

JW: I suppose what I'm trying to establish is that there's a substantial body of belief inside the AOG that would hold to the theory of Creationism.

NZ: Yes.



JW: Is there such a thing as the "Religious Right" in this country?

NZ: No, and I don't know that it would be a good thing if there were. People say that if you want to know where Australia is going to be in ten years then look at where America is now. The religious right certainly has a vice-like grip on the conservative end of politics in the United States. What's ironic is that despite the fact the religious right has such a grip in the American psyche and American politics, the kind of proselytising Family First have attempted to do in many churches would actually be illegal in America.

JW: Why is that the case?

NZ: Because there's a clause in their tax code that says that Churches have to abstain from any political involvement to maintain their tax exempt status.[17]

JW: And you'd like to see that kind of law established here?

NZ: I didn't say that! But it's a debate that I think Australia needs to have.

JW: So do you think that Australia is headed the American way as far as religious influence on politics is concerned?

NZ: The influence will only increase, yes.

JW: And that's a bad thing?

NZ: No, I would like moral people and Christian people to be involved in the political process. I just don't want that to be manipulated by the Church.



The interview proper ended here.

These are Jana's remarks made after the interview proper and during incidental footage:

You've stood for local government and obviously you have a strong involvement in the social fabric of the place and very pronounced views. You're not afraid to put your money where your mouth is, because as you say, the repercussions may not be all that comfortable. Although, I can't imagine an organisation, that is, a Christian organisation that has the values that you admire could be so narrow as to not be able to deal with such measured criticism. I mean, you've staked out your ground very carefully. I think it would be very disappointing if there were consequences for you that were other than... mild.

---

[1] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/greens-ffp060904.pdf and http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/4thmajparty140904.pdf

[2] As recounted in my original blog article, http://baliset.blogspot.com/2004/10/family-first-one-christians-view.html and widely commented on, including http://dogfightatbankstown.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/between_a_rock_.html (which was greatly encouraging)

[3] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/pollvffp150904.pdf

[4] In other words, despite some people having the genuine intention of not have the church be seen to be in a position of seeking to influence votes among their congregation, such behaviour made it impossible, in practice, for such a promise to be kept.

[5] I should have said "I won't say it happened in my Church" instead of "I can't".

[6] I am aware that John Lewis, the Queensland Senate candidate this refers to, has since resigned his pastoral position to pursue his political ambition. This is a principled move that other intimately church-connected candidates should heed. However, the move is too late to undo the perception of hypocrisy that was created and perhaps even acts as confirmation that those concerns were real and damaging- a fact few Family First identities would admit publicly, but which I am informed are been frankly aired since the election by AOG leaders in Queensland and elsewhere.

[7] Chapter five, section 116. The wording of the Australian "establishment clause" mirrors closely the equivalent one in the U.S Constitution, and deliberately so. A small example of our founding fathers seeing an idea and a form of words that worked and borrowing it.

[8] And of course the infamous schism in the 1950's that caused the DLP to split from the mainstream ALP along religious rather than ideological lines. An excellent anniversary analysis of this episode in history appeared on ABC radio national's Perspectives program, and three 5 minute vignettes can be found at

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1369600.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1373389.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1380350.htm

[9] So again, why isn't this a case of "the lady doth protest too much"? (Hamlet, act 3) It's because of the fact that, as much as I might agree or even benefit from the co-opting of Christianity as an essentially right leaning belief system, and that it might seem superficially good for right-politics, it is in fact an unwholesome influence on the integrity of the Church. Actually, it's not much good for politics either. The most vigorous democracies in recent Western history are those instituted along areligious lines but populated by men and women with a firm moral, and indeed, Christian, compass. This is a long way from the kind of influence certain religious activists would like to wield on our political processes. I've got more to write on this subject, but it deserves it's own piece.

[10] http://www.pnc.com.au/~jwcs/Michael_Murphy.pdf

[11] http://www.aogq.com.au/data/images/newsletters/stateconnections_july2004.pdf

[12] As Jana says after the interview: I find it difficult to believe that criticism that is so measured will be misconstrued. I replied ‘You find it difficult to believe. I don't.’

[13] See http://www.signposts.org.au/index.php/archives/2004/09/21/putting-the-family-first#comment-3403 for a small example

[14] There's little evidence of such soul searching in my own neck of the Woods. Questions I have posed on this matter since the election have brought spittle embellished denials of any downside. That's a story for another time...

[15] http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/undemocraticlabelling300904.pdf

[16] http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/christian_doctrines/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm

[17] http://www.au.org/pdf/religiousleaderletter.pdf or http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_churchelectioneering

- Nathan Zamprogno

Feedback... arg!

