W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

It is not necessary to our work to suggest a valid alternative to the Russell Report.  Yet the point is not without interest enough to signify value in some indication, some suggestion which might prove helpful.  Since our task, however, has been analytic and dealing with implications as specified,  it is not proper to become involved in a historical survey of techniques adopted elsewhere.  That could be a thesis in itself; and the combination might merely complicate a matter already of sufficient significance to deserve singular attention. A word then of suggestion, briefly, may be in order.

It would be possible (as approximated In Tasmania In the early 1960s, for example) to have a distinctly Christian syllabus (A) for external examination, one closely Biblical in tenor.  This could be examined in terms of the content of the faith, the content of the Bible, the movements of church history, Christian Apologetics and no on; or, where academic difficulty is encountered, in a selection.  Matters of content are very considerable; a vast store of information is incorporated to the extent that a crippling ignorance
is increasingly obvious in the land, concerning what it is which is Christianity, in terms of its historic doctrinal base in the Bible (supra).

True, this might be of more interest to Church schools than to others; but the appeal obviously need not be so limited. Outside teachers could still help in State schools for this purpose, where such an elective was opted by any students.  Further, it would be quite conceivable that particular churches would train teachers for the purpose, even if merely for this part-time occupation; or that clergymen would undertake it on a group basis, as agreed by several churches, or on an accredited basis, relative to the undertaking of the syllabus, which would not vaunt unbelief as a criterion, but aim to present what was there as knowledge.

There, is then no alien didactic relativity in view; and those who want to consider the content, concepts and attitudes of the Biblical Christian faith, might become educationally informed.  Its application to other systems could be ascertained and it might be thought desirable by instructors to acquaint students with these to a very subordinate extent for the purpose of perception of structure of religions; but this would be for overview, not review. It would be executed in the style of the Biblical approach to these topics, again NOT as an intrusion, but as an expression of what is in fact in the Bible, what is knowledge concerning its contents. Then, critical or lyrical, students would tend to know what they or others were talking about when they too, were lyrical or critical, and education would have performed one of its most salient tasks, not taking over the souls of the young, but educating them in knowledge.

This is by no means to deprecate the presentation of the claims of Christ; it IS to present a State alternative in this field to rank disinvestiture, by irrational means, of the field it is seeking to approach, in a manner that is crass indoctrination without educational refinement or accuracy.

There could be an innovation, beyond this Tasmania-style situation.  OTHER courses (B) could be available IF there were in the society at large,  those desiring to take them;  and those able to teach them.  This would put the matter to the test in a way likely to minimise thought of discrimination while maximising individual responsibility, These courses could relate for example to Oriental religions; or to modern religions; or to major religions in history; or to major religious characters; or religious philosophies.  In one of these categories, the Report Religion might figure ... and so on.  However there would be this enormous advantage: people would know what they were getting, and seek what they wanted.

There would be a complete freedom to choose; and a complete onus to provide teachers outside the education system.  IF there were any desire for ANY ONE of these courses for example, to be taken by teachers WITHIN the Education Department, clearly the objections of teachers already made most apparent in Teachers' Unions, would need serious attention.  New if they are to teach THAT this and that happened and is written, and has developed and changed (B) - then this might be acceptable ... both to the teachers and to those wishing to prevent the indoctrination with some form of antithetical relativity or other theme, as if it were objective. (On the topic of objectivity, logically, see That Magnificent Rock,Ch.5, Validity.)

It is possible that the solution is too simple, too uncontroversial, and too little an assault on the historic principles of the Biblical faith, to be attractive to some - those for whom the-destruction-of-all-that may have an appeal similar to that discernible in the French revolution. (One does not speak here of the possible parallel in terms of content, but rather of the attitude of determined destruction.)  It is possible some will object to any opportunity for the mere presentation of a body of knowledge, its attitudes, its actions, its proponents, its literature and so on.  It is however also possible to resolve the problem in some such way as has been outlined above: if there be the will for it. It would not be an irrational and radical revolution; it would just be an educational act, one for which the State would do well to be known, when dealing in the field of education.

