That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
The Pope’s visit to the UK next year will probably please some and disgruntle many. Pro-choicers will no doubt grasp their placards, proclaiming a woman’s right to choose when she has a child, and glare menacingly into the eyes of the pro-lifers opposite, similarly grasping placards praising the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion.
It will be a time for renewed anger about the Vatican’s failure to intervene in the AIDS pandemic, and one to host more debates on daytime TV about abortion, sex before marriage and whether homosexuality really is evil.
Excellent. Debate about these issues is always fun, if only to see a pro-lifer forced to say that it is right to make a raped child go through with a pregnancy. And at a time when euthanasia is under discussion again, this is perhaps a fitting opportunity to see whether our country is as secular as non-Catholics make it out to be, or if we are still held in the mediaeval clutches of churchmen long dead and, possibly, in some form of afterlife. Or possibly not.
Luckily for the 200,000 or so women who have an abortion every year in Britain, they can do so with the help of a trained medical professional. There is nothing that fills me with a sickening sense of evil as much as when a religious person preaches on the ‘sin’ of abortion or, as they like to call it, ‘infanticide’. Women on Waves (a boat that waits in International Waters to safely perform abortions for women in countries where it is illegal) state that 20 million of the 42 million abortions performed every year are illegal. This does not just mean that they are paid for with no money to the tax-man. Millions of women die every year from dangerous abortions: many performed by forcing sharp objects into the womb, or by drinking a mixture of herbs that can be fatal to the woman. I shudder inside when someone suggests that this is better than a legal, safe abortion. Thank the sinfulness of Britain that this is not the case for us.
The secular politics of Britain are now coming to light in the discussions on euthanasia. Whereas before assisted suicide was illegal because of the wilful destruction of the sacred temple of the body, reasons against euthanasia now rest on the untrustworthiness of family members and medical professionals. Good news! It’s not the whole ‘sin’ kerfuffle that stops ill people choosing when they die; it’s that their grandkids will give them a push to inherit a deposit for their homes, and because doctors get fed up of not having enough beds to cure young people! That’s such a relief. It is, however, better than the more outdated notion that helping someone to end their life will result in eternal damnation for all involved, and should, therefore, be illegal.
However, we do still have blinding remnants of an ancient, pious past; a time when drinking the blood from menstruation could cure many ills, and rabbit’s liver made you pregnant. We still cling to the ancient notion that a marriage certificate has the magical power to increase a couple’s stability and parenting abilities, and that STIs and unwanted pregnancies cannot exist within marriage. The very law against bigamy is the offspring of, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Far from being a romantic expression of a couple’s love for one another, marriage is still an opportunity to get more tax benefits for children as a reward for ‘being good’, and is still seen as being the best environment for the raising of children. Apparently, children sense their parent’s wedding certificate lurking in the background, and as a result, don’t kick the neighbour’s cat. It just seems bizarre that we live in a country that appears to base its laws on science and rationality, and still be told that the religious doctrine of ‘marriage’ should be brought into politics in any way.
We are also yet to have a Prime Minister who is not a member of the Church of England. Nick Clegg caused a little flutter when he replied “no” to the question, “Do you believe in God?”. He then declared to have “enormous respect” for people with religious faith, and claimed that his wife and he are raising their children to be Catholic. Religion seems to be important enough in politics for leaders to tread very carefully around the issue of their personal faith. The traditional answer seems to be “it’s a personal thing”. However, Tony Blair was never shy to speak about his faith, and many politicians (including John Burton, the former PM's political associate) suggested that Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq was based on his religious concept of a “crusade” of good triumphing over evil.
The problem with a religious leader bringing faith into their decisions is that it is not necessarily the faith of the voters. If a religious leader was democratically voted in, who expressed fanatically religious doctrines, and openly stated that the sins of abortion and homosexuality would be illegalised for the souls of the people, the atheists and liberals of Britain would have to bear the consequences. The worry is that a closet fanatic will be voted in, and then adapt the laws of Britain to fit in with their lifestyle choice. Hopefully though we won’t end up with a party full of them, and the leader will be allowed to prattle on in the corner whilst the others do more along the lines of what the country actually wants.
