Conscience and belief is it
The Cardinal talks the usual familiar self-pitying self-serving bullshit.
“Although the tone of public discussion is sceptical or dismissive rather than antireligious, atheism has become more vocal and aggressive.” Britain’s most senior Catholic leader says that the “unfriendly climate for people of all faiths” has united the country’s three major faiths, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
In complaining about people who don’t share their baseless ‘faiths’ having the gall to speak up. Touching to see them unite though, when in the good old days they used to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
“The vocal minority who argue that religion has no role in modern British society portray Catholic teaching on the family as prejudiced and intolerant to those pursuing alternatives,” he says.
Yes, that’s right – because it is. ‘Catholic teaching on the family’ is highly ‘intolerant’ of homosexuality for no clear or convincing reason; it also endlessly tells women that we are profoundly different from men – equal to be sure, in some formal sense, but different different different – and must (yes must – they’re not shy) not attempt to be like men or in fact to be like anything other than the familiar limited maternal figure. That, you see, is why the ‘vocal minority’ don’t want to be told what to do by cardinals and rabbis and imams.
[T]he cardinal argues that moves to silence the faith communities must be resisted. “There is a current dislike of absolutes in any area of human activity, including morality,” he says.
It’s not a question of ‘silencing’ the ‘faith communities’; it’s a question of not submitting to them, and of not granting them extra political power on the strength of their ‘faith,’ and of not giving a free pass to ‘faith-based’ irrational unjust rules and ‘absolutes’ that oppress or subordinate people.
He blames the culture of individual rights, encouraged by the Human Rights Act, as responsible for creating a society that claims to be tolerant, but in fact denies the rights of religious groups to act according to their conscience and beliefs.
As always, that depends on what is meant by ‘act.’ In the case of some religious groups for instance it means families forcing children to marry total strangers whom they do not want to marry. The culture of individual rights does, when it is awake and attentive enough, deny the ‘right’ of religious groups to act according to their ‘conscience and beliefs’ in cases like that, and other similarly oppressive violent antiegalitarian cases. It does and it should; the only problem is that it doesn’t do it enough; it should do it more. Does Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor approve of forced marriage? Probably not – but then he shouldn’t talk kack about the rights of religious groups to act according to their conscience and beliefs. He should be more responsible.
Oh when are we ever going to be free of this paedophile-assisting careerist public ‘moraliser’??
O’Conman says: “The intolerance of liberal sceptics can be as repressive as the intolerance of religious believers. Catholics are not alone in watching with dismay as the liberal society shows signs of degenerating into the libertine society.”
Oh, of course, I’m forgetting – the violent homophobes, rioters, murderers of abortion clinic staff,suicide bombers, etc… they’re not *true* “religious believers”, are they?
So yes, absolutely. Can’t see a single flaw in his reasoning…
“The intolerance of liberal sceptics can be as repressive as the intolerance of religious believers.”
I’ll believe it when the cardinal is burned at the stake for thought crimes.
The thing that I find so distressing in the Cardinal’s remarks is that he does not seem to appreciate the function of secular society, and still believes that, in some sense, Britain in a Christian society, and immigrants should in some sense adjust themselves to the Christian ethos. But what has become characteristic of the all the great liberal democracies is the secular sphere, where religious and non-religious voices are given equal tolerance, and are therefore liable to public criticism. The poor Cardinal does not seem to realise that an essential part of the place of religion or any other belief system in secular society is the fact that it can be subject to criticism (and even contempt at times) for beliefs and practices that others find problematic. But resorting to the idea of religious conscience, instead of the secular conscience, where there is a free-flow of ideas, the Cardinal wishes to bring an end to the tolerance which is characteristic of secular democratic polities. His thoughts amount to a whine from the past. They certainly don’t add up to a considered understanding of the world he is living in.
I love it when clerics are given massive amounts of space in national broadsheets to complain that religion is being forced out of the public sphere.
And Resistor, forced marriage may be ‘illegal in Islam’ or it may not. But it still happens, no?
Oh when are we ever going to be free of this paedophile-assisting careerist public ‘moraliser’??
Excellent question.
I know I shouldn’t be, but I’m agog at the inexplicable fact that the Catholic Church still has any influence at all after the pedophilia scandals.
Reading isn’t the issue; the issue is one of authority. Is the Muslim Parliament authoritative on what is or is not ‘illegal in Islam’? Is anyone? Is it meaningful to say what is or is not illegal in Islam? Muslims differ on what is or is not illegal in Islam, to put it mildly. Simply quoting one particular outfit saying it is illegal is not the same thing as quoting a particular penal code. It’s not even the same thing as pointing to a Sura which says forced marriage is illegal.
On the other hand there is the fact that Mohammed is supposed to be exemplary, and that he married a child of 9. That’s forced marriage by definition. So perhaps forced marriage is not illegal in Islam…?
Tribal, they tell us, nothing to do with religion.
Islam ‘submission’ – the faith requiring complete submission to the will of Allah and covering every aspect of life at every level of society.
All those nasty un-Islamic practices so prevalent in Muslim societies – why aren’t they as rare as eating pork?
_____
Resistor, just exactly what is it that you’re resisting? And on behalf of whom? You’re forever blathering sophistry in your never-ending quest to obfuscate Islamic complicity in human rights abuses while trying to tart us all up as as hypocritical imperialists. How’s that working out for you?
I have two direct questions for you. Please help me to understand why you’re on the particular hobby horse you’re on here:
1. Are you a Muslim who is personally offended by commentary about how some people practice Islam?
2. Are you an anthropologist/sociologist/other-far-left-academic/self-styled guardian of cultural relativism?
Question two makes me wince a bit as a liberal myself, but I know the difference between using criticism as a disguise for actual imperial/economic agendas, and people of good will who are actually outraged by what they see. You, to all appearances, do not.
Resistor – whereever can I get that beret and those Gauloises? They’re so fetching, and I’d do so love to have them delivered, anonymously, to my mailbox as you do. Help a girl out?
Ha! That’s a good one.
And answer came there none. Still puzzled over the persistence un-Islamic practices; maybe Rage Boy hasn’t heard about them yet – do you think?
_____
Well that was fun. Oy Adam, we mates agsin now after that stupid thing last year ?
Anyways, intersting thing on Radio 4 Woman’s Hour yesterday about Sharia Courts in the UK; special focus on divorces and illiteracy issues..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2008_50_wed.shtml