You know, I’ve never thought much of Joe Hockey but his recent speech to the Sydney Institute labelled “In Defence of God” (of which an extract is printed in the Sydney Morning Herald made me consider that he may actually be deserving of some respect. I encourage you to read his entire speech here rather than the extracts.

In essence Joe comments on the state of religion in Australia (and the Western world in general), and how the essential messages of the various religions and being twisted and warped by literal interpretations and a “pick-and-choose” mentatlity to morality. Not a new concept I know but Joe gives a very succinct argument that I think that majority of educated Australians would agree with.

He is right when he says “The struggle to find meaning in our lives is one that is essentially individual and universal. It is also timeless.” – I mean, that is why religion exists, isn’t it? To explain that which we cannot, to give some form of meaning to our existence on this third rock from the star we call “Sol”.

I think it is very interesting how as education improves we do NOT see a move away from organised religion or fundamentalist bigotry, in fact people orientate one way or the other with even more zeal. Atheists too are coming under this heading, I recently watched Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” and shook my head because as an academic he came across extremely biased, without solid proof of his arguments (which is ironic considering he is using the lack of evidence as proof for lack of God), and spouting what could almost be called “atheist doctrine”.

Joe sums it up very early on in his speech, with the statement “For me, religious experience should fundamentally be a personal one. “. Joe, I could not agree more. You argue in your speech that “For much of that history, poor levels of education and literacy did mean that it was the religious hierarchy that was the source of most religious doctrine. God filled a knowledge vacuum. If there was no obvious explanation then it was seen as God’s work.” These days of course we have the power of knowledge, of collaboration, we attend higher education and empower ourselves to think critically about all evidence put before us. We can determine our own core beliefs for ourselves and better empower us to disseminate truth from fiction, and better understand the meaning of the parable.

I leave Joe’s speech here to think about my own position, and in all honesty I find that no religion is right, and that includes atheism (which I now herald as its own religion, with its own fundamentalists). To be perfectly honest, it is completely arrogant of ourselves to believe we have the answers to why we are here, whether a God(s) exist, and if so which “God” is the right one. We can only disseminate the answers (and questions) available to us and make our own, educated decision. In that way, religion is very much a personal thing.

I have no intolerance of any religion, but I often ask WHY a person chooses that religion over another. If they have themselves thought about it and chosen that path for a good reason, then they have considered alternatives and picked what is right for them and I respect that. But if you follow something blindly, because your mother said so or because “it’s the done thing”, then I have no respect and think you deserve to be swindled by that tele-evangelist on late night TV who asks for your credit card in order to be “saved”.

Anyway, have a read of Joe’s speech. Quite enlightening for a Liberal politician.

Your thoughts?