The difficulty of bringing religion into politics is that when we live in a nation of the religious and atheist, one person’s faith cannot be allowed to impact on the millions. If someone is voted in who expressed extreme beliefs before, tough luck, I’ll just move to Sweden. If they seemed to want to keep their religious belief out of politics before they were elected, because it’s ‘private’, they can bloody do so afterwards. The Pope’s visit, and the corresponding reminder of just how nasty the Catholic Church can be, is a pleasant reminder of how lucky I feel to live in a country in which, although I may disagree with many things the government do, they will not justify it by quoting the Bible. Quite frankly, it’s always a little annoying when people do that.
I'm a Catholic, and i'll be welcoming the pope to Great Britain when he arrives next year. Instead of focusing on all the contentious moral issues such as abortion/enthuanasia (the words, "religious teachings" is vastly more accurate than "religious doctrines" in my opinion here), i'll be focusing on the much more celebrated teachings of loving your neighbour, and spreading a word of friendship across the catholic world.
Loving your neighbour? Like lovingly advising people in under-developed countries rife with aids to discard contraception. Or judging and condemning homosexual people, and others who aren't strictly heterosexual. Or leaving women with a lifetime of guilt for aborting the product of their sexual assault.
Yeah, maybe you're right.. why worry about the 'contentious' issues when you could be spreading a 'word of friendship'? It's not like people's lives are hanging in the balance.
comment deleted by a moderator @2: There is no denying that atrocities have been and still are committed in the name religion - whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. However, it's unfair to contrast 'world of friendship' (i.e. Christian values of LOVE and righteousness) with the mistakes of MEN and the flawed/corrupt nature of organised religion.
I think you'll find that there ARE Christians who agree with your points (that people ought not be alienated because of their sexuality, that contraception is a good thing, etc.)yet still have faith in the values of love you denigrate. If we all acted out of love and in the interest of others rather than ourselves ('love your neighbour as yourself'), surely these lives that are 'hanging in the balance' would be saved, no?
#4 - The issue is when organised religion is given so much power to dictate people's lives. Sure, some religious people aren't homophobic, or against abortion, but many are, precisely because of the 'organised religion' you attempt to disregard. If this so-called 'world of friendship' is so under the radar because of the multitude of 'mistakes of men', how can a person's religion be responsible for their good will? Surely it would be down to their personal rejection of such doctrines :. not their their faith? After all, religion DOES NOT only teach goodwill and forgiveness. Therefore, any rejection of the darker side of religion is to be congratulated for the individual person's strength of character, and not the religion they only slightly follow?
I believe that many of the world's atrocities are undertaken because of a misunderstanding of religion itself. I don't know why you think that because I'm Catholic that I have no common sense or ideas of my own, or that every Catholic will, at every given opportunity, shout abuse and rant at homosexual couples for example. I certainly wouldn't and i'm ashamed of those who would. Religion gets a very bad press when all people are aware of are over-the-top preachers who feel they have to force ideas down everyone's throat. I get frustrated with people like that too- but it doesn't mean I tar every religious person with the same brush.
'Over-the-top preachers'? You know that it's the Pope who perpetuates these awful views, right? From where I'm standing, if you're a Catholic and accept the Pope as your religious leader, then you're accepting these views too. If you don't think the Pope is right, then you're not a strictly a Catholic. Why bother aligning yourself with a particular religion if you're going to pick and choose which bits you believe in? But then again, hypocrisy seems to be at the heart of every religion - especially Catholicism - in my experience.
Wow, that was one bigoted rant Marie. I hope as an unbiased editor (actually this article completely undermines that idea, even in a blog post) you'll have the opposite extreme of point of views expressed on The Yorker as well, and maybe some stuff in the middle, or are such views to be "kept out of politics" for being disagreeable to you?
