Lawrence Krauss, articulating both the wonder and the insignificance of humanity. I agree.
No gods required.
Category: Society
-
I Beg Your Pardon?
I apologise about returning to the subject of same-sex marriage so soon, but I came across an example of an argument against same-sex marriage today that is just so, well, bizarre.
It is contained in an opinion piece in the Guardian, penned by one Timothy Radcliffe, who turns out to be, as I subsequently learned, a Roman Catholic priest and a Dominican friar. So I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised.
Father Radcliffe starts out well:
It is heartening to see the wave of support for gay marriages. It shows a society that aspires to an open tolerance of all sorts of people, a desire for us to live together in mutual acceptance. It seems obviously fair and right that if straight people can get married, why not gay people?
But then comes:
But we must resist the easy seduction of the obvious. It once seemed obvious that the sun revolved around the Earth, and that women were inferior to men. Society only evolves when we have the mental liberty to challenge what seems to be common sense.
Followed by something that struck me as being simply mind-boggling:
Many Christians oppose gay marriage not because we are homophobic or reject the equal dignity of gay people, but because “gay marriage” ultimately, we believe, demeans gay people by forcing them to conform to the straight world.
As one of the commenters on the piece said, this is rather like saying:
Many Christians oppose the liberation of the slaves not because we are racist or reject the equal dignity of black people but because “freedom” ultimately, we believe, demeans black people by forcing them to conform to the white world.
Many Christians oppose equal rights for Jews not because we are antisemitic or reject the equal dignity of Jewish people but because “equality” ultimately, we believe, demeans Jewish people by forcing them to conform to the gentile world.
I felt neither demeaned nor forced to marry Martin. We got married because it seemed to us a positive step to take, and we didn’t take it lightly.
Here in the Netherlands, every couple who gets married does so in a civil ceremony. The option is then open to them, if they are religious, and if their religion supports it, to follow that up with a religious marriage ceremony. It’s very common here to see a newly-wedded couple emerge from the Town Hall, walk across the market square, and go into the church for their church wedding.
-
Marie Antoinette and the Anglican Church
I confess to a fondness for schadenfreude. Never more so when an organisation, which expects power and recognition in the society in which it exists, resolutely opens its mouth only to change feet.
And so it is with the Anglican Church and same-sex marriage.
Having earnestly entreated the UK government to forbid the possibility of same-sex marriage, for a number of dubious reasons, it is now horrified when the UK government has responded by effectively saying: OK, you don’t want to have same-sex marriage, then we’ll bring in a law to make it forbidden for you to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies within your premises.
Look, gentlemen (and, of course, it is men) you can’t have your cake and eat it. If you don’t want to conduct same-sex marriages, then don’t bleat when you are told that you can’t conduct same-sex marriages.
The Anglican Church: a cross between Marie Antoinette and Stan Laurel.
-
Terry Pratchett
The New Statesman has an excellent interview with Sir Terry Pratchett. It is well worth reading. He’s not going gently into that Good Night; but instead with his head held up high and fearlessly facing the final curtain. I wonder if I could do the same.
Here’s Terry Pratchett’s award-winning documentary “Choosing to Die”
Please watch it.
-
Irrelevant
Yes, it’s been fifty years since I believed in Christianity, but even so, I had hoped that the Anglican Church would see sense and vote for women bishops.
Er, nope, they are still stuck in the dark ages, and want to treat 50% of the human race as lesser creatures.
Still swirling around in a cesspit of their own making. Bless.
-
A Barbaric Practice
I find it difficult not to get both depressed and angry when reading about some of the things inflicted on the group that comprises 50% of the human race. Last week it was reading about the case of Savita Halappanavar. Today it is reading about the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation in Indonesia, a supposedly modern Muslim country.
It is well established that female genital mutilation (FGM) is not required in Muslim law. It is an ancient cultural practice that existed before Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It is also agreed across large swathes of the world that it is barbaric. At the mass ceremony, I ask the foundation’s social welfare secretary, Lukman Hakim, why they do it. His answer not only predates the dawn of religion, it predates human evolution: “It is necessary to control women’s sexual urges,” says Hakim, a stern, bespectacled man in a fez. “They must be chaste to preserve their beauty.”