If there is to be some other field, such as religious disinformation, or elimination, or reconstruction, at State behest, then it would certainly be better to institute some other Ministry to minister such things, and to make the purpose clear to all; and then, the popular reaction to such termination of liberties, or action by State funds for such purposes, and to such a construction or indeed, reconstruction of society, could be determined in an open and clear-cut way.

Meanwhile, and without such an initiative seeming in the least degree, legally, morally or statistically probable, we return to our educational suggestion as alternative to Report Religion's monopolistic and ill-founded aspirations.

A matter of sensibility now remains for this proposed alternative. And as a preface, let us note that there is dangerous possibility that with increasing world population, sensibilities may becomes like so many people, officially dispensable. Those who prefer arrogant crudity and crushing, to care and thoughtful consideration, these will perhaps deem what follows unnecessary; but in a pluralistic society,  there seems room for goodwill.

Thus if any courses in the Category B (as indicated supra) area are deemed to contain material so sensitive that the provision of State Department teachers in itself is too unspecialised a matter, with their being too uninstructed to the point, what then?  Then the possibility would exist for such groups an feel such concern to disseminate and to receive,  to provide their own teachers for this limited religious purpose.  If however numbers and economics should seem to limit this option for a particular body, then an uncompromising alternative might be available - just as now some take free Library sessions, when certain other options not taken, are running.

In the case of the Christian faith specific course, Bible knowledge (A), it is of course a tenet of the Bible that the person who does not accept the Christ whom it depicts, as presented to him,  and whom it asserts alive and resurrected - and the truth - is ipso facto blind to the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3).  Neither does he enter it (John 3:5), unsurprising since he statedly does nor see it; he is not born into God's family; his nature has not been radically changed (John 3:6), so that he would not fit into it;  and he is in a perishing position, external to the knowledge of God (John 17:3, 3:16-19).  In fact, in Biblical terms,  judgment (John 3:36) looms over him, and he is condemned already (John 3:18). Male or female, adult or child, it makes no difference Biblically, when informed preference of this type sets it: THIS is the judgment, it declares, that light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil (John 3:19); and it is for that reason, that in the presence of this light, "he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" - John 3:18.

Clearly. if such claims are accepted as by proponents of this faith,  it would be the height of inconsistency to the point of absurdity to have divergent people instruct in the nature of this faith.  The faith would condemn it; it  would be like having prisoners awaiting judgment instruct children in civics; practising drug addicts instruct the weak in the beauties of being clean from drug pollution. It would be like having people certified by examination as deplorably ignorant in electronics, chosen as its instructors. It would rather be to have those statedly blind give instruction with a view to light, to understanding.

The fact that many do not accept the Bible does not in the slightest degree affect the argument.  We have of course given this type of material in detail earlier in this work; but it in necessary now to apply it concisely in this appendix or addendum, to aid perspective without distorting the comparative components of our work.  Thus those who accept the Bible would be able in perfect consistency with its claims, to object, yes for their own part, at teachers who are not selected on criteria inclusive of their being Christians,  being permitted to teach 'Christianity' as an in-depth study.  Historical happenings are one thing (and this is not to remove all difficulty from that area); but the intrinsic meaning of the faith is another, FOR THERE SIGHT IS ESSENTIAL.

If it were to be urged, that those who do not believe the Bible do not think so, it is only necessary to reply that to teach what it says would then be compromised by the preliminary hypothesis that it was wrong, in order to teach in this way, and that such  presupposition would be seen to be discriminatory and judgmental. Even-handedly, those who believed other things could teach them, provided those other things made the same statement on non-believers.

