Who Gets to Bully Whom?
People do keep trampling on the rights of religious believers, don’t they. Have you noticed that? Exhibiting paintings that some Hindus don’t like, putting on plays that some Sikhs don’t like, drawing cartoons that some Muslims don’t like, refusing to give arbitrary unequal treatment to people that some Christians would prefer to see getting arbitrary unequal treatment – there’s just no end to it. So naturally the religious believers are speaking up. Wouldn’t you?
Consider for instance these UK proposals to ‘protect gays and lesbians from being denied “goods, facilities and services” because of their sexual orientation.’
Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, said in a statement issued by the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship that the proposals could also undermine people’s rights to exercise their religious beliefs…Lord Mackay said: “For people of religious faith who believe that the practice of homosexuality is wrong, these proposals seem to me to carry a serious threat to their freedom in their voluntary and charitable work and in relation to earning their livelihood in a number of occupations.”
Yes – true. Laws and regulations are like that. They carry of their nature serious threats to freedom. That’s rather the point of them. If they weren’t meant to stop people doing things or to make them do things, they wouldn’t be laws and regulations, they would be something else, like polite advice, or gentle urging, or poetic rumination. The freedom of murderers is badly dented by laws against murder. Is this news to Lord Mackay?
Senior Muslims were also critical. Dr Majid Katme, the spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association, argued that the proposals demonstrated that the Government was prepared to discriminate against faith communities in order to promote “equality”. “The right to hold deep faith convictions that affect the way people think and behave in every aspect of life is sacrificed in these regulations,” he said.
The scare-quotes on ‘equality’ are interesting. Did Dr Katme make the little finger-hooks in the air when he was talking to the Telegraph, or what? How did the Telegraph know to put the scare-quotes on? Whatever. However that happened, it’s fascinating to see people catching on. Ohhhhhh – guess what, there’s a big fat tension in all this cuddly droning about ‘communities’ (I put those scare quotes on myself) and ‘faith communities’ and ‘rights’ and ‘the right to hold deep faith convictions’ on the one hand, and equality and freedom on the other. Guess what, the two don’t always mingle smoothly; guess what, you can’t always have both; guess what, your freedom to hold deep faith convictions that women should be imprisoned and subordinated and silenced conflicts rather sharply with my freedom to be a person like other people. We got a problem here, dude. Same with the gay stuff. Your right to hold deep faith convictions that gay people are wrong and bad and sinful conflicts rather sharply with gay people’s freedom and equality. Unless of course you can bring yourself simply to have the deep faith convictions without trying to enforce them or act on them in any way – but apparently you can’t, or you wouldn’t be complaining about these regulations. You’re not actually talking merely about deep faith convictions, you’re talking about putting them into practice. You’re trying to defend your desire to apply special unequal rules to gay people by calling that unpleasant desire ‘deep faith convictions’ and associating the whole package with freedom and rights. You’re complaining that your right and freedom to treat people unequally is under threat, and you’re dressing it up with talk of deep faith convictions and faith communities and people of religious faith. It’s a low trick. You guys need less in the way of deep faith convictions and a lot more in the way of rational thought about morality.
Sorry, OT, but may I point out this site;
http://www.reitstoen.com/multimedia.php
Excellent resources. Found it on this fine, though rather sparse blog;
http://psom.blogspot.com/
‘Deep faith convictions’ – rubbish like that makes me want to scream! Why don’t these people just grow up?
I’m sick to death of the delicate sensibilities of the religious. Human rights should only apply to gender, race and sexuality.
All else is choice.
The consultation document at Q12 and 13 asks whether there should be exemptions for religious organisations and, if so, whether they should be restricted to activities that are primarily doctrinal (whatever the hell that means). The document says it would be interested in hearing views of how the new provisions would impact on such organisations and practices.
So, what views have we had on that? None, as far as I can see. All the views expressed by religionists have been about how the new provisions would impact on the activities of religionists in all the other areas covered by the consultation.
The thing is, the consultation document does not ask for their views (as religionists) in those other areas.
So really, the government are saying that apart from the effect within your own organisation, we are not interested in the effect on religion of any new provisions outside of religious organisations. No exemptions are proposed on religious grounds generally.
I’m pleased that the government has treated the issue in this way and it is that treatment the faithful resent. The consultation does not give them an ‘in’, so they have had to resort to concocting scare stories in the press. The new regulations would not only push the walls back the other way,some nice new big doors will be put in as well. Well done, government people. Keep up the good work.
There is no logic to religion or religious arguments. The problem is one of the Enlightenment’s own making, in a sense, in that it esteems individual freedom of speech, thought and action too highly at times. This allows non-Enlightenment (i.e. utterly illogical) rhetoric as much of a platform – well, if shared by a large number of people – as more sensible utterances. And our government has to listen! Hoisted by our own petard. Doh!
There really is no point trying to be reasonable with unreasonable people ‘cos they’re so….well, unreasonable.
I also wanted to add a big thank you Ms Benson, for this brilliant site. I start my day with a good cuppa and by reading your commentaries and following up the links you provide.
Thanks, Ford!
True about unreasonable people, but then one never knows for sure who fits in that category, and in any case there is another category, of people who accept unreasonable beliefs without really examining them and who can be nudged into noticing how unreasonable the beliefs are and thus rejecting them. The bish is no doubt lost to reason, but there must be plenty of people who read his words but remain capable of taking in other words. Pointing out the unreasonableness of unreasonable people and beliefs is never a lost cause because one never knows exactly who is listening. Isn’t that inspiring?!