Binnsy's Hovel

Sub-title – Religion: Bring it.

I have become, through various life experiences and otherwise, more a faithful person than a religious one. My parents never baptised me at birth, as neither of them were particularly religious, and felt that if I were to become so I should make such a decision myself. At age fourteen I chose to be baptized in the Anglican faith, which is what my grandparents would have liked anyway!

I chose Anglicanism because of its variance to Catholic doctrine. Anglicans focus more on the notion of faith in their ministry, and not so much on the Bible as ‘God’s word’, as ‘law’ and ‘irrefutable fact and teaching’. This idea appealed to me – that a person’s experience of faith and religion can be personal as much as collective. Catholics seem always to be blindly united in service to God, whereas Anglicans seem more to enjoy their faith, the community and celebration that religion can provide.

In saying ‘Catholic’, I suppose I am speaking indirectly about all fundamental Christian belief structures. Not at all ‘fundamentalist’, just the very first and base teachings that came from both Testaments. Fundamentalism is a whole other realm that can be left aside for now.

My reason for discussion of such things is that I am endeavouring to write a script – be it for stage or screen – that effectively documents and outlines my beliefs. In doing so I want to talk to other people; to discover their ideas about faith, logic, reason, the universe and why we’re here. I am starting with perhaps the most religiously blacklisted man ever to have lived, Mr. Richard Dawkins, and his book The God Delusion, and slowly working my way round the spectrum from there.

The biggest problem I have with any form of religion, is that it seems to take itself much too seriously. I watched a documentary lastnight called ‘The Secret Life of Brian’, which looked back over the critical reaction (from film and religious writers alike) to Monty Python’s brilliant film The Life of Brian. In it, there was shown part of a contemporary television debate in which John Cleese and Michael Palin faced off with Mervyn Stockwood, the then-Bishop of Southwark, and Malcolm Muggeridge, a Christian writer who in earlier years was a satirist almost on par with the Pythons themselves. The debate essentially descended into cheap point-scoring on the part of Stockwood and Muggeridge, with Cleese and Palin attempting to make legitimate points in defence not only of the film, but of the Christian faith itself. The staunch refusal of Muggeridge and Stockwood to accept any other point of view (It is important to note here too that Muggeridge and Stockwood arrived late to a screening of the film prior to the debate, missing the crucial establishing scene where it is clearly defined that Jesus and Brian are not the same character, or linked in any way.), I think typifies the attitude of many religious people to expressions of difference or refusal to adhere to what may be only a single and for the most part incongruous point of religious teaching.

I share Terry Gilliam’s belief that nothing is sacred. Every single thing can be laughed at, satirized or sent up, with the exceptions of perhaps the Holocaust and the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima – all of which are symbols of the capabilities of utter deprivation and cruelty of the Western world. As Gandhi famously said when asked what he thought of Western civilisation: “I think it would be a wonderful idea.” But religion is the ultimate target for comedians, wits and writers of any bent; and yet when one attempts to make light of it, one is targeted oneself. This is a shameful state of affairs, and pisses me off no end, hence my undertaking of this project, whatever it turns out to be. So please, if you feel inclined, contribute to the debate. Bring your ideas to the table. If you are religious, I want to know why. If not, why not? What are your ideas of faith and reason and logic and creation and destruction and evolution? No comment will be discounted, unless it is malicious in intent, in which case it will be deleted, as will all other comments by that author. Bring it, folks. Let’s have a not-too-serious but still smart and intelligent discussion, which will hopefully lead to a wonderful expression of faith and reason in the twenty-first century.

Oh – and tell people about this who you believe can contribute something. Anyone is welcome.

Today as my beloved and I headed off, we spied a tiny baby bird, struggling to flap its wings and take off. No doubt it’d fallen out of its nest and was fighting to learn to fly to return home. We headed off for a couple of hours and when I returned home, I found the little creature huddled under the patio that runs along outside our rooms.

It was shivering madly and still trying to flap its way to freedom. The bird is a baby mynah, considered by pretty much everyone to be a pest in Australia, given their proliferation and insane breeding habits. They also tend to invade an area, pushing all other bird species, including many natives, away to find other habitats.

Despite this, it’s hard not to feel sorry for a helpless little thing that has fallen out of the nest. Its mother would not be able to carry it back up, and would be too busy feeding its little brothers and sisters anyway, so the poor little thing has been abandoned and left to fend for itself. It will most likely die.

There is some tragedy in this; I can feel it.

Until next time…