This of course fortifies the objection of some teaching unions,  if from another perspective, objecting to being requisitioned to the teaching of some courses in this area.  It also would, then, also lead to reasoning in a pluralistic society for similar freedom for other religions IN THE ELECTIVES WHICH MIGHT DIRECTLY SEEK TO ELICIT THEIR ESSENTIAL POINT.  This is not to say that all such
religions - their proponents - might in fact want this.  It IS to say that it would seem prima facie to give such desires the most sensitive attention; and if the associated historical literature and standards specify distinctive criteria for teachers,  as in the case of the Bible, to believe its statements (cf. Matthew 5:19ff., Isaiah 34:16ff. and earlier discourse on this topic), then a case might indeed be made. Public safety in terms of violence and physical actions likely to cause physical harm would of course be legitimate State considerations; but not when these were merely psychological specifications coming from a contrary philosophy.

Such procedures might preserve our society from making merely dogmatic, slightly reasoned or indeed unrealised assault on major religions in our midst, without even having the advantage of demonstrable truth, or even acknowledgment of what it was about!  As in road rules, it is not necessary to KNOW you have broken one, in order to do so.  It Is possible to ignore the signs.  Alas it is also possible, for example, to be ignorant or the Bible, or opaque to its claims; but this does not at all render satisfactory an assault on its tenets, in the name of any type or unity: far less, the substitution of some other religion in the name of a Rousseau-style universal, or any other such - with its approved penchants and partialities. Such universal religion has its particularities; and these are contrarily aligned to some particulars in the field of religion.  On these,  they wage ideological war.

In the relevant area, this is the status quo.

In fact, Biblically there IS a unity in Jesus Christ, according to His work and revelation on earth (Mark 1:1ff., Ephesians 3:10, Colossians 1:19ff.); and this is not just for this time as the synthetic religious notation would seek; but for all time and for all peoples. It is more embracive, more attainable since God has all knowledge and claims Himself unwilling that any should perish with the same assurance as that perish they will if they reject Christ. To make ANOTHER unity is obviously merely to subvert, substitute for and act to socially incapacitate as far as may be, the Christian faith, to name but one.
 

• If that is the desire, to call it education is either astute manipulation, or incredible seeming solecism, and indeed religious solipsism.

What is this?  It in the assumption that religious differentiation, without the humbling of relativity, leads to physical violence. Yet, in fact, subversion by caricature;  indoctrination by indirection; inculcation by unstated and unconstitutional creed ... these would constitute a greater provocation than individuality and conviction in religion per se.

Specifically violent pretensions^*55 may indeed justly concern the State,  and where the relevant religions clearly authorise this, there may be reason for anxiety.  However to perform State-initiated violence without reason to religious faiths, to assume it false prior to reason, in a secular setting, this itself is a breach - and a gross one.  To use  State premises and funds to forward such violence, merely  aggravates the error.  It is better that the State should not be guilty of this.

A defter procedure is available, one which could readily be refined; one which here in merely sketched lightly,  since in fact it is not our task. Not philosophy (except there be a course on THAT topic in the field of religion) but knowledge of what is written is the concern. Reason of course can never be excluded; but as shown in our IN PRAISE OF JESUS CHRIST Christian Apologetics set, this so far from vexing the Christian Faith, makes it logically unique in validity and scientific verification. A course specifically in the area of Christian Apologetics could of course as so labelled, be one of those available, and others might wish to make their own approaches. But let us return to the architecture on a broader scale.

Thus, in overview, State involvement in religion of a secular country in itself is scarcely mandatory.  That simple omission, however, is another option, one involving its entire absence from the field; it is which is often abused by making this an occasion for materialistic reductionism, as if the opening for religious reality were closed by the non-instruction in that field, and hence some OTHER ESTABLISHMENT in the field, with perfectly codifiable creed, should make use of a monopolistic situation. Merely to state this abuse is to condemn it. It is opportunism of the worst kind, surreptitious and rationally irregular.

Indeed, the KNOWLEDGE of what is in fact taught in various systems is NO PART of the omission of specialised religious instruction; for it is an EDUCATIONAL FACT that creation, for example, is readily demonstrable to be Biblical, and as shown in That Magnificent Rock, Ch.1, a far more rigorous claimant to scientific methodology in terms of data, than organic evolutionism. That is readily demonstrable simply by examining, as indeed may be done in the field of religion in the comparison of claim-performance criteria.