Oh God, ah Allah, what evil we do in thy names…
-
A Well-deserved Award
I see that Cardinal Keith O’Brien has been awarded the “Bigot of the Year” award by Stonewall. Naturally, he and other members of the Catholic hierarchy aren’t best pleased. On the other hand, if the cap fits…
To quote from the article:
Colin Macfarlane, the director of Stonewall Scotland, said: “We’ve never called anyone a bigot just because they don’t agree with us. But in just the past 12 months, the cardinal has gone well beyond what any normal person would call a decent level of public discourse.”
Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland, Macfarlane added: “The people that were nominated for bigot of the year have this year called gay people Nazis, they have compared them to bestialists and to paedophiles, and one of the nominees suggested that gay people should be put in front of a firing squad and shot dead.
“So I think what we are doing is highlighting the very cruel, very nasty, very pernicious language that is being used by some people – and in particular by the cardinal, who won.
The opposing view was expressed by Ruth Davidson:
Stonewall’s decision was criticised, however, by the Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson as she picked up her own award as politician of the year at the prize ceremony at the Victoria and Albert museum in London on Thursday evening.
Davidson, the first openly gay leader of a major political party in the UK, was booed when she said it was “simply wrong” to call people names like bigot. “The case for equality is far better made by demonstrating the sort of generosity, tolerance and love we would wish to see more of in this world,” she said.
“There are many voices in this debate and just as I respectfully express my sincerely held belief that we should extend marriage to same-sex couples, I will also respect those who hold a different view.”
To my way of thinking, respect is something that is earned, not automatically given. And holding different views is one thing, but to hear powerful religious figures such as the Cardinal, and the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, spout the cruel, nasty, pernicious language that they regularly use about us is something that I will not countenance.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in calling the Cardinal a bigot, because that is what he is. He has earned himself a well-deserved award.
Update: and now, of course, he has shown himself to be a hypocrite. Hoist by his own petard. Just desserts.
-
Carey Invokes Godwin’s Law
I admit, when I first read of Lord Carey’s performance at the Coalition for Marriage rally at the recent Conservative Party Conference in the UK, I rolled my eyes, sighed deeply, and thought I should just ignore it. While it was yet more evidence that he, and his fellow travellers, such as Anne Widdicombe, are simply bigots, it gets tiresome pointing this out every time.
But then I read Martin Robbins’ response, and I thought, yes, if Lord Carey wants to play the victim card by likening himself and his supporters to the Jews in Nazi Germany, then he fully deserves the fury of Martin Robbins’ response.
So I call your attention to what Martin Robbins wrote. In particular, I echo the sentiments he expressed in two paragraphs in the piece:
I have no words powerful enough to describe the disgrace, the ignorance, the self-absorbed vileness of a man who believes that being called a bigot by Nick Clegg is even remotely comparable to the experiences of men like Pierre Seel, or thousands of others who were slaughtered by the Nazi regime…
But perhaps Carey’s most disturbing remark was that eerily familiar question he posed: “Why does it feel to us that our cultural homeland and identity is being plundered?” The answer, Lord Carey, is that it is not your homeland, it is our homeland; and homosexuals are just as much a part of our identity as anyone else. The day we allow bigots to deny that, or to suggest that the emotions felt by certain people are somehow not on the ‘same level’ as other human beings, is the day we start heading back down a dark and dangerous path.
-
Forget Burglars, Shoot a Banker…
That’s Craig Murray’s modest proposal. Truth to tell, looking at the behaviour of the banking industry over the past few years, it has a certain ring to it…
-
The Book Mountain
After that last post, I needed something to give me hope. Perhaps the news of the opening of the Book Mountain and Library quarter in Spijkenisse, here in the Netherlands, is something to restore my spirits.
-
Religion Poisons Everything
That quote, from the late Christopher Hitchens, seems apposite in the wake of the news that a 14 year-old girl has been shot in the head because, according to the Taliban spokesman (it is always, of course, a spokesman), her activities in highlighting Taliban atrocities needed to be stopped.
He said the teenager’s work had been an “obscenity” that needed to be stopped: “This was a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter.”
It is at times like this when I come close to despair for humanity’s future.
-
This Land is Mine
I’m currently reading (very slowly) Steven Pinker’s magisterial The Better Angels of Our Nature. It’s a history of violence in human societies, and his thesis is that violence has actually declined over the centuries. It seems difficult to believe, but Pinker marshals his facts and presents a convincing case.
And on the theme of the distressing fact that violence and humanity are inextricably locked together, here’s Nina Paley’s offering on that theme.