In all seriousness, how can you possibly expect a christian to not let their faith influence their decisions. The christian faith is not just a private thing. They believe the bible is God's revelation about how to our lives should be and should not be lived, so it is enormously relevant to politics. It isn't really fair to smear the Iraq war onto christians since most of them were against it, just because tony claims to be a christian (he obviously did keep his religious views out of politics). Should athiests also keep their faith (in the non-existence of God) out of politics also, or are you suggesting a non-level playing field?
And what atrocities of christianity were you referring to Marie? You seem to be forgetting the terrible atrocities commited by athiestic leaders even in the last century, who are simply being consistent with their belief in there being no God, lots of survival of the fittest (and destruction of the weakest), and no consequences.
When you refer to "blinding remnants of an ancient, pious past; a time when drinking the blood from menstruation could cure many ills, and rabbit’s liver made you pregnant" what on Earth are you on about and how is this relevent to discussion of catholocism? This is a straw man argument. The bible has very hygenic rules about menstruation.
As for the issue of abortion, you seem to miss the point that very early on in pregnancy the baby is fully formed, and that early abortion sucks a baby to pieces limb by limb (yes I've seen a video untrasound of an abortion and believe me it is not plesent). It was literally sucking its thumb and then its legs got sucked off while it was still alive etc. What about the existing human right of the baby? There are many people who are the offspring of rapists and now live happy lives. Would you say to their faces that they should have been killed while they were still helpless for the sin's of their parent?
Just like to point out James, that this article was written by Hannah Cann (not Marie)...as it clearly states at the top of the page. Nice to know you've read everything fully and measured your argument before launching into a personally addressed attack though...
I wasn't going to say anything else..but this sentence - 'There are many people who are the offspring of rapists and now live happy lives.' - literally makes my skin crawl. Don't state it as fact when it clearly is not.. where is your evidence? I used to volunteer for rape crisis and I didn't ever meet a women who had been raped and had a child who wouldn't rather have not been raped. Not one whose relationship with their child wasn't extremely complex, with varying degrees of dysfunction, being coloured by their rape. How do you think a child/adolescent/adult copes with knowing that their conception was through a violent physical and sexual attack on their mother? How knowing that they share half the genes of a rapist affects them mentally? How dare people like you advise on what's best for a mother/child - you're absolutely clueless!
What I don't like about your posts is that upon finding you have some disagreement with the pope, you abandon him (and not only that but try to alienate anyone who follows him). What I find amazing about Christianity is that you should never hate the sinner, you should only hate the sin. We're all sinners, but sinners are whom Jesus is for. We should help sinners. Yes, this is very challenging and we fail at this all the time. But it's so frustrating when we fail at this because when, for example, a christian fails and hates a sinner, this is the image christians as a whole recieve.
Of course for this to work we need to know what sin is. Personally, I find it very difficult to have black and white answers to issues like those mentioned above, because they're often so different. Not all issues of euthanasia, for example, are the same so why should we look for a universal answer? Instead I would take my guidence(which I can interpret correctly or incorrectly- i'm human afterall) simply from the teaching: "love your neighbour" and to "do to others what you would have them do to you".
So what I think is that God's right, and that's what makes me a Catholic.
