As the reaction to the anti-Islamic film, Innocence of Muslims, continues the leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has called for international blasphemy laws to protect the sensibilities of the faithful. He wants these laws to apply to the big three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; to protect all the Major Prophets from criticism and defamation. These calls are a reaction to the realization that, outside of the Muslim world, no actual laws have been broken; calling for the prosecution of the filmmakers is futile as America’s freedom of speech laws clearly protect them.
No doubt the producers considered this before embarking on the project to cover themselves in the event of the predictable shit-storm that would erupt after the film came to light.
Innocence of Muslims is clearly a cynical attempt to inflame Muslim sensibilities, and it has worked; protests are raging all over the world and these are being seized upon, if not organized, by extremists to push their own political agendas. It isn’t a coincidence that American flags are being burnt on the streets in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan; it is no coincidence that the first protests started in Egypt, a country that is drifting towards theocracy day by day; and it is no coincidence that the American embassy was attacked and the ambassador murdered in Libya. Religion is being used as a political vehicle for self-interest and the perpetrators are hiding behind an affront to their faith.
This excuse has been gifted to the extremist by a bitchy bit of religious infighting; although the origins of the filmmakers haven’t completely come to light it is starting to seem that the makers of the Innocence of Muslims are a consortium of Egyptian Christians and Israeli Jews. The film has been made to deliberately cause offence and ignite the Middle East, what they hoped to achieve by this other than show that Muslims are incredibly sensitive isn’t obvious to the casual observer. The film is, almost, hysterically bad; an amateur Carry On film; it would be funny if the consequences hadn’t been violence and murder.
Enter Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, yesterday he called for ‘peaceful’ protests on behalf of the religion and the Prophet; he stressed that Muslims not attack Christians because the only people that were at fault were the filmmakers, the people who supported them and, rather cryptically, the people who refused to prosecute them. In essence he was saying if your not with us, you’re against us. Condemning the film as cynical and inflammatory isn’t enough; Nasrallah wants secular governments to move to prosecute the makers. This, obviously, isn’t going to happen. The film isn’t, strictly speaking, hate speech; modern Muslims aren’t being criticized, their Prophet is being mocked. They aren’t being attacked as a people, their beliefs are being insulted. Therefore as it stands no law is being broken in the West and Nasrallah knows it; as it stands only international blasphemy laws would be of use in this case and hence the leader of Hezbollah, today, calls for them.
Instigating blasphemy laws on this scale would be a terrible mistake. It would open the very real possibility of extradition to Islamic theocracies of Westerners for things they have said, for intellectual criticism of Islam. Nasrallah has sweetened the pill by calling for Christianity and Judaism to also be protected, but this is a bluff; he knows that the ‘Christian West’ and Israel won’t be nearly as touchy at a state level. He is using the situation to make Islam intellectually untouchable, to put it above criticism. Giving it this status will be intolerable philosophically; clerics would be in a position to decide what is blasphemous and what isn’t, and in the internet, social media world this power will be abused. I’m not being paranoid, this year Malaysia extradited Saudi writer Hamza Kashgari back to Saudi Arabia for two tweets that were deemed to criticize Mohamed and Allah. This is Islamic blasphemy law in action, prosecution for tweeting. He is expected to get two years.
Even this month the World Council of Churches has called for international examination of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Non Muslims in the country live in ‘a state of terror’, lynchings are common and are often carried out on rumour alone. This year a young Christian girl was arrested after it was alleged that she had burnt a Koran, the penalty being death. Thankfully it was proved that the allegations weren’t true, but the possibility of execution, of a child, was very real.
In the event of a world wide law it is feasible that Muslim states would demand extradition for similar offences and carry out similar punishments. We can not accept this in the West. It is one thing to respect figures from the past, it is something completely different to demand we honour them and enforce that in law.
If such a law ever did come in to existence we would all be living in an Islamic theocracy
Monday, 17 September 2012
Sunday, 16 September 2012
Same Sex Marriages and The Church
Nick Clegg got into trouble this week by calling a group of bigots; bigots. It transpired that bigots don’t appreciate having their bigotry pointed out to them. Furor ensued and Clegg was forced to back down and withdraw the offending word, but it was already too late; the offended were still offended and Clegg looked weak to those on the opposing side.
The Church and Christians are going to great lengths to justify their prejudices as examples of religious freedom. They argue that their stance on same sex marriages (SSM) isn’t one of bigotry but an expression of faith; a moral stance rather than a prejudicial one. They argue that it is actually they who are being discriminated against, their adherence to Biblical teaching dismissed in favour of a liberal, politically correct, agenda.