More about the film, Seder Masochism, together with a handy guide to who’s killing who, can be found on Nina’s Blog.
-
Polling Day
It’s polling day here in the Netherlands. It’s our chance to exercise our democratic right to choose the members of the Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber), and, indirectly, the makeup of the next Dutch Government. With twenty political parties to choose from, the next government will almost certainly be a coalition, as usual.
There’s a chance that we might see a swing to the left, but it seems that it will be a close run thing.
At least I should get some respite from the last few weeks of a constant barrage of web ads urging me to vote for the VVD. Their crude slogans – Meer straf en minder begrijp voor criminelen (more punishment and less understanding for criminals) – have merely confirmed me in my belief that I am doing the right thing by voting for the PVdA.
-
A New Arrival
Our nearest neighbours, Herman and José are currently celebrating (and having sleepless nights) because José gave birth to their second child last Tuesday. Her name is Linde.
Yesterday, as is traditional around these parts, we, the neighbours, assembled to erect a stork in the garden to proclaim the arrival of a baby.
Because Linde is a girl, Martin added the princess dress to indicate the fact. He also decorated the entrance to the cattle barn…
The text reads Welkom, Linde, in de Buurt (Welcome, Linde, into the Neighbourhood).
-
The Right To Die
I am profoundly thankful that I live in a country where I can choose if I wish to die.
Tony Nicklinson has been denied that choice, and is condemned to serve more time in a living hell.
Update #1: Polly Toynbee has a good article on this issue. As she says:
The verdict was morally abominable – but inevitable. However bad a law may be, it is not for the courts to make fundamental change but for parliament – even when parliament sentences thousands a year to brutal and pointless suffering.
However, as she points out, it will be difficult to persuade the UK Parliament to right this wrong. The religious lobby is extremely powerful.
In opinion polls, for years, more than 80% have supported this change in the law, but every attempt at a right-to-die reform has been sabotaged by the large religious lobby, galvanised by Care Not Killing. The red benches, heavily stacked with the religious, including 26 bishops, saw off the last bills.
Rowan Williams’s pretence is that their opposition springs from a fear this will lead to mass extermination of the inconvenient old. But why should the religious worry more about that than everyone else? The law would provide safeguards. The real religious reason is theological, as voiced in the Lords by the bishop of Oxford when he proclaimed “We are not autonomous beings” – we must all wait for God’s release. Presumably avoidable suffering is part of God’s mysterious purpose.
As I said, I am thankful that I live in the Netherlands. Contrary to what the bishop of Oxford may choose to believe, I am an autonomous being.
Update #2: Sarah Wollaston has an atrocious article on this issue. It appears that not only is she a physician, but she is also the Member of Parliament for Totnes. My heart goes out to the people of Totnes for being saddled with her to represent them in the democratic process, and I would hate to end up as one of her patients. She would quite cheerfully condemn me to continued suffering rather than respect my wishes to end my life.
The trouble with people like Sarah Wollaston is that they do not seem to understand what a human life is. They think, for some reason, that human life is simply a biological reality, the fact that a body is breathing. The human life that we value is very different. A life is a continuum of sorts, with a unity of conception. I do not want to enter into the philosophical problem of identity, but the important thing about a well-lived life is that it has a sense of overall consistency and coherence. That is why we respect people’s autonomy, the right to make their own decisions about life: what to do with their lives, who to marry, whether to have children, which vocation to pursue, and many other decisions that go to make up a life rich in experience and held together, so far as is possible, by a single, or at least a unified sense of what is appropriate for a life so conceived.
A life conceived in this way includes some of the most important decisions that must be made, and includes, as an essential part, how that person understands the part that death plays in life. Most of us do not think much about death, especially when we are in the midst of life, but the time will come when the issue of dying will loom very large indeed. To be unable to make decisions about dying is to put outside the scope of a person’s conception of life all those things that may befall them at the end of life.
Update #3: Tony Nicklinson has died. RIP. He fought well for the right to die with dignity.
-
Lest We Forget
The BBC showed a one hour documentary last night: Death Camp Treblinka: Survivor Stories. The survivors in question were Samuel Willenberg and Kalman Taigman. They were among 600 prisoners who escaped during a revolt at the camp on August 2nd, 1943. Only 40 of them were known to have survived to the end of the war, and now, only Samuel Willenberg remains to bear witness – Kalman Taigman died in July this year.
