Moral bludgeoning

I read the following comment today in a financial newsletter that I receive: "The Future Fund, so far at least, seems to be oblivious to the notion of ethical investing with investments in weapons manufacturers and tobacco companies." It's a funny world in which we live where many in the 'chattering class'* are regularly up in arms about anyone with a conservative point of view having the temerity to voice that point of view. At the same time our enlightened chatterers are working tirelessly to get their liberal, left leaning point of view made law, often at the expense of democracy and freedom and all the while earning a generous tax payer funded salary that it my opinion would be better spent on hospital beds.

I mean, is a weapons manufacturer actually ethically worse than a wind farm company? If democratic countries such as USA, Britain & Australia left the development work on weapons to such bastions of humans rights as Iran, North Korea, China and so on, then it wouldn't be long until the meaning of justice was a distant memory to those of us in the West, just as it would have been had Britain rolled over and allowed Hitler to rule Europe. On the other hand, wind farms are a blight on our landscape, kill native birds, cost millions of tax payer's dollars and are an unreliable source of power generation at best. Which is the ethical investment? Gosh, I can hear them making a path to my door now to take me away for re-education at Senator Brown's gulag.

And what of our great minds frothing at the mouth over Gina Rinehart's purchase of shares in Fairfax. What will happen to the climate change reporting they ask? Well, maybe both sides of the story might make it into the paper for a change.

OK, this is a strange way for me to commence my first blog in I don't know how many months. I am not actually quite as far right leaning as it may seem from my comments above. I am conservative leaning but quite liberal in other ways. But if people want to enlighten me about issues such as ethical investing, climate change, aboriginal affairs or same sex relationships they are going about it the wrong way. By trying to ram their moral statements down my throat they are turning me off. If I could read both sides of the climate change debate in The Age rather than have a bunch of academics beating their chest about their moral superiority and the evilness of those who don't accept their faith, then I might actually be on their side.

This isn't just a rant. The point of my ramblings is because what I am seeing and hearing reminds me of the way we Christians have tried, and often still do try, to force our views on the population. Sometimes we could question how many of those views God would actually agree with. Surely quite a bit of what we 'believe' has been drummed into us from a young age but the chances are we wouldn't be able to mount a strong Biblical argument as to why we believe it. To a degree, the church is now paying the price for its moralising and lack of compassion when dealing with sensitive issues. It's something that the Greens and other activist groups would do well to learn from (hello to everyone at Crikey!). But, as for me, how have I learned from the mistakes of the past? Of the things I believe in, how many can I honestly defend and how many are just cultural things that have been passed down and are not Biblically sound? And, most importantly, are my actions more likely to bring people closer to God or drive them away?

*Wikipedia/s definition. "The chattering classes is a generally derogatory[1] term first coined by Auberon Waugh[2] often used by pundits and political commentators to refer to a politically active, socially concerned and highly educated section of the "metropolitan middle class,"[1] especially those with political, media, and academic connections."