No, believing that God is right makes you a Christian. Agreeing with other beliefs decides your denomination. For example, accepting the pope as your religious leader and believing in transubstantiation are two things which make you Catholic rather than a mormon, a methodist or quaker (denominations which all also agree that God is right). As someone before mentioned, religion doesn't only teach people to love, and Catholicism in particular is one of the more judgemental religions (hence the phrase 'Catholic guilt'). So, what I don't understand is if you proclaim to only want to spread love and don't want to be 'tarred with the same brush' as all Catholics when it comes to the 'contentious' issues.. then why not find an alternative denomination? It seems logical to conclude that the reason you remain a Catholic is because, on some level at least, you agree with the Catholic stance on these issues. Ok, so you might not preach to people, or abuse them openly. But if push came to shove, you'd align yourself with these Catholic core values, these close-minded values. This is why I would never feel comfortable being around practising Catholics - I feel that no-one has the right to judge others. And while I understand what you say about hating the sin not the sinner (although I was under the impression that hating anything was incongruent with the teachings of a loving, egalitarian God), more often than not things are not clear-cut -- one Catholic's sin is another man's lifestyle (in the case of homosexuality for example). I don't believe that it is possible to love the homosexual while simultaneously hating the 'sin' of same-sex love. You wouldn't be accepting the person for who they are, and love without acceptance is no love at all.
And to whoever else suggested earlier that I was trying to 'denigrate' the values of love in Christianity; conversely, I have the upmost respect for people of the quaker faith who preach love and also have very relevant and tolerant beliefs when it comes to the 'contentious' beliefs.
You spend 14 lines telling me that i'm not a Catholic, and then you say, "I feel no-one has the right to judge others"?
I'm fine with your thought though, i'm sure a lot of people would agree with you (religious or non-religious) and i've often thought about which religious box i'd fit into myself- but how much does it really matter? It's about God, not about me, and it's way off the intended discussion of this thread.
On the homosexualaity issue, from what I know, homosexuality itself isn't a sin- it's practicing it. Sex, according to the church, is supposed to be unitive and procreative, and homosexual sex can't be procreative. But if you believe that sex doesn't have to be procreative then there's no added issue you have to also overcome to be accepting of love between any two people. (as far as I know, if anyone wants to correct me go ahead)
#11, small point, but I think you'll find that quakers need not even believe in a god, let alone a god who is right.
James, as @9 points out, I think you'll find I didnt write this article - as the bold "written by Hannah Cann" above the introduction signposts this.
I am actually a Christian and do not endorse Hannah's views, but as editor I believe this is a platform that can accomodate debates including about religion...!
It's rather tiresome to see yet another under-researched, Church basher given a platform for their voice. I could hardly see the point of this article for all the hateful sarcasm.
I wonder if Ms. Cann can be bothered to find out some real figures.. for example:
Since the early 1980s the Catholic Church has been at the forefront of the response to the horrific AIDS pandemic.
Catholic institutions and programs alone provide an estimated quarter to a half of all health care to AIDS victims WORLD WIDE.
It established the National Catholic AIDS Network to care for not only AIDS patients, but to offer support for their families finding it difficult to cope with the stress and hardship of caring for someone with the disease.
Sister Patricia Talone, Vice President for Mission Services at the Catholic Health Association of the United States, who has been involved with the fight against AIDS since the 1980s says:
“I think to simply hand out condoms to young people and let them think they’re safe is not even adequate informed consent because a percentage of condoms fail. It’s not an issue of birth control, it’s an issue that it’s not going to guarantee that people won’t get HIV.”
Her mission was to teach youth about AIDS and how the disease is spread, in addition to trying to dispel myths about the virus.
And let's not forget about Mother Theresa, a globally recognised pioneer in establishing homes for AIDS victims (also a Roman Catholic). For more than 45 years, she devoted her life to comforting the poor, the dying, and the unwanted around the world and by the time of her death she had founded 610 missions in 123 countries. Her work recognised withthe nobel peace prize, the prizemoney from which she donated to AIDs victims.
Why did Ms. Cann fail to mention these facts in her article? Perhaps it would mean admitting that the Catholic Church may have it's heart in the right place and that people, inspired by it's teaching 'Love your neighbour' will follow it's admirable lead.