The programme was profoundly shocking – Treblinka II was a death camp that existed for no other purpose than for the killing of human beings. Over 800,000 Jews and Gypsies were gassed, shot and cremated during the 13 months of the camp’s operation.
What struck me was how small Treblinka II was – only 600 metres by 400 metres. The Nazis kept between 700 and 800 prisoners to operate the camp, while 90% of the inmates sent to Treblinka were killed within the first 2 hours of arriving.
Willenberg and Taigman told their stories to camera, and they were harrowing. For example, Willenberg found the coats of his two younger sisters among the personal effects of the dead he had been made to sort through by the Nazis. Or the fact that during his escape from the camp, a fellow escapee, who was wounded, begged Willenberg to shoot him, rather than be recaptured. Willenberg gave him his wished-for coup de grâce.
The light at the end of the tunnel was the closing section of the programme that showed that the two men had survived the horrors of Treblinka and rebuilt their lives. Taigman had gone on to fight in the Warsaw Uprising, while Willenberg was a witness at the trial of Adolf Eichmann. The closing moments of the programme managed to bring a profound sense of peace and regeneration of the human spirit at its best – something that I never thought would be possible given what I had just seen and heard earlier in the hour
-
The Amish – Lovely People…
So, the BBC had yet another documentary about the Amish last night. Following on from the programmes about the Stoltzfus families, the BBC gave us a programme about David and Miriam Lapp and their adorable children.
And, just as with the Stoltzfus families, I found myself simultaneously liking the Lapps, but also cringing at their complete obliviousness of what humanity has achieved, for better or for worse.
David and Miriam came across as genuinely likeable, but there was that awful frisson when Miriam started talking about the rod (as the Bible states), as an effective method of chastisement of her children, while smiling all the while. At this point, her youngest son pipes up to implore her not to use the rod (in her case a wooden spoon – with a smiley face drawn upon it!) on him. She grinned. I found that shocking and not at all cute or lovely.
In the end, I once more found myself thanking my lucky stars that I was not born into an Amish community. The chains around the human spirit would have proved too much for me.
-
Onward Christian Soldiers…
I see that the Church of England has now formally submitted its response to the UK Government’s consultation on same-sex marriage. They’re against it. If I were a Christian, like Giles Fraser, then, like him, I would be both ashamed and angry at the Church’s stance. But I’m not a Christian, so I’m simply disgusted and appalled at their continuing bigotry, and not in the least little bit surprised.
The summary of the C of E’s 13-page submission makes interesting reading. They’re against it because:
Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.
Marriage, as they very well know, has taken on many forms in human institutions throughout history. There is nothing “intrinsic” about it. And if we’re talking about human institutions here, then your God can damn well keep his nose out of my marriage, thank you very much.
Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation.
I totally agree with the first part of this statement, marriage does benefit society in many ways, including promoting mutuality and fidelity. However, after stating this, the C of E wants to erect “keep-out” signs to prevent this being available to same-sex couples. How very charitable of them. And as for “an underlying biological complementarity” it’s certainly easier if a married couple already possess the right bits, but if they don’t, it still doesn’t rule out the possibility of procreation and raising children in a loving family.
We have supported various legal changes in recent years to remove unjustified discrimination and create greater legal rights for same sex couples and we welcome that fact that previous legal and material inequities between heterosexual and same-sex partnerships have now been satisfactorily addressed. To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships. We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.
To claim that the CofE has “supported various legal changes in recent years to remove unjustified discrimination and create greater legal rights for same sex couples” is a downright lie. As Giles Fraser writes:
In the main House of Lords debate in June 2004 the majority spoke against it and voted six to one in favour of a wrecking amendment. The leadership of the C of E will do anything to keep gay people out of the church. It uses the sickly language of welcome but won’t let gay priests (even celibate ones) become bishops and is prepared to cut the Church of England off from the Episcopal church in the US because they do. At every turn, the Church of England treats gay people as an unwanted headache.
As I say, I am not surprised that the C of E objects to the proposals, they’ve cherry-picked the bits of scriptures to form the basis of their objections. The bible also condones slavery and the stoning of adulterers, but somehow society (at least in the West) has managed to move on from that. But what I do object to is their insistence that their beliefs should apply to the rest of us:
In common with almost all other Churches, the Church of England holds, as a matter of doctrine and derived from the teaching of Christ himself, that marriage in general – and not just the marriage of Christians – is, in its nature, a lifelong union of one man with one woman.