I love feedback. Giving feedback makes me feel good. Some would say what I call feedback is actually me being an opinionated so-and-so, but I think that feedback to businesses lets people who genuinely want to improve their products get some honest advice and do something. How can anyone improve their service delivery if everyone that's disgruntled (or delighted) simply grits their teeth and moves on? That sounds like a very British holdover in our culture. People need thicker skin, in my opinion, so they can take frank comment without taking personal offence. Me, I'm a Rhino. My life has simplified greatly since I ceased to care what certain people think.

That's why when Apple Nextbyte announced they were closing their Penrith store, I wrote and complained (dangling a $40,000 order in front of them also helps). Apple have had a store in Penrith for nearly 20 years. We'll see how that one pans out.

And Apple themselves? After the fanfare of the announcement of the release of system 10.4 (and the wholesale redesign of their website to accommodate it), you'd think that the Apple "Feedback" page would have at least included an update to let people give feedback about system 10.4. Nup. According to their bug report/suggestion page, system 10.4 does not exist.



This is a shame, since I've found a bug, and it's really annoying. I use the Wikipedia widget. When I hide the dashboard, pop-up mouseover image labels from the wikipedia entry I had brought up continue to appear when the cursor moves over those areas of the screen. There must be some leakage from the Dashboard layer into the "main" screen, even when the dashboard is not in the foreground.

Small thing, but I'm in a ranty mood today. If people never say anything then they have no right to complain when something goes pear shaped.

A lazy Compass fails to circumscribe Family First

Regular visitors to this blog will be aware of my views on the interface between Church and State. Personal friends will sympathise with my plight because of my abilty to complicate my life by choosing to air those views publicly.

Since my interest is in the debate about Church/State separation, I should take pains to point out that the Family First party is by no means my special or implicit target.

I just thought I'd throw up this temporary post about the "documentary" (or "advertorial" as I'd choose to express it) that screened tonight on the ABC's Compass program about Family First (transcript not yet available at that link but probably soon) by way of foreshadowing a more detailed treatment over the coming days.

Any stakeholders out there with an interest in what I might choose to say should call me now (and yes, I know you're reading this). The mistake I made previously was in putting opinions in the public domain without giving the protagonists I was critical of the chance of discussing it with me first.

There will be more to say on this, that much is sure.

(I say (I say (I say)))...

Dad and I get into some weird arguments. Dad's an eccentric, in an endearing sort of way. This time, Dad started: "Say I know something, and you find out and then you know, and then I find out that you know. So I know that you know that I know that you know, right?"

Mum looked up from her crossword at this point, looked over her glasses and gave the kind of resigned sigh people only give when their spouse lives in a different dimension. Dad pressed on: "If you take that far enough, does it lose its meaning? Does the 'you know that I know that you know that....' process become nonsensical or just go on and on?" Dad contended that it becomes meaningless, and fairly soon. I disagreed, suggesting that such an exchange could potentially go on forever, and people only stop when the scenario they are discussing becomes too cumbersome to keep in their head.

But how to prove it? Maybe such an exchange genuinely can become meaningless and no contrived scenario can support a narrative where layering of "You know that I know" etc makes any sense. Thus, I resolved to construct a fictitious story to explore the question and see if any patterns emerged. I used as my template a pastiche of World War 2 "POW" movies, like "The Great Escape" or "Escape from Colditz".

Scenario: British troops are captive in a German POW camp. The British are digging a tunnel in order to escape.

Level 1:
British troops: “Lads; were digging a tunnel and we’re getting out of here! The Germans don’t suspect a thing, so get to it.”
Outcome: The British escape.

Level 2:
Meanwhile, in Colonel Klink’s office…
Klink: “Those rascally British are digging a tunnel! Fortunately, they don’t know we’re on to them, so we can keep them occupied until they are about to launch their escape bid. Then, we will catch them!”
Outcome: The Germans win.

Level 3:
British: “Blast! We have discovered that the Germans are on to our tunnel plans. Fortunately, they do not know that we know that they know! Thus, they believe that by monitoring the tunnel they will know where we are consuming our resources. Because they do not know that we know they are on to us, they will not expend further effort in looking for alternate plans. They think we only have one plan! Thus, let us maintain the tunnel as a “dummy” project to distract the Germans from the glider we are building out of bedsheets and porridge behind a false wall!”
Outcome: The British escape (or at least one does)

Level 4:
Klink: “One of our soldiers overheard the British saying that they know that we are aware of their escape plans! Luckily, the British did not know the soldier overheard them. If they are aware of our knowledge, then they are bound to try something different, and the tunnel is merely a diversion. If they know we know about the tunnel then the escape bid cannot come from there. We must assume they will change tactics. Be on the lookout!”
Outcome: The Germans win.