12 - Speaking out against intolerance in the Catholic church and saying that intolerance such as homophobia and sexism is not ok is not exactly at odds with the liberal politics stated in my post. Judging intolerance is not exactly the same as passing judgement on others for the things they can't help (i.e. being gay). And I didn't say you weren't a Catholic; I simply questioned what makes a person, such as yourself, align yourself with Catholicism in particular when you openly disengage with many core Catholic beliefs in your earlier posts. And yes, Catholics and some other Christian denominations do tend to spout the line that they'll accept homosexuals, just not homosexual sex. But this is exactly my point - you can't separate the two so neatly: you either condemn a gay man/woman to a lifetime without healthy human intimacy, or you accept gay people and their sexual 'sins' as one and the same.
15 - Ironically your post is vitriolic and hateful in the same ways that you use to discredit Hannah's. Dismissing the author as an 'unintelligent, over-opinionated Church basher' does not invalidate many of the issues raised in this piece. Throwing in aids victims and talking about back-street abortions isn't simply sensationalism without truth -- these are relevant and prominent issues, not slanderous gossip.
No-one said that Catholicism and charity were antonymous. Of course Catholics and Christians have done, and do, good and valuable work. Yet that doesn't mean that you can write off the fact that the Catholic church's stance on contraception hasn't changed, that they are indeed adding to the already overwhelming aids pandemic. In fact it was only a few months ago that the Pope told a downright lie about contraception: first he says that distributing condoms alone isn't the answer (ok...) and then he says "On the contrary, it increases the problem". (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-says-condoms-wont-solve-aids-1646909.html) As commented on at the time by politicians and health experts alike, this is massively irresponsible and very dangerous to those who accept the pope's absolute authority.
Even closer to home, I went to a Catholic school which did not allow a sufficient sex education program to reach its students. In contrast to your Sister Patricia Talone, an environment where promotion of condoms was replaced by broadening our knowledge of STIs and STDs was not achieved. Instead, in my Catholic school (and I expect others too) the non-promotion of condoms went hand-in-hand with poorly informed students who practiced unsafe sex. Telling libidinous 15/16yr olds that abstinence is the only way to practice safe sex (and neglecting to clue them up with contraception) is unrealistic - the majority of these kids will not choose abstinence.
So while Hannah Cann's article clearly has an agenda, don't be so clueless to think that the teachings of the Catholic church are beyond question or reprove.
I enjoyed the article and I also enjoyed reading the comments posted afterwards. People, not just Catholics or other religious people, do get angry incredibly quickly when faced with something like this. I'd like to think if there is a God, He or She (or whatever God would like us to refer to God as, I'm not here to label) would just tell you all to calm down. Take a deep breath and remember this is only an article on an online only student's news outlet. Please try not to take life and yourselves quite so seriously. Life is a lot more fun when you aren't arguing. Why row with the author? I'm sure Hannah knows she writes some contentious stuff and I get a kick out of seeing people's reactions. Akin to lighting a shouty, preachy and annoying firework and then standing back and enjoying the show. Good work Ms. Hannah Cann long may it continue.
To #15, all good points but have you read this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7950671.stm
Bit that shocked me most: "On his way to Cameroon, the Pope said HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem"."
I think the pope makes a lot of sense there, personally. You can't just give someone condoms and then leave it at that and now they'll never get AIDS. I think there's a definite danger that just handing them out willy-nilly (intentional pun, see #17, it's not all serious 
) would give people a false sense of security, leading people to think sex is safe now, and the misunderstanding of how condoms work would lead to AIDS spreading further. People need teaching how to effectively and safely use them - hence not overcoming the problem by money alone, but by caring, compassion and education.
Luke, I agree with the points you make about condoms not being the 100% fullproof end-of-problem solution to the spread of HIV/AIDS we'd like them to be. However, using condoms does help hugely in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, so an endorsement of their use by the Pope would save a lot more lives than does the catholic church's provision of care to those who have already contracted the disease. Even "handing them out willy-nilly" with no additional advice, as you mention, would do far more good than refusing to admit how much they reduce the spread of all STIs.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report