Accordingly, facts do not need to be divorced, because a specialised course in a special field is omitted; they do not cease to exist for that reason. Knowledge is not vacated by omission of a given special field; all generalisations and methods must handle reliably all known facts. It is therefore rather surprising, in view of the abuse noted in the above noted volume (esp. Ch.8) of this canon of integrity, that the field of religion should be desired for assault, or imbuement, shall we say, by secularists and religious innovators; for so much is obtained already without such a recourse.

Nevertheless, the thing called passion is not at all dead in the human breast, and the summary establishment of this or that ideology has been as much a feature of the 20th century as of any other; except perhaps, that force^*56a has been at an enormous premium, as in Nazi Germany, as in Russia and in China. Elsewhere, different methods might well appeal to that headquarters which, Biblically, is directed to the attainment of such ends. Humanly, it must at all times be realised than even when it may seem all but incredible, many do not REALISE what they are about, when, in the midst of cultural occlusion and profusion, they follow various leads in this field. In Christ's words, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
 
 

In our look in the area where we might find a possible alternative, we must however pause long enough to observe that there is another possibility. This affects the question of PERSONNEL for an independent and non-authoritarian approach, where various religions might be exhibited as a matter of knowledge. The omission of State education officers has much to recommend it, and doubtless such a course could practically be followed, as in part, it has in the past tended to occur. It does eliminate some features that could be compromising in various indirect ways, or complicating for some State employes.

However, it would be conceivable for the law to permit ANY adept teacher to give a course provided that the teacher gave evidence of knowledge and ability in terms of close awareness in that field, and proceeded AS A PARTICIPANT AND A PROPONENT from that field (with the qualification, such as noted above, concerning the nature of requirements of the field itself in terms of its writings). Closely involved would be due access to and assimilation of the specific data.

Thus instead of seeking people to ACT as IF they did not believe what they in fact do, the program would THOSE WHO DID BELIEVE. Instead of offending student and teacher alike, the approach would serve them, but educationally, in terms of their desires.

There would be another advantage, to such a course of action.  Instead of using a pretended and presumptuous universality at odds with private particularity, the approach would have a declared particularity to be presented with due respect to logic.  What does this mean? It is that each teacher would declare and state his belief, that his religious presentation was susceptible to reason.  How then would integrity be sustained ?

The method to not difficult to discern. The teacher would need to allow rational disputation. ( We do not say 'rationalistic', for that is a philosophic slant, and to this the teacher indeed may not be committed; yet reason is not to be excluded.)  This argumentation would include students.  It might also include other teachers, if need be from other areas - should the internal impact seem too difficult; it might even encompass  figures in society at large.  It is not a matter of 'equal time' provisions since the students would be coming freely to an elective subject as one desired: it IS a matter of exposure to rational test.
It IS a matter of displaying the goods in an open way, and exposing claims to rational ( one does not say cultural, far less cultic) challenge.

This would have more than a scientific advantage as to method.  It would make some a little less willing for the provision of such electives, where and if they know there is no rational ( not rationalistic) basis for their work, thought and teaching.  It would tend, at least, to weed out in advance those who irresponsibly would use a School, a secular School, for opportunities as gross and outrageous as we have reasoned those of the Report Religion to be. ( There would of course be the difference that, unlike that religion in the stated desires,  these presentations would at least announce their nature and purpose in its right category, and not as in the Report Religion case - use exclusive rights; let alone in the name of tolerance!

There would be, in short, some decency and order; but there would also be academic tests that would replace the Invidious, pre-selection philosophic imposition of current cultural preferences.  Such a procedure would replace any trend to cultural dictatorship; it would prevent that debased form of persecution, ideational totalitarianism, as also its comrade, existential or other forms of what is demonstrable irrationalism. If some felt their religion were not in this category, then readiness for such a procedure would attest their conviction! It would lock in vigorous conflict with the arrogance which 'judges' religious approach for schools on a basis which is not demonstrated ( much more, with that which excludes demonstrability altogether, as even a relevant criterion! and this. without demonstration).
In this way, more room for what can withstand argument, what can survive rational investigation would be made; whilst less room to invidious prejudice, masquerading as the desirable or the acceptable or the appropriate, would be allowed. Moreover, this would be a self-selection process, not an authoritarian one.