Ironically Clegg’s climb down itself was a result of this political PC position. Rather than stick his guns, instead he tried to placate the feelings of Christians; unfortunately in this debate what ever side you’re on you’re going to offend someone. Thus by trying to be everyone’s friend Clegg ended up as no-ones friend; supporters of SSM’s, encouraged by the strength of the original statement, found themselves left cold by the climb-down; Christians didn’t accept the removal of the word ‘bigot’ because it had already increased their feelings of persecution and the cat was out of the bag, Clegg’s feelings had been made clear and an apology didn’t change that.
It has to be said at this point that Clegg has form, he doesn’t believe in God yet goes to Sunday Mass every week. Here, however, it seems playing both sides hasn’t worked out for him.
Attributing your prejudices to God doesn’t stop them being prejudices. This is what rankled so much with the faithful when Clegg cack-handedly attempted to call a spade a spade. The notion that they are actually bigots offended because they probably don’t think of themselves that way. One would assume that they truly believe that they are compassionate thoughtful individuals taking a courageous stand against secular modernity. They are merely following the word of God and the teachings of the Church. So an issue of equality switches, in their heads, to one of religious freedom; the right to prevent an immoral practice sullying their Churches rather than equality under the law. The fact that it might just be a case of law-abiding tax payers wanting the same rights as everyone else escapes them.
The prohibition of homosexuality appears several times in the Bible, however there are no such prohibitions for paedophilia or slavery. The Bible implies that the act is one a choice, sin is always a choice; the sinner has chosen the sin not been born with the desire for that sin; this would imply that the homosexual desire had been implanted by God and make all the subsequent damnations of it rather tricky philosophically.
It’s very clear that it is the act the Biblical authors didn’t like and the modern Church carries on with this tradition, homosexual thoughts are alright if the ‘sufferer’ actively tries to overcome them. It is the actual homosexual act that gets ordained knickers in a twist; it is the sex that preoccupies them.
It’s this thought process that leads to surreal statements made by evangelicals on both sides of the Atlantic of their own homosexual feelings and fantasies that they had experienced in adolescence. The argument being that these desires can be, and indeed were, overcome. To the non-believing, secular, ear statements like this sound a lot like admissions of repressed homosexual tendencies; by and large straight people don’t have gay fantasies, such fantasies are the preserve of gay people. Occasionally there are slip ups and recitative behaviors and a Pastor is caught in a compromising position with another man; luckily this gives them an opportunity to blame them Devil and a round of Christian forgiveness ensues. The Pastor’s wife stands by him and he gets back to the job of being straight.
This philosophy has lead to the murky practice of attempting to cure homosexuality; young Christian are coerced into ‘treatment’ programmes resulting in self loathing or at the very least lives lived as lies; socially acceptable masks and loveless marriages, self denial in order to keep God happy or to prevent their ostracization from the religious community.
Homophobia, like all prejudices, is learnt. The fact that in this case it is learnt, even taught, in Church doesn’t stop it being a form of bigotry. Attributing it to God no more validates the mindset than attributing it to any other environment. One can no more quote the Bible as justification anymore than say, Marlowe’s Edward II. Just because it is written down in an ancient book no more validates the prejudice than picking it up off of intolerant parents.
Arguments of preserving the sanctity of marriage fall rather flat as well; SSM will not devalue heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals have been busy devaluing their own marriages since divorce became easily accessible. No one can reduce your marriage but you. Claims that the inability to reproduce negates the need for SSM also appear tenuous when scrutinized. If this was what the institution of marriage was all about then the Church would turn down straight couples for reasons of fertility and age. Children are born in and out of marriage; the union isn’t a prerequisite to siring offspring, it is merely the romantic idealized norm.
The case against SSM is often packaged as one of morality; the homosexual act being an immoral one. Social commentators such as Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late great Christopher Hitchens, bemoan the destruction of the family and religious bedrock of this country; the devaluation of the heterosexual union, life long commitment and that secure environment for raising children. Hitchens is very much stuck in the past and conjures up imagery of the modern world as an Orwellian dystopia ruled by a corrupt liberal elite. Ironically he engages in a double-speak of his own when citing that liberal equalitarian values are actually an enforcement of a form of thought crime. He hints that he can’t express his own homophobia for fear of the liberal backlash. He is denied the freedom to air his opinions by a politically correct Big Brother state; religious middle England is silenced beneath the jack-boot of modernism and multiculturalism.
