Respect
Speaking of respect for religion…There’s Adele Stan in The American Prospect:
In positions it takes on other issues, Feminists for Life is indeed “pro-woman,” whether in regard to its stance on the Violence Against Women Act or support for mothers on welfare. But it’s hard not to wonder if those positions aren’t just a beard, along with the term, “feminist,” for the hard-core, misogynist agenda of the Vatican. The organization’s no-exceptions anti-abortion position follows Catholic doctrine to the letter, a doctrine that has always demanded of women that they bear whatever burden men place upon them, and that they not soil the altar with the very bodiliness they represent by virtue of the means by which children are born.
If you want a contrast, drop in on Cristina Odone. She’s annoyed – or perhaps I mean ‘offended’. She’s also a tad shifty.
[W]earing a cross has become as controversial as wearing a single earring or going bra-less used to be. No one would seize upon gays or feminists for expressing their allegiances today, yet in institutions as British as the BBC and British Airways, wearing a cross is now tantamount to throwing down a gauntlet.
That’s shifty because it’s a bad analogy. To put it as briefly as possible, when gays or feminists ‘express their allegiances’ (whatever that means) they are not declaring belief in a magical invisible friend; people who wear crosses are. (There’s also the seldom-noticed fact that the cross is in fact an odd symbol to wear in the first place: it’s a torture device; it stands for an ancient and very cruel form of execution. I understand that that’s just why it’s meaningful for Christians, but all the same, it is a symbol of sadism. I wonder if Odone keeps that aspect firmly in mind enough.)
Diktats against the cross are fuelled not by concern for minorities, but by a secularism so rampant that it prefers a cross-dresser to a cross wearer, a plumber’s bum to a veil.
Yes. And?
Yes, the cross and veil brigade are different. They believe in eternity, sacrifice, humility and obedience, concepts as alien as equal pay and gay rights used to be.
Ah – shifty again. Eternity is the magical bit, but the rest of it is about ethics, and also raises instant questions. Sacrifice by whom, for whom, of what? Humility on whose part, toward whom? Obedience of whom, by whom? Sacrifice of autonomy and ownership of their own bodies by women? Extra helpings of humility and obedience for women? All three by humans for – the magical invisible friend? We know what’s meant by equal pay and gay rights, but sacrifice, humility and obedience are loose baggy flexible notions. You don’t want to sign a contract that commits you to sacrifice, humility and obedience with no further stipulations or limitations – you could find you’ve just signed yourself into lifelong irreversible slavery with torture. What business does Odone have throwing the terms around in that carefree way? This is why atheists tend to be a little wary of cross-wearers. We think they’re sometimes a little evasive about their plans for us.
Belief, even if its tenets are as innocent as turning the other cheek and self-sacrifice, is frowned upon as too subversive.
Bollocks. Turning the other cheek and self-sacrifice are not belief, they are ethical stances, and they’re not frowned upon as too subversive. That’s whiny self-pitying inaccurate crap. This is another reason atheists tend to be a little wary of cross-wearers – the way they wrap themselves in the altar cloth and whine about how persecuted they are and tell whoppers to get the point across.
If you want a contrast again, Francis Sedgemore cleans the palate.
What is happening here is that some very pissed-off atheists, agnostics and couldn’t-care-less-ists are finding their voice in a debate set up and manipulated by religious forces, and the latter are on the whole reacting hysterically to forthright criticism from the godless heathens. But this is something that religious believers will just have to live with, and that includes insult and ridicule.
That’s better.
“To put it as briefly as possible, when gays or feminists ‘express their allegiances’ (whatever that means) they are not declaring belief in a magical invisible friend; people who wear crosses are.”
I must be missing these militant gays and feminists wearing their symbols of gayness and feministness into my workplace. Can the nice people who are so worried that only they and the entire Gothic population have a fetish for crucifixes please produce a guide to gay and feminist symbols so I can be sure to associate with anyone wearing one?
Really? You haven’t seen those little copulating same-sex couples on tasteful silver chains worn around the necks of gay people? Or the fist inside the woman symbol worn around the necks of feminist people? Fancy that.