Level 5:
British: “The increased searches in the camp can only mean that the Germans know that we knew that they had discovered our original escape plans and deduced we would try something different. What an opportunity! Previously, being suspicious they would have expected any kind of escape bid, including a tunnel. Now, because they know we know they know, they will specifically exclude a tunnel as a possibility. Thus, we can continue work on the tunnel right under their noses and have them believe that the tunnel is merely being constructed as a diversion, whereas in actual fact we will be building the tunnel for real. The Germans will be off discovering our “real” escape plan, and our secret knowledge that they know about the tunnel will allow us to continue to distract them in this way. Because we do not have to be as cautious, we can work double shifts, post less guards, and make more noise as we go, knowing that the Germans will not dare shut us down because they think they have us in check and “occupied”. This means we can start work on a second tunnel going in a different direction. Set to it!”
Outcome: The British escape.

Level 6:
Klink: Our spy among the prisoners has reported that the British know that we knew that the British knew that we knew of the plan. It is therefore likely that they are assuming that, knowing we knew of the tunnel, that we have discounted it as the source of a serious escape bid. How foolish! Now we know they know, it stands to reason that they think the tunnel may again become a potential escape route. They think they can dig even though we know about it because they think that we think that it is only a diversion. We must be careful!
Outcome: The Germans win.

Level 7:
British: “Interesting news, lads. We’ve discovered that they Germans know that we know that the Germans no longer believe that the tunnel is not necessarily a diversion but may still be a legitimate escape option. This means that, if they see work on a tunnel still proceeding, they will conclude that we are still serious about a tunnel breakout. Fantastic! This diversion will allow us to put another plan into effect where we continue the tunnel as a distraction, take the stolen and faked German uniforms we’ve been hoarding and when the laundry truck…” (blah blah blah)
Outcome: the British escape

Level 8:
Klink: “The British know we know! Thus, the tunnel is a ruse!”

Level 9:
British: “The Germans know we know! Thus, they again believe the tunnel is a ruse and we can again continue the tunnel under their noses!”

Summary:
1. British dig tunnel (Germans unaware)
2. Germans know of tunnel (catch British)
3. British know Germans knew (glider, tunnel is distraction)
4. German’s knew British knew the Germans knew (look for alternate escape bids)
5. British know the Germans knew the British knew the Germans knew (realise Germans are discounting tunnel and thus resume under German noses)
6. Germans know the British knew the Germans knew the British knew the Germans knew (Germans know the tunnel is not a ruse and remain vigilant)
7. British know the Germans knew the British knew the Germans knew the British knew the Germans knew (British realise above and concoct alternate plan with tunnel reverting to a diversion)
8. Germans know the British knew the Germans knew the British knew the Germans knew the British knew the Germans knew (Germans realise the tunnel is again a diversion and remain vigilant)


…and so it goes. Despite the artificiality of the narrative I have constructed, as far as I can see, an equilibrium can be set up whereby the you know that I know cycle can result in an endlessly repeating loop and does not of necessity reach a natural conclusion. Keeping the various levels “in mind” does indeed become tedious, but it can go on forever.

I feel like I’ve proven my point, but I’ll leave the reader with a final exercise. Is there a similar narrative, ignoring the cosmetic matters of setting or character, that must result in a natural conclusion after a finite number of steps as the “you know that I know” cycle unfolds? What changes to the logic or initial conditions of the scenario are necessary?

Beyond... something...

A member of the Maths faculty was opining to me about an error message that was appearing on his laptop. I explained that he could ignore the error message because it was, in fact, an erroneous error message.

That got me thinking. Is there a word for such a thing? All we could come up with was that it was a "meta-error". It reminded me of a metalworking factory in my home town I always saw from the train. It was called "metaland" with the typography overlapping in such a way that it was "metal-land". But no, not for me. For me it was and always shall be the magical place inhabited by supersets and self-referential entities. I could never shop there because the shop guy would always say "nah, we don't sell that stuff, only stuff that's about stuff." Like going to a bookstore that only has books about bookstores, or a bookstore that only has books about books that are about bookstores.

My brain hurts.

I spoke about this once with a friend. All we could conclude from the exchange was that we were both incurable nerds.

It's nice to be affirmed

From the Wycliffe Christian School Yearbook

This is nice. Each year our School (my workplace) publishes a "year in review" book. This year, I rated a profile. I felt encouraged and uplifted. And no, Justin, this post isn't meant to rub anything in, but lighten up, man! Life is beautiful, even if parts of it suck. I, too could lose sleep over rogue subatomic particles swallowing the entire universe or the fact my office is like a broom closet only with less ventilation, but hey, if I don't like my life, no one else will either.

- Nathan Zamprogno