The actuality is that Hitchens can say what he likes, whether or not that will allow him to carry on his work at a national daily newspaper is another matter. One can only imagine the extremity of his actual unedited views. He argues that the role of the Church has been destroyed by fifty years of liberal modernism. Immorality has flourished by the acceptance of alternative lifestyles; he claims that Christians are persecuted and Muslims are appeased; multiculturalism crushing the indigenous and pussy footing around the alien. The whole country is going down hill and this can be attributed to the populous leaving the Church. Homosexuality, rising crime, drug abuse, depression and absent fathers are all a result of people turning away from the faith. Secularism and liberalism are the golden calves of the modern world out to destroy the Church.
Hitchens’ fears are unfounded. Secularism doesn’t go far enough to challenge the Church. In the same way Islam is appeased with the approval of Sharia courts, Christian sensibilities are coddled. Their beliefs are still given preferential treatment and respect.
The actual fact of the matter is the institution of marriage is a wholly secular institution. The Church can not marry you without the intervention of the state. The marriage wouldn’t be legal if it did. If your registrar isn't your priest you will need a state registrar present to be legally married. All unions are by definition civil unions. A state representative has to hear you accept your partner as your husband or wife for the union to stand. The contract will be equally binding whether the setting for it is within a Church or simply in a hotel. It is only convention that has made this a religious affair. The Church doesn’t hold the right to this decision, in a very real sense you are never married before God but before the state. It is the state that awards you all your rights thereafter, not God and not the Church.
The Church enjoys a tax-free status so it can not complain when it is asked to adhere to the secular social norms of the society that indirectly funds it by giving it this special status. It doesn’t have the right to moralize given its set up.
If the religious elite feel that this policy compromises them then they should give it up and start paying taxes. They would then be, to all intents and purposes, a private club; they would be detached completely from the workings of the state and could make their own decisions concerning who they married. However as things stand they do not possess the luxury of this autonomy and have to comply with social norms.
Nick Clegg had the opportunity to stick by a principle this week but backed away from it through cowardice. It was the perfect opportunity for a secular representative to make a stand and tell the Church exactly where it stood. Evidently that day hasn’t come yet.
The Church and Christians are going to great lengths to justify their prejudices as examples of religious freedom. They argue that their stance on same sex marriages (SSM) isn’t one of bigotry but an expression of faith; a moral stance rather than a prejudicial one. They argue that it is actually they who are being discriminated against, their adherence to Biblical teaching dismissed in favour of a liberal, politically correct, agenda.
Ironically Clegg’s climb down itself was a result of this political PC position. Rather than stick his guns, instead he tried to placate the feelings of Christians; unfortunately in this debate what ever side you’re on you’re going to offend someone. Thus by trying to be everyone’s friend Clegg ended up as no-ones friend; supporters of SSM’s, encouraged by the strength of the original statement, found themselves left cold by the climb-down; Christians didn’t accept the removal of the word ‘bigot’ because it had already increased their feelings of persecution and the cat was out of the bag, Clegg’s feelings had been made clear and an apology didn’t change that.
It has to be said at this point that Clegg has form, he doesn’t believe in God yet goes to Sunday Mass every week. Here, however, it seems playing both sides hasn’t worked out for him.
Attributing your prejudices to God doesn’t stop them being prejudices. This is what rankled so much with the faithful when Clegg cack-handedly attempted to call a spade a spade. The notion that they are actually bigots offended because they probably don’t think of themselves that way. One would assume that they truly believe that they are compassionate thoughtful individuals taking a courageous stand against secular modernity. They are merely following the word of God and the teachings of the Church. So an issue of equality switches, in their heads, to one of religious freedom; the right to prevent an immoral practice sullying their Churches rather than equality under the law. The fact that it might just be a case of law-abiding tax payers wanting the same rights as everyone else escapes them.
The prohibition of homosexuality appears several times in the Bible, however there are no such prohibitions for paedophilia or slavery. The Bible implies that the act is one a choice, sin is always a choice; the sinner has chosen the sin not been born with the desire for that sin; this would imply that the homosexual desire had been implanted by God and make all the subsequent damnations of it rather tricky philosophically.
It’s very clear that it is the act the Biblical authors didn’t like and the modern Church carries on with this tradition, homosexual thoughts are alright if the ‘sufferer’ actively tries to overcome them. It is the actual homosexual act that gets ordained knickers in a twist; it is the sex that preoccupies them.