Cristina Odone is exaggerating a bit, but the British Arways issue with crosses is surely a bit silly. That the cross was originally an execution device, and that it could be regarded as a symbol of torture (or suffering) and sadism (or indeed masochism) is true – but beside the point. I do not see the relevance of this or indeed the difference between a single earring or a cross. People are and should be allowed to wear symbols that you disagree with, or even find distasteful.
I would reject the analogy drawn by Odone with the niqaab. The problem with the niqaab is that it hides the face of the one bearing it, isolating that person from the kind of communication and social interaction normal in society. This would be an argument to ban the niqaab and the burqah in environments where such interaction is necessary (schools, workplaces, etc.)
Ah but what point is it beside? I’m not sure it’s beside the point I was making.
I’m not sure it’s always true in every situation that people should be allowed to wear symbols that others might disagree with. In fact I think it isn’t. Are all employers – including employers of social workers, human rights workers, public interest lawyers, doctors, surgeons, etc etc etc – required to allow their employees to wear swastika armbands? No, I don’t think so. I think it’s one of those case by case things. Same with crosses. There are jobs that have to be secular, and be seen to be secular. A dress code could simply rule out crosses and other such symbols. Dress codes exist; perfect liberty is not always an option.
And the problem with the niqab you cite is one problem with it, but it’s not the problem, because there’s more than one.
I know I only mentioned one problem with the niqaab – because that is the one which I think leads most clearly to a rationale for restricting its usage. Of course there are more. But taken purely in the abstract, the issue that the niqaab is a symbol for the subjugation of women is not, in and of itself, a reason for banning it – in my opinion. (Another issue again is the social control over people wearing it, the use of force, violence, etc.)
I agree that some jobs should be seen to be secular. But surely working at an airline isn’t one of them? I would say the only one I could think of here are jobs directly representative of the monopoly of violence employed by the state – the police, and the courts.
The swastika example is dicey. Because it’s such a singular case. And to be honest, I think the taboo on Nazi imagery and the like partially contributes to the power it still holds. What if those hopeless rejects who actually sympathize with Nazism were allowed to wear swastikas on their sleeves and do their funny walks? They’d make themselves look ridiculous more than anything else.
I should probably make clear here as well that I think the British Airways ban on crosses is totally silly – but I don’t think much can be done about it. Would depend I guess for me to what extent it is a state company or a private company. In the latter cases, I think the employer should have quite a lot of leeway to impose dresscodes, even ridiculous ones.
And Odone has this classic statement: “We have to ask whether we would prefer to live in a secular society or a tolerant society.”
Well I would rather live in a tolerant secular society than an intolerant religous one: and those appear to be the alternatives.
She then says: “Religious freedom used to be sacred.” (Deliberate pun?)
I wonder if by this she means, the freedom to go around telling everyone else how to live their lives, what they could read, look at…
As you mention the Sedgemore CiF piece, I thought I would draw attention to the brilliant way in which I, with a mere few minutes thought, solved the whole monotheism thing for everyone — so brilliantly, in fact, that all the other commentators had to ignore it, and carry on their pre-programmed sectarian ranting:
“If there was a god, as conceived by monotheists, wouldn’t all the evidence suggest that his favourite hobby was whispering contradictory things to different people, and sitting back to enjoy the mayhem? I mean, come on, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity [Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, not the mention all those Gnostics], Islam [Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi], and the poor old Bah’ais tacked on the end, only trying to help…
“Not to mention that this god, creator of the universe and all that’s in it, forgot to mention his unique existence to the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus, Chinese [how could you miss the Chinese?] Japanese, and the entire Americas, at least until the Spanish took up the slack.
“Not much of a track record for someone omnipotent, omnipresent [all those sparrows falling] and omniscient, is it? Not very majestic, not very almighty, not even being able to get a bunch of people on one planet in the bottom left-hand corner of an undistinguished galaxy to agree that you’re actually there, eh?
“Either he’s taking the piss, or we’re making it all up as we go along…”
Didn’t even get a *snerk*, miserable lot.