The thing would be cleaner, more experimentally humbled; and freer both for the student, and for the teacher.  There would be no question of teachers NOT wanting to participate, being legitimately able to feel 'typed' as OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM; for there would be NO ESTABLISHED RELIGION,  nor any Report Religion,  in the throne. There would be what there already is ostensibly: NO ESTABLISHMENT in this field, in this State place.  Those who did not feel their religion was for such public scrutiny ( and as has been amply shown, Christianity has not been at all in this general category) - 'those who personally felt this, could shield their religion in the privacy of their breasts.  Those who did not feel, in turn, that they were the appropriate vehicles for their religions exposure, could leave it to others.  In the field, for example, of Christianity, this would not be invidious.  Paul in I Corinthians I2 specifically teaches that there are diverse gifts: articulation, and that of Christianity in particular, are not necessarily present in eminent degree in the most sincere.  Such as did not elect to teach would not be taken as less real and genuine, nor aptly judged uncooperative for this reason. Hence this element of teaching ethics could be covered.

Again, already mentioned has been the thought of having electives for the students, The student then can choose WHAT HE/SHE WANTS to hear and ponder; and can know with some assurance that the teacher's attitude will be in favour of that thing , to which attendance is given. There will be no honest question of a teacher seeming to hold one thing, and either choosing or being required to say another. The matter will be open and honourable; conscience will not be sold; nor will it be imposed upon.  Dare we say it: there would be a degree at least, of 'maturity' (the term is perhaps still available for use? ) - to the extent that people will not be playing games with honest convictions,  and in that a school will be a place where people know what they are doing, what they are given,  what they are getting; and one where they are prepared to seek to sustain their positions openly and sincerely.  There would be no attitude of 'knowing' what is best in a secular setting in the field of religion, on the part of a merely dominant educational establishment: one which does not even have to be able to sustain composure to the light of common day.

It is,  as has been remarked, not our task to provide this sequence of successive possibilities ( each taken, as it were, one it a time for comparison, like so many auditioning musicians, to consider an alternative to Report Religion imposition).  This is a mere addendum for the secular setting; it is a work for completeness of feeling and stimulus of ideas.  Thus we shall not attempt what another thesis... embodying or even focussing such a consideration, might dwell on:  refinements of this possibility or that; numerous arguments for and against elements, and particulars legal and other considerations germane to the various particulars - and so on. ( These might include, of course, the feasibility and constitutionality of any necessary legislation.)  We shall however include, and virtually conclude this glimpse at an alternative in  this secular field, with the depiction of a speaker...
 
 

It is a very pleasant sunny afternoon. The Report Religion, we shall assume for the sake of presentation, has duly been ( solemnly ? ) instituted.  Solemnity at all events sits upon the faces of the practitioners and the professional assemblage, as it is about to be introduced officially to this awesome thing.  High officials are in splendid attendance, wait as representing the Educational Authority,  as one of them addresses the others.
 

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a great and auspicious occasion . [That phrasing may be another convention, existing as it were,  within the great and solemn convention which is assembled.]
We have at last reached that point of objectivity and progress where the Report's  recommendations are to be implemented.  No longer need we fear alien groups, theological coloured peoples as it were ( oh, I am sorry, yes, that is distastefully put ) ... alien ideational groups invading our happily harmonised school premises.  Absolutists are not only relatively, but absolutely excluded.  Current cultural concepts of our choice are now in the ascendant - I might, if it were not, once again, for regrettable possible overtones say - in the transcendent. NOW, we can hope that Australia will never regret the day when the desirable and appropriate thing was instituted over the backward - did 1 hear back-woods? oh, we must not let
unkind tendencies to assume... what shall 1 say, another truth. It is just that our religion is very true, as we have long said.

