Longrider

There’s a dramatisation from the beeb over Easter – a reworking of the passion of Christ. It’s upset some Christians.

The BBC is to screen a new drama about the final week in the life of Jesus Christ which appears to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate.

Producers of The Passion have portrayed the men in a sympathetic light because they believe they have been “very harshly judged” by history.

Judas is portrayed as torn between his loyalties to Jesus and Caiaphas, who organised the plot to kill Jesus.

As a reworking of the story, an exploration of the characters involved makes some sense. I tend to agree with Frank Deasy:

“I’ve always had a problem with Judas in ‘Passion’ stories in that he suddenly and inexplicably betrays Jesus,” he said. “I was keen to develop a psychological reality to Judas’s portrayal.”

I have heard it suggested that Judas may have been acting under Jesus’ instructions, but as I tend to regard the whole thing as nothing more than a fascinating piece of fiction, that is a moot point.

Still, Christian Voice gets a word in:

However, Stephen Green, the national director of the lobby group Christian Voice, accused the BBC of indulging a fashion for rewriting the Gospel.

“Whatever pressure people were under at the time, the fact remain that Judas, Pilate and Caiaphas still sent an innocent man to his death,” he said.

“These are bad men.”

How very Christian of you, Stephen. Whatever happened to “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”?

The Pope can always be relied upon to raise a smile. He is bringing the seven deadly sins up to date.

Drug pushers, the obscenely rich, environmental polluters and “manipulative” genetic scientists beware – you may be in danger of losing your mortal soul unless you repent.

After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalisation. The list, published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “securalised world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.

Oh, dear… Looks suspiciously like blatant bandwagon jumping from here. Trashing the environment may be designed to appeal, but has the uncanny effect of making the Church look even more out of touch and irrelevant than it already is; much like a middle aged man trying to get on down with the yoof. It just makes them look silly.

It holds mortal sins to be “grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes”, including murder, contraception, abortion, perjury, adultery and lust.

We don’t need the church to tell us that murder and perjury are wrong – we can figure that one out for ourselves, and the Church’s insistence on condemning contraception ensures that it is out of step with modern society. As with abortion, it is a matter of individual conscience – it is not for others to decide for us. The same goes for adultery and lust – if you play the game, then you must be prepared to pay the price.

The Pope also complained that an increasing number of people in the secularised West were “making do without God”.

That’s no bad thing. After all, we have seen for ourselves what the Catholic Church does when it has power – and it isn’t pleasant. Besides, plenty of us have grown out of fairy stories told by old men in daft frocks who talk to the sky and expect a response. I can easily make do without that which has no evidence to support its existence. Of course, if a god came down from the Heavens and said “here I am, chaps” and waved the odd thunderbolt about, I’d change my mind, but not before. I don’t need to believe in gods and I certainly don’t need the church – Catholic or protestant.

He said that hedonism and consumerism had even invaded “the bosom of the Church itself, deeply undermining the Christian faith from within, and undermining the lifestyle and daily behaviour of believers”.

Nothing wrong with a bit of hedonism, I’m partial to a spot of pleasure myself.

The original offences and their punishments
Pride Broken on the wheel
Envy Put in freezing water
Gluttony Forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes
Lust Smothered in fire and brimstone
Anger Dismembered alive
Greed Put in cauldrons of boiling oil
Sloth Thrown in snake pits

Ain’t religion a wonderful, caring thing?

The Archbishop has responded to criticism of his remarks over Shari’a law in this country.

The embattled Archbishop of Canterbury began a strong but brief defence of his remarks on Islamic law in front of the Church of England’s 550-strong general synod this afternoon.

Not too surprising given the overwhelming condemnation he received.

He said sharia law potentially offered “additional choices” for believers in resolving some disputes and transactions, but added that he was aware of strong concerns over some aspects of the Islamic code such as women’s rights and apostasy.

He stressed that “the laws of the land” did and should still apply.

But that is the case currently. There is no need to make any changes to the law to allow for such choices. In which case, there was no need to make any comment.