Dave, I thought the whole point of CiF is to NOT HAVE to consider other posts properly. And Odone never writes anything but simpering dross anyway. As if she or anyone else in the UK ever gets an infinitesimally, remotely hard time for wearing a stupid cross.
OB, you been listening to the late (great) Bill Hicks, by any chance? :-)
In particular, his “Christians wearing crosses = fans of JFK wearing rifle pendants” routine…
Personally, I love it when a media figure (eg. Carol Vorderman) here in the YooKay adorns themselves with a prominant crucifix…I thought that particular flavour of supernaturalism was all about personal humility rather than proclaiming “look at me! look at me! I’m so spiritual!”. Of course, they’d probably respond by saying they’re just trying to do their evangelical bit by witnessing to the wider world, but it is a small delight to see people doing the equivalent of standing up and shouting “Me! I’m irrational, too! Me! Look! Faith without proof!”.
I wonder if they really believe that it makes them appear more trustworthy/reliable/somehow “moral”??
As for Odone, well, I’m waiting for proof that she’s anyting more than a bloody idiot. Everything of hers I’ve read/viewed so far has failed to offer much evidence of intelligence…? I suppose she could point to the fact that she gets paid for her drivelling, but that’s more cunning than the application of reason, surely…? :-)
OB writes:
“To put it as briefly as possible, when gays or feminists ‘express their allegiances’ (whatever that means) they are not declaring belief in a magical invisible friend; people who wear crosses are.”
I don’t have the stats at my fingertips but I reckon many people wear the cross (or star of David) merely to express allegiance to a cultural heritage and not to their belief in invisible beings.
Actually, the real weakness in Odone’s argument is that she pits Christians plus Muslims v. secularists – a weakness to which many secularists are also prone. The real clash is between secularists plus Christians v. Muslims. Most Christians don’t intend to outlaw atheism, just as most atheists don’t intend to outlaw Christianity. But Muslims would, if they got half a chance, outlaw or at least maltreat and oppress just about everybody else. No Bible in the shop windows, but no Dawkins either.
BTW Odone bullshits when she argues that “Muslims don’t mind obvious symbols of faith: they simply want to be allowed to wear their own, thank you very much.” Oh yeah? Wearing the crucifix is prohibited in Saudi Arabia, for example. And conversion to Christianity is a capital offence in some Muslim countries.
Why are secularists so incapable of forging alliances with people who, to all intents and purposes, share most of their values? There may be a gap between the Dawkins’s and the Christians, but between both and the world of Islam there is not a gap but a chasm. Even Christians who want to ram their beliefs down other people’s throats don’t call for the lapidation of adulterers. I reckon that it is partly because of secularists’ belief that one form of religious bullshit is much the same as the other that helps drives certain Christians into an alliance with Muslims. I happen to be a ‘cradle Catholic’ from the West of Ireland – but I cannot put an ultra-conservative Catholic upbringing on a par with a religion that mandates the amputation of limbs and the sequestration of women, as Islam does even in its most moderate manifestations.
Secularists need a sense of proportion – we can all joke entre nous about wearing the ‘sign of the cross’ or the ‘sign of the electric chair’ or the ‘sign of the guillotine’. But why antagonise a large minority of Christians to such an extent that they imagine they would be better off in an Islamic society than in an atheist one?
“What if those hopeless rejects who actually sympathize with Nazism were allowed to wear swastikas on their sleeves and do their funny walks?”
Well they are allowed to (except in Germany and Austria, I believe). I have, weirdly, a neighbor who does exactly that – goes out parading around in full Nazi uniform including helmet (he’s meant to be a Nazi soldier, I think), talking to himself. But that’s not the same thing as being allowed to at work.
I don’t particularly disagree with you about BA; I just thought the way you put it made it far too sweeping.
Dave,
snerk!
Of course that forgetting to mention thing was a real stumbling block and source of anguish to a lot of people – especially during and after the Renaissance, when literate people were reading all those Greeks and Romans and finding them so impressive in various ways. They did not much like the thought of their being damned. Look at Dante: that’s practically the first thing he talks about. Dear Virgil; he’s so serious, so pious, etc etc. So we get to the pope and limbo right now.