"Here now is the final flower of the great and prophetic Rousseau in  the individual-State doctrine aspect.  Here is the final flower of the eminent and outstanding watershed philosopher Kant - well-named Immanuel,  some will say.  Let me clarify my metaphorical structure.  The watershed of that Immanuel, that other Immanuel has provided... ah! water in the desert;  and this Australian flower is a consequence. Yes you may cheer, for it is a very appropriate thing that I say.

"Here, I say,  is the final flower of Kant in his epistemological and metaphysical agnosticism.  Oh! by that 1 mean in his avoidance of certain absolutisms ... although I may say, I think we have advanced somewhat even from his day.  Yet let me  give thanks for famous men.  We do not forget them; in the going down of the sun,  we shall remember them.  ( What ? oh well, it will do here: it is all right ... )

"This, we may say,  this too is the day after the God-is-dead movement.  Ah yes! we ever lock ahead ... and perhaps it is the only resurrection - I permit myself,  you appreciate, a levity - that the followers of Altizer can look forward to.  But to revert, these men, famous men,  they live for ever in our memories like the albatross in Storm Boy  - remarkable reception in Moscow, by the way.) They are not forgotten... HERE is the final flower of Froebel - and he,  I may tell you, was not an irreligious man, ah no,  not irreligious.  Not that we have slavishly taken all of him; but elements appear.  His great clamour for experience is not forgotten; experience, that is the thing, experiences.  I need not pursue the wide and justified popularity of existentialism; there are intermingling evidences of cultural flow sweet to the nasal passages of the Hegelian, which, if not unakin to the procedural ponderings of the Marxist, are yet savoury to the mind of the philanderer in religion.

"Ah yes, we are not grown old; we are still young - we have that - shall I say it -  philandering fulness that makes for a smile on  the lips and a feeling of youth in the mind ... Eh ? that is the thing.  You don't need all those long words and philosophies on  our base -  heh ? Just be sure of your experiences, and have a good  - well-instructed - teacher,  and much will follow. Oh, concepts, they have their place; but for us, we who are mature, we must not expect too much.  Results will come from childhood environment, that is the word, environment: even Plato saw that; though we do not aspire to his - hurrumph, ideology ... a very far-off phase,  yes, far off.  I do not say, way out: though some might, some might indeed.

"I was referring to Froebel.  Yes and we have also done justice to his participation thrust, and done it in the very field or religion - a good extensions don't you think.   If he had our minds, he might agree with our specialised extensions and methods (well of course, it is obvious; but I am trying to speak metaphorically, although it appears some more in-training work is needed for some of you newer Instructors, what!). Yea Froebel's thrust, well then let me say it plainly, has been ADAPTED ... his thrust into the playful penchant, in our 'games of faith' approach.  THAT is  the thing for them, you know.
 

"Oh I know, there are scenes at times, in football, and it is true that this is in some sense a game..  Well,  that will have to be Ironed out too.

"But 1 must go on.  Here, then, in our Report approach,  is the church of the universal sacraments; when nothing is known,  everything may be done sacramentally.  I speak metaphorically, I think, brethren (oh, and sisters ). Here is the church of the multiple word.  Here is the church,  as it were, which knows only that it, that nobody knows - nobody knows the truth."

Now at this point, it must be reported of our imaginary address, that an interjector made himself heard.  Just how the security people did not prevent this, is subject for analysis.  However, he spoke as follows.

Interjector: "It KNOWS this, even though it then follows, that of necessity, this 'Church' can know nothing - but nothing - that is true."

Authority: "What Is that ? Remove that Interjector. This is offensive. Offensive talk is not playing the game. It is not nice. It is rank in trend."

Interjector : Even though, in that case, you do not know that what you propose is or could be true; and no truth for its evaluation is even available. Shame!"

Scuffling ensued, and some confusion. It was widely held by some in authority, that this was not playing the game of faiths, indeed, that it was forgetting that it all was a game; and if that interjector had been a teacher, he at least would have been game.