Williams said some reports of his comments had been “a long way away” from his original remarks. But he added that he took responsibility for “any unclarity” in his speech on Thursday in which he said that the introduction of some aspects of sharia law in Britain was “unavoidable” and would mean Muslims no longer have to choose between “cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Well, yes, any “unclarity” (what a dreadful, ugly word) is entirely his fault. However, his remarks regarding cultural and state loyalty were perfectly clear. I accept that he now regards that comment as, shall we say, inopportune?

He defended his right to comment on issues affecting religious communities, saying that he believed strongly that it was “not inappropriate” for a pastor to do so.

Sure, he has every right to speak on whatever matters take his fancy. No one has suggested otherwise – at least no reasonable person would. What those of us who objected to his remarks took exception to, was the clear suggestion that Shari’a should be accorded some sort of legal status in English law. If he didn’t mean that after all – or has decided that having meant it, he was “mistaken” then so be it.

I smiled at the defence of the archbish by Christina Rees:

Christina Rees said: “I am angry and frustrated at the way he has been treated. He has been vilified. Nobody is responding to what he said at the lecture, which was highly nuanced and complex, and delivered to a sophisticated audience.”

No, Christina, the speech was worded in such a way that it was virtually incomprehensible to native English speakers. That was the point of the Radio 4 interview; to translate the gobbledygook into English. Perhaps instead of “nuanced and complex” Dr. Williams might like to try plain English. Then his “sophisticated” audience wouldn’t misunderstand – and we ignorant proles wouldn’t get all worked up; you sanctimonious cow.

Rowan Williams is shocked, apparently, by the response to his comments yesterday:

The Archbishop of Canterbury is said to be overwhelmed by the “hostility of the response” after his call for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK.

I’d have thought the firestorm was both predictable and inevitable; given that he was suggesting allowing an alien legal system recognition under English law. A legal system that is based not on the rules of evidence, but on religious texts; a system that teats the testimony of women as half the value of that of a man; a system that is not even wanted by the majority of Muslims living in this country. A system, some (if not many) have come here to escape.

However, the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, criticised the “disgraceful” treatment of Dr Williams.

I’m sorry, but the vigorous criticism was well deserved and understandable. Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury – he is the leader of the Anglican Church, he should be defending his faith; if he has any. What he did yesterday was attempt to appease the extreme fundamentalists of Islam. Appeasement does not work.

The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received.

Then he really is a fool.

However, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the archbishop’s “thoughtful intervention”.

Quelle surprise.

Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: “The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain.”

That’s right, he isn’t. However, those who are pushing for this will, sooner or later. After all, Shari’a comes as a package. If we are to have their divorce settlements, for example, what happens to women who would prefer to opt out and go to the civil law courts instead? How will they be allowed to opt out? What happens if they are accused of adultery? That is a civil matter, yet the treatment under Shari’a is typically harsh and misogynistic. How does the archbish believe that we can pick and choose, given its variable interpretation from one country and even one court to the next?

Abdul Bari continues:

His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights.

Except that Shari’a is not compatible with human rights and therefore has no place in a post-enlightenment legal system.

Bishop Lowe said the archbishop had been “ridiculed” and “lampooned” by some people.

Well, if you make an absurd suggestion what do you expect?

“We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day,” he said.

And your evidence to support this assertion is?

————————————————————————-

Update: Williams is responding to the criticisms,

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Uh huh… So how does this statement not suggest Muslims opting out of English law?

…a lot of what’s written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody; now that principle that there’s one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy, but I think it’s a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don’t have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that, so an approach to law which simply said, ‘There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts’. I think that’s a bit of a danger.

A parallel system is exactly what he was suggesting. The idea that people can arbitrate voluntarily according to religious codes already exists and needs no change to our system.

Either the archbish is very forgetful or he is being disingenuous.

What is this arsehole smoking?

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”.

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

I’m sorry, but what the fucking fuckitty fuck is he on about? Does this man ever try thinking before opening his gob and spouting obsequious dhimmitude? This is the UK – in the UK, English or Scottish law applies. When I move to France, I will be bound by French law. I won’t be demanding that English law be applied in my case, because that is not how things work in France. In France, French law applies. In England, English law applies, in Scotland, Scottish law applies. When in Rome, do as the Romans do…

If Muslims don’t like living with our law, they have options:

1. Grin and bear it.
2. Lobby their MP for change – then grin and bear it.
3. Emigrate to a backward, primitive, medieval society such as Saudi Arabia where the misogynistic, brutal, and deeply repugnant Sharia law is rigorously applied.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Yes, they fucking well should. That’s what happens when you move to another country; you accept that the host law applies and you bloody well get on with it. And, frankly, if you move to another country, you make an effort to assimilate yourself into the culture of the host country. That’s why I am making an exerted effort to bring my French skills up from “able to get by” to fluent. I don’t expect French people to speak to me in English.