Nope, Andy, don’t know Bill Hicks, but have heard objections to cross as torture symbol of course.
“but I reckon many people wear the cross (or star of David) merely to express allegiance to a cultural heritage and not to their belief in invisible beings.”
Yeah maybe, at least partly. But the trouble is it’s hard to do that with the cross (less hard with the star, because of the mixed nature of Judaism). The cross just does stand for some very particular supernatural beliefs. It could some day transmute into a secularish bit of jewelry, but it hasn’t yet. (There’s a sort of discussion of just this between Dorothea and Celia in the first pages of Middlemarch.)
“Most Christians don’t intend to outlaw atheism”
That’s somewhat less true here than it is where you are. Atheism is already a de facto disqualification for most public office here.
“Even Christians who want to ram their beliefs down other people’s throats don’t call for the lapidation of adulterers.”
But they do call for the restoration of second-class status for women, and the denial of rights to gays, and the teaching of nonsense in public school science classes. Not all Christians are coercive loonies, but some are, especially in the US.
A cross is the last thing I would wear as a trinket.” Dorothea shuddered slightly.
Well, judging by Celia, even way back in the 1870s the cross had ‘transmute[d] into a secularish piece of jewelry’ for the fun-loving girls of the time.
Dorothea was the prude, after all.
I know, that’s what I’m saying. The transmutation may have begun, but it’s by no means complete, and perhaps never will be.
What Dorothea was is much much more complicated (and interesting) than a mere prude.
Miriam could tell us a lot about this. I wonder if Charlotte M Yonge had any frivolous characters who wore crosses as trinkets. And what about Maria Ward – and Trollope.
And Emma Bovary. She’s exactly the type to wear a cross as a trinket – perhaps oscillating between a vague air of piety and a determined effort at elegance.
OB,
You aren’t familiar with Bill Hicks? Please, get a couple of the DVD’s. You won’t regret it.
Meanwhile,
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Hicks
Cathal Copeland: “Secularists need a sense of proportion – we can all joke entre nous about wearing the ‘sign of the cross’ or the ‘sign of the electric chair’ or the ‘sign of the guillotine’. But why antagonise a large minority of Christians…”
Because many in that “large minority of Christians” want to inflict their god-driven moral beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. Because the head of the Catholic church condemns all abortion, most methods of contraception and homosexuality.
Odone is a catholic, with a full set of catholic irrationalities and prejudices.
And following the usual trick of attacking false strw-men that bear no real resemblance to what real secularists, agostics and atheists do.
This is, of course whay many inhabitants of the USA would rather trust a muslim than an * ATHEIST *
I think Dave said it all about omipotent, omniscient gods, much further back.
Probably the main reason B.A. picked on this woman with the cross is because its easy(christians dont isue fatwas)I would like to see them having the guts to bar a moslem woman from wearing a cresent symbol.C.Copeland your early post realy nailed it, securlarists often seem incapable of making a distintion between islam and other much more tollerant religions.
“christians dont isue fatwas”
A fatwa is just a religious ruling. The Pope and the various Protestant organizations (or their priests) all issue religious decreees of varying strengths. These are comparable to fatwas. I wish Christians would follow the Muslim lead in ruling against mobile phone ringtones on religious grounds.
But I assume you are talking about Christians not issuing instructions to kill as a religious duty. Unfortunately this happens as well. Abortion clinics are bombed as The Lord’s work, and Dubya invaded Iraq because God told him to.
“I would like to see them having the guts to bar a moslem woman from wearing a cresent symbol”
Muslim women generally do headscarves, not trinkets. Headscarves have been banned in public roles in France and a similar debate is happening in the UK about “veils” at the moment. France is an officially secular state, Britain is a de facto one.
“securlarists often seem incapable of making a distintion between islam and other much more tollerant religions”
Buddhism’s OK. If you can name any other tollerant (sic) religions I’ll be interested to hear about them. Let’s say ones that have never committed genocide or tortured people and executed them in grisly ways, and that aren’t currently trying to impose their own values through political and economic manipulation of those they are “tollerating”.