However the speech of the Speaker went on, in slightly less rambling style.

Speaker: "Here, I say,  is politics ... "

The interjector not having been located, through some remarkable oversight of adequate preparation or vigilance, in defence of the indefeasible rights of the Authority,  there was another interruption,  as follows.

Interjector: ... leading, that is what it is here doing:  politics is leading religion in bondage.

The speech however proceeded,  after the exclamation by the speaker- "Good gracious! in my day interjectors like that would know about it. Disgusting nerve!"

Speaker: "It Is of course true that here we do have politics - you might say 'politics' -  I prefer the 'Educational Authority' - declaring that what religion shall teach must be in keeping with the State assessment.  And this?  It is that there in nothing absolute - except perhaps the State, which says, which says so.  I am not in favour of this formulation exactly,  but it could be said,  oh yes, it could certainly be said.   After all,  the social continuity, you know,  the preservation,  indefeasible rights and all that!
what ...

Interjection again ensued.

Interjector: "But then this is an inadvertence; for no absolute knowledge is permissible.  Hence the absolute State - though there is no absolute, we are instructed,  declares the absolute fact - though nothing absolute can be known - that students must not believe anything in religion absolutely; except this,  that they must not believe anything absolutely.

Speaker: Look, I hope and believe I am a tolerant man;  but I cannot understand why this interjector has not been, what shall I say,  escorted out."

He was.

That is the end of our little episode; and if the Speaker would have done better given his .. situation, is matter for conjecture. Here however his chasm of incomprehension opens, as it has been shown it exists, and opens unsparingly.

If the reader now feels surprised at the strange seeming overt use of implicits by the afternoon speaker,  it may be remarked that systems of thought can be developed when successful; or their developments decoded,  displayed or even realised.  This is a practice which may tend to offend some devotees, who had been persistently blind to certain systematic implications.  How much better then, that they are thus able to receive this unhappy event before the same occurs, or some more timid parallel; and ponder it...

Well,  we will dismiss that galling afternoon from our minds. If the spokesperson could have been more apt in the drama,  so could the general Report itself.  This graphic addition is not of course a substitute for analysis; but then it is not presented as such after more than 90,000 words preceding in some detail.  It is, however, the provision of a vivid reminder of the potential of some of the preceding points.  The form provided is for stimulus. Our case is not then made in this element of addendum. Here it is merely given an exposure in some elements to the sardonism of a hypothetical public occasion.  The  REPORT RELIGION would have to live in public.  Possible previews, then, are not without ... merit.

Thus, if it is not at all implied that the speaker would predictably speak as above, it is by no means assumed that he would not - as to content, do so. If there is a touch of satire, it is cosmetic. The degree of frankness, freedom and even awarenenss we do not need to predict in order to complete by drama some of the conveyance of our analysis.

At this point, it may indeed even be refreshing to the academic or the theologian, perhaps long in ivory premises (though it does appear that ivory may not be so readily available as heretofore); and it may be engaging to reflect that what is in effect the Report Religion is something actually designed to be taught in schools. And this? preferably, it appears,  without the right of withdrawal from its ministrations ... and under another name.

Alas the alias!
 
 

*55

Pretensions
In fact, the Biblical Christ does not commend violence in this area - Matthew 26:52-3.  Even His sacred person was to receive no protection when the criterion was ultimate revolt and rejection or His claims. This was laid down by HIM and in PRINCIPLE.  See *56a infra.
 

*56

Mandatory

In some detail here,  see Douglas Pike's Churches and the Modern State in the work Legal Personality and Political Pluralism.

*56a

Violence and faith are not comparable terms. If it is violence, it is not relevant to faith per se. Force does not create truth, or facts (except that force was used), or conviction (except that force was used). Religions which rely on force in the area of faith are self-contradictory, since whatever else force is competent to perform, the area of personal conviction is wholly alien to it. Even to break the will, if such could be obtained, is not to awaken the heart.

See SMR pp. 65ff., 986ff., 1179ff., and Index on Violence.