He stresses that “nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that’s sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well”.

And what does this stupendously cretinous man think will happen if we allow Sharia law into this country? When those demanding Sharia law realise that they are pushing against an open door, will they stop pushing? Of course not. Give them a micron and they will see it as weakness and seize a parsec. What fucking planet is this incompetent, stupid and dangerous man living on? First he wants to restrict one of our most basic human rights; that of free speech in order to appease Muslim sensibilities, and now he would set in motion the acceptance of a law based not on the rules of evidence but the teachings of a blood-thirsty medieval war-lord. For fucking crying out loud! Has he taken no notice of history? Appeasement doesn’t work. When faced with a bully, you don’t appease him, you stand your ground and resist. You let him know in no uncertain terms that you do not negotiate with bullies, you do not give up hard won rights and freedoms just because the followers of some primitive goat-herd start making demands. You tell them to fuck off and stick their demands where it is likely to hurt the most.

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that’s a bit of a danger”.

The whole point of the law is that it applies equally to everyone. Words fail to adequately express just what an utter, utter moron this dhimmi is. I’m sure previous Archbishops of Canterbury would be turning in their graves. The man is unfit for office. He is supposed to uphold the Christian faith – and that includes the culture of a country founded on that faith. Our law has evolved and matured from medieval times – yet if this man has his way, it would be dragged back to the middle ages. And, one law for us and another for “them”. Can he not see just how that looks? Is he really that stupid?

Still, at least our politicians are showing some sense in the wake of these asinine comments.

Leading politicians have distanced themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s belief that some Sharia law in the UK seems “unavoidable”.

Gordon Brown’s spokesman said the prime minister “believes that British laws should be based on British values”.

The Tories called the archbishop’s remarks “unhelpful” and the Lib Dems said all must abide by the rule of law.

Thank fuck for that. There was a time when I regarded Rowan Williams as well meaning and intelligent but misguided. Now I regard his as a dangerous and stupid cretin. It really is time he was removed from office.

I don’t have much to add to DK’s and Harry Haddock’s evisceration of Rowan Williams’ appalling comments on free speech. Williams’ stupid suggestion that religions be protected from the criticisms of others is bad enough. And, I suppose, I cannot be too surprised that this foolish man would wish to replace our outdated blasphemy laws with something else rather than sweep them aside completely. He has, after all, made similar suggestions before about the sensitivities of the religious.

Now, frankly, I don’t give two hoots what people believe. In a liberal democracy, they can practice whatever belief system takes their fancy and as a liberal (in the classical sense) I would vigorously defend their right to do so. But, importantly, in a liberal democracy, non-believers have the right to criticise and ridicule without concerning themselves about the offended sensibilities of those believers. That is how freedom of speech works. There is always the right of rebuttal – that, too is how freedom of speech works.

Perhaps what angers me most is the repugnant attempt to draw a moral equivalence between those who stood by Salman Rushdie’s freedom of speech and those who sought to murder him:

Webster points out how in 1989/90 Muslim groups in the UK took to a relatively militant response to Rushdie as and when it became clear that the literary and political establishment had nothing to say to their sense that their faith had been publicly and damagingly misrepresented and their sensibilities shaken. For groups like those in West Yorkshire who were at the forefront of militant reaction in Britain, the overwhelming feeling that animated their protests was that they, as a disadvantaged minority with the most limited access to any sort of public voice, were being left at the mercy of a powerful elite determined to tell them what their faith really amounted to and to remind them that they had to get used to being seen – never mind the realities of their social and economic position here – as essentially the representatives of a foreign and threatening power. The same is true of the furore over the Danish cartoons: the Muslim community in Denmark is neither large nor militant, yet the cartoon issue was framed as if these products were a sign of courageous defiance towards a hegemonic power.