I’m doing a special offer today, mention Stalin or Pol Pot and receive a free education in the difference between the absence of religious belief and the presence of a personality cult.
Richard writes:
Probably the main reason B.A. picked on this woman with the cross is because its easy …
Ditto as regards Dawkins’s ‘The God Delusion’. For every bash at the Muslims, ten at the Christians. I reckon not so much because it’s easy but because Dawkins may be shit-scared of ending up as Salmon Rushdie numero due.
Can’t blame him, actually — in his position I’d also keep my mouth shut rather than say quite openly that the Koran sucks.
Hope no Muslims are reading this — didn’t mean to offend you guys.
“Ditto as regards Dawkins’s ‘The God Delusion’.”
TGD has a section on Islam. But God is God, surely?
As for the Koran “sucking”, I believe that both it and the Bible are major works of world literature. I use the word “believe” here because this is a faith-based assertion; I’ve only read the Bible.
Cathal – since you’re around, how about copping to your misreading of Nafisi on the hammer thread? It’s irritating, this thing of making inaccurate claims and then not answering when the inaccuracy is pointed out. Disagreement is one thing, but inaccuracy is another. Especially when it amounts to inaccurately charging someone with racism.
OB,
Sorry for not responding ASAP. I appreciate your comments, of course. I’ll try to get round to it (ASAP)
Thanks, Cathal. (Bossy, aren’t I…)
dirgible thanks for making my point for me(secularists cant distinguish)Christian genosides?please dont tell me you mean that Hitler was a christian crap
dirgible thanks for making my point for me(secularists cant distinguish)Christian genosides?please dont tell me you mean that Hitler was a christian crap
I was thinking more of the history of the Americas. But there are tragic examples from Eastern Europe and The British Empire as well.
As for Hitler or Stalin, no idea. They were personality cultists with bad mustaches and a thing for murder. Possibly they were Christian, I don’t know.
You don’t disagree about Christianity’s torture, execution and sociopolitical imposition then?
The history of the Americas,eastern europe,British empire ect are just the usual mix of good,bad and downright evil as are the history of all regions,my problem is that dirgible and others take only the bad and hang the blame on christianity and the the good they say would happen anyway. This ignores the obvious truth that nations where christianity is practiced are generally free prosperous and tollerant,on the other hand where islam is practiced you will find festering 3rd world toilets where hatred is the norm.
Things are so much more civilised higher up the page. Xianity = good, Islam = 3rd-world cess-pit. Is that all you’ve got? How about the ‘Xian’ Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, kidnapping children and turning them into guerrilla fighters? How about all the leftists tortured to death in Latin America in the 1970s in the name of decency, order, property and religion? [Including, of course, nuns, priests and bishops killed for being too left-wing in their religion. How very tolerant and Christian.]
The reason ‘Xian’ nations are doing relatively well [aside from the whole last 500 years’ history of skewing the world-system in their economic favour through imperialism] is that they have mostly become relatively secular societies, where festering god-botherers don’t have a direct say in public policy [or at least, have to pretend they don’t let their stupid beliefs influence them, a la T. Blair, Ruth Kelly, et al]
I might also point out that many of the ‘festering 3rd world toilets’ you allude to are in no sense Islamic states — Syria, for example, is a secular nationalist dictatorship; Egypt bans the leading Islamist group from taking part in political life; all the other states of the Maghreb are to some degree or other opposed to Islamism in its political forms — and that Islam is ‘practised’, for good or ill, in amongst other places the USA, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, etc etc etc. An openly Islamic state — shall we say Iran — has a great deal wrong with it, but to call it a festering 3rd world toilet displays nothing more than prejudiced ignorance.
In other words, sir, you are a silly sod.
“As for the Koran “sucking”, I believe that both it and the Bible are major works of world literature.”
Hmmm, the Bible is, of course, an immensely rich work of literature (or anthology of great literary works, anyway, but you don’t often see such a claim made for thw Koran. Personally I find the Koran rather banal, extremely tedious and rather lacking in insight into the human predicament. That is something to do with its structural necessities.
I rather think I did address the point you raised, unless I misread you and you were in fact critiquing the water-closets of the Islamic world.