– from page 2 of the submission, my emphasis in bold. As I said above, their god can keep his nose out of my marriage.
Then there’s the usual cry of “allowing same-sex marriages will dilute traditional marriage”. Section 13, page 4, of their submission (bold in the original):
We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage.
You know, it’s ironic. Here in The Netherlands, civil partnership was introduced for same-sex couples back in 1998, and then in 2001 full civil marriage for same-sex couples became available. There’s been no “dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone” at all. There are still church weddings for those who believe, but importantly, every couple first goes through a secular civil marriage ceremony, performed by a civil servant authorised to conduct weddings. This has long been the case – certainly before same-sex marriage became available. And there have been no challenges to the European Court of Human Rights to force Dutch Churches to marry same-sex couples, as the C of E apparently fears will happen in the UK.
The news of the C of E’s submission has appeared on the 12th June 2012. By coincidence, this is what we consider as our 14th Wedding Anniversary. Martin and I had a civil partnership ceremony on the 12th June 1998. In 2003, we had this upgraded to a full civil marriage. The C of E’s continuing scaremongering on this issue of same-sex marriage is just another example of how, to quote Christopher Hitchens, religion poisons everything.
-
The Secret History of our Streets
Last night, BBC Two broadcast the first in a series of documentaries about streets in London. It was The Secret History of our Streets: Deptford High Street.
It was truly excellent – up there with what the BBC does best. Starting with the sociological maps of Charles Booth, it moved to the present day with vox pop interviews of residents and those connected with the history of Deptford High Street.
The centre of the programme was John Price, whose family have lived in and around Deptford High Street for 250 years. His was the arresting voice of a community that was forced into a diaspora by the well-meaning, but ultimately ruinous, city planners of the 1960s.
It was riveting television, that, as Lucy Mangan writes, prodded your brain awake as it broke your heart. Do read the comments on her article, and the comments on the producer’s blog of the programme, they are worth it.
I was close to tears at several points, and moved to white-hot fury as the programme revealed that one street in Deptford had been saved from the city planners’ bulldozers. In a final irony, it turned out that the street that survived was of housing stock that was at the absolute bottom of the pile. Better streets, one of which contained John Price’s family, were flattened. And now, this street, consisting of tiny terraced houses built for the poorest of the poor in the 19th century, has properties that are on the market for £750,000.
We were treated to the spectacle of an oleaginous estate agent showing a well-to-do couple around one such tiny property. I have never come closer to wanting to hurl something through the television as at that moment. It made me sick to the bottom of my heart.
And while the programme showed some of the new life that has come to Deptford High Street, including the (to me) rather questionable evangelical preacher, I couldn’t help feeling that the programme makers had made the right choice by using the song and words of the evangelical choir to close what was a brilliant example of a documentary. The choir sang ‘Will the Circle be Unbroken’ – a bitter comment on how a community was shattered for ever by the Council’s bulldozers. The chorus, ‘There’s a better home a-waitin’ – in the Sky, Lord, in the Sky’ was perhaps a cruel, but knowing, joke about the highrise apartment blocks the Council built. The new slums to be marked as such on the map of a 21st Century Charles Booth, whilst the original community has been scattered to the four winds…
-
A Prelate’s Pork Pies
I drew your attention to John Sentamu’s piece on why he does not support same-sex marriage a few days ago. One thing I missed in that farrago is that His Grace was being economical with the truth. He stated that the bishops in the House of Lords supported civil partnerships when the bill was debated.
Strange that, if one checks Hansard, as Iain McLean has done, that is not what you will find:
The main Lords debate on the civil partnership bill took place in June 2004. Richard Harries, then bishop of Oxford, did indeed signal Church of England support for civil partnerships. But his efforts were contradicted by the five conservative bishops who spoke on the other side. Going by the bishops’ contributions to debate, the score is 5/3 against. Going by the bishops’ votes, it is 6/1 against. Six bishops voted for a successful wrecking amendment in the name of Lady O’Cathain, which made the bill unworkable. Only the Commons’ insistence on rejecting the O’Cathain amendment made it possible to enact civil partnerships.
His Grace tells porkies. What a surprise.
A tip of the hat to Eric McDonald for drawing my attention to this doubtless unintended failure of His Grace to recall facts correctly when it suits him to do so.
Geoff Coupe's Blog 