It’s this thought process that leads to surreal statements made by evangelicals on both sides of the Atlantic of their own homosexual feelings and fantasies that they had experienced in adolescence. The argument being that these desires can be, and indeed were, overcome. To the non-believing, secular, ear statements like this sound a lot like admissions of repressed homosexual tendencies; by and large straight people don’t have gay fantasies, such fantasies are the preserve of gay people. Occasionally there are slip ups and recitative behaviors and a Pastor is caught in a compromising position with another man; luckily this gives them an opportunity to blame them Devil and a round of Christian forgiveness ensues. The Pastor’s wife stands by him and he gets back to the job of being straight.
This philosophy has lead to the murky practice of attempting to cure homosexuality; young Christian are coerced into ‘treatment’ programmes resulting in self loathing or at the very least lives lived as lies; socially acceptable masks and loveless marriages, self denial in order to keep God happy or to prevent their ostracization from the religious community.
Homophobia, like all prejudices, is learnt. The fact that in this case it is learnt, even taught, in Church doesn’t stop it being a form of bigotry. Attributing it to God no more validates the mindset than attributing it to any other environment. One can no more quote the Bible as justification anymore than say, Marlowe’s Edward II. Just because it is written down in an ancient book no more validates the prejudice than picking it up off of intolerant parents.
Arguments of preserving the sanctity of marriage fall rather flat as well; SSM will not devalue heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals have been busy devaluing their own marriages since divorce became easily accessible. No one can reduce your marriage but you. Claims that the inability to reproduce negates the need for SSM also appear tenuous when scrutinized. If this was what the institution of marriage was all about then the Church would turn down straight couples for reasons of fertility and age. Children are born in and out of marriage; the union isn’t a prerequisite to siring offspring, it is merely the romantic idealized norm.
The case against SSM is often packaged as one of morality; the homosexual act being an immoral one. Social commentators such as Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late great Christopher Hitchens, bemoan the destruction of the family and religious bedrock of this country; the devaluation of the heterosexual union, life long commitment and that secure environment for raising children. Hitchens is very much stuck in the past and conjures up imagery of the modern world as an Orwellian dystopia ruled by a corrupt liberal elite. Ironically he engages in a double-speak of his own when citing that liberal equalitarian values are actually an enforcement of a form of thought crime. He hints that he can’t express his own homophobia for fear of the liberal backlash. He is denied the freedom to air his opinions by a politically correct Big Brother state; religious middle England is silenced beneath the jack-boot of modernism and multiculturalism.
The actuality is that Hitchens can say what he likes, whether or not that will allow him to carry on his work at a national daily newspaper is another matter. One can only imagine the extremity of his actual unedited views. He argues that the role of the Church has been destroyed by fifty years of liberal modernism. Immorality has flourished by the acceptance of alternative lifestyles; he claims that Christians are persecuted and Muslims are appeased; multiculturalism crushing the indigenous and pussy footing around the alien. The whole country is going down hill and this can be attributed to the populous leaving the Church. Homosexuality, rising crime, drug abuse, depression and absent fathers are all a result of people turning away from the faith. Secularism and liberalism are the golden calves of the modern world out to destroy the Church.
Hitchens’ fears are unfounded. Secularism doesn’t go far enough to challenge the Church. In the same way Islam is appeased with the approval of Sharia courts, Christian sensibilities are coddled. Their beliefs are still given preferential treatment and respect.
The actual fact of the matter is the institution of marriage is a wholly secular institution. The Church can not marry you without the intervention of the state. The marriage wouldn’t be legal if it did. If your registrar isn't your priest you will need a state registrar present to be legally married. All unions are by definition civil unions. A state representative has to hear you accept your partner as your husband or wife for the union to stand. The contract will be equally binding whether the setting for it is within a Church or simply in a hotel. It is only convention that has made this a religious affair. The Church doesn’t hold the right to this decision, in a very real sense you are never married before God but before the state. It is the state that awards you all your rights thereafter, not God and not the Church.
The Church enjoys a tax-free status so it can not complain when it is asked to adhere to the secular social norms of the society that indirectly funds it by giving it this special status. It doesn’t have the right to moralize given its set up.
If the religious elite feel that this policy compromises them then they should give it up and start paying taxes. They would then be, to all intents and purposes, a private club; they would be detached completely from the workings of the state and could make their own decisions concerning who they married. However as things stand they do not possess the luxury of this autonomy and have to comply with social norms.
Nick Clegg had the opportunity to stick by a principle this week but backed away from it through cowardice. It was the perfect opportunity for a secular representative to make a stand and tell the Church exactly where it stood. Evidently that day hasn’t come yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)