They were not a disadvantaged minority and they had exactly the same right to freedom of speech as you and I. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between them and the publishing world or the political establishment; those who took a “relatively” militant response were advocating murder. How this is “relatively” militant escapes me. They had no right whatsoever to expect the publishing world to respond to the “misrepresentation” of their faith. If their faith is so weak, then it certainly does not deserve defence anyway – and I said as much at the time. Salman Rushdie had every right to publish the Satanic Verses and the Danes had nothing whatsoever to apologise for over the cartoons depicting the evil medieval tyrant Mohammed. The only appropriate response to these people who feel slighted, insulted or offended because their faith is ridiculed is: Too bad, grow up and get over yourselves.

What you do not do – absolutely do not do – is enable their behaviour. You remind them that freedom of speech is paramount and continue to vigorously defend it. Freedom of speech is far more important than the sensitivities of religious believers. This is something that Rowan Williams would rapidly discover should this country ever become a part of the desired Muslim Caliphate. Try being the Archbishop of Canterbury then, old bean… You might want to ask the Egyptian Christians what it’s like before spouting off guff like this in future.

Footnote: It is somewhat disturbing that in a matter of days, I’ve noted at least three demands for a restriction on freedom of speech.

An amendment, backed by 70 MPs proposes ridding us of the iniquitous blasphemy laws. However, ministers look like opposing it.

Government sources say they are “sympathetic” to calls from MPs to abolish the law on blasphemy.

But ministers want to consult the Anglican community further before deciding on such a change.

There really isn’t anything to consult on. Church leaders have proffered an opinion, and it is one overflowing with pragmatic common sense:

The move comes after leading figures, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, wrote to the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, arguing the legislation was discriminatory as it only covers attacks on Christianity and Church of England beliefs.

Which is true enough. There are those who would like to see the law extended to cover other belief systems; however, this is not the appropriate way forward. Beliefs should not enjoy legal protection from criticism, ridicule and speech that believers deem to be blasphemous.

The letter said it served “no useful purpose” and offered Christian activists a means to intimidate broadcasters, publishers and performers.

They have tried recently – and quite rightly, failed. Removing this law from the statue book will, hopefully stop this type of time-wasting exercise ever reaching the courts. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, but the law should be entirely neutral. No one should be compelled by law to respect anyone’s belief and no one should be afraid of legal consequences for openly criticising and ridiculing such beliefs. I respect peoples’ right to believe – I don’t, however, feel the need to respect the belief; and I don’t.

Dr Harris said: “There is cross-party, secular and religious support for confining this unnecessary, discriminatory and censorious law to the history books where it belongs.”

The history book is precisely where this antiquated law belongs.

“Neither the Church of England nor the government has given a good reason for the blasphemy law to be retained, so it is time Parliament stood up for free expression and against a religious privilege which protects beliefs instead of people.”

This is doubtless because there is no good reason. And Dr Harris is quite right, parliament should stand up for free speech. Well, it would be nice, just for once…

Of course, Aunty has to get into the old “respect” thing:

Its director, Nicholas Hytner, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “What we have now is essentially a secular country based on a common bond of decency which includes free speech.”

“And free speech includes the expectation that there should be mutual respect between those with different beliefs.”

Um, yes, providing that by “respect” you mean peoples’ right to believe and not the belief system itself.

“And I don’t believe that the law should address what people believe. The blasphemy laws protect belief; they don’t protect people.”

Oh, good.

It seems that even the evangelicals are generally in favour of ditching it.

Don Horrocks, of the Evangelical Alliance, agreed that there was “no real argument” for retaining the law, saying: “Everybody knows it’s not really going to be used again.”

So, pretty much everyone except for the deranged, lunatic fringe believe that this legislation has had its day. Why, therefore, do ministers plan to oppose the amendment? They’ve had more than enough time to consult on the matter.

The Pope is to offer relief from purgatory to the faithful who visit Lourdes next year:

Pilgrims to the shrine in south-west France will receive “plenary indulgences” from the Pontiff, which the Church says reduce the time spent being “washed” of sin after death. The indulgences will be available from this weekend until Dec 8, 2008.

Given that he decided that Limbo no longer exists – just like that – one wonders at the existence of purgatory.

You couldn’t make this stuff up. Oh, wait…