God's politics

(Shock horror - a post on politics!)

There's been a heck of a lot of chat about SNP Candidate (for the Glasgow North-East by-election, whenever that is) David Kerr's religious views and whether they should impact upon people's intentions to vote for him. A lot of it has been pretty biased, partisan and snotty (and no, I'm not going to categorise those by linking to them).

But then I read Lallands Peat Worrier and his take on David Kerr, his beliefs and its role in informing his politics. And I agreed with pretty much all of it. It's a cracking article and well worth a read - on the basis that my summary (next paragraph) won't do it justice.

Basically, what Lallands argues is that David Kerr's religious views (that is, his membership of the Catholic organisation Opus Dei and its associated belief structure) may probably inform his views on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage. Thus while his religious beliefs may be of no concern to the average voter in Glasgow North East (though, if I remember rightly, something like 60%+ of the electorate in that constituency describe themselves as Catholic) the impact of these beliefs on his political and moral views may well do. It makes voting for him a trade-off: do you support his views on independence and ignore his views on abortion for example (not that we know what they are given his framing that as a "theological question" rather than a political one) or will his views on abortion feature more strongly in a decision to vote for someone over constitutional preferences?

All voting is a trade-off. There's never a candidate with whom you agree with 100%. And if there is, chances are they are standing in a different constituency (or country... President Obama perhaps?). But the point is parties (supposedly) select the candidate they believe will represent the constituency best and when they are elected they (should) vote with the best interests of the constituency at heart - or, at worst, abstain where there is a distinct clash with personal moral views). Note the caveats in that sentence.

The problem with by-elections over General Elections is that every single aspect of a candidate's life - political, private, economic and, yes, religious - is examined and scrutinised in much more detail than ever before. More will be known in Glasgow North East about David Kerr and Willie Bain than even about David Cameron and Gordon Brown. And this is a good thing - it allows the voters to make a better judgement about the character of the candidate before they elect them.

Alastair Campbell famously said "We don't do God." But then his most famous charge converted to Catholicism. With all the respect that comes with being the country's most famous former spin doctor, I think he's wrong. Whether you believe in God, accept religion (or whatever faith) or simply recognise right from wrong, religion plays a part in every day life - and, most especially, in politics. Note I didn't say "Christianity" there. It is my belief that moral decision-making, the belief in right and wrong and acceptance of a need for a rule of law derives from the moral code of religion. And again, I stress religion - not one but many.

Now I don't profess that religion makes you a good person or that you have to be religious to know right from wrong. What I'm arguing is that religion has informed those moral decisions, moral choices, for generations, and that we have, as a society, derived our own moral compass from previous generations... right back to when religion was politics.

Basically, this is a long and winded way of saying that religion matters in politics. Of course it does. But it shouldn't be the only thing that matters when you go to the polls (if it ever happens) in Glasgow North-East. To make an informed decision about the candidates you should know as much about them as you can. But that should be limited to what will inform their politics I think.

Knowing that David Kerr is a member of Opus Dei is useful in as far as it gives you a rough idea of where his theological leanings lie - and thus how his politics (should he have to vote on these issues) will go. His membership of Opus Dei will not tell you where he stands on the economy, health service, defence spending, international relations, the constitution, education, refuse collection striking or anything else. For those things - if they matter to you - you'll have to ask him.

Read more...

Tony v Benny

Fresh from doing bugger all to help the situation in the Middle East and (apparently) campaigning to become the first President of the European Union, Tony Blair has set his stall out as a standard bearer for gay rights.

In an interview for Attitude, a title which I can't say I am that familiar with, Tony Blair had the following to say to the Pope:

“There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a wellattended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.”

“Now, that doesn’t mean to say there’s not still a lot of homophobia and a lot of things to be done. But the fact that it is unacceptable for any mainstream political party to be anything other than on the side of equality and respect is, in a way, the biggest change. The items of individual legislation matter a lot, but I think it’s the general shift in climate that is perhaps the most important point.”

“When people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them — if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you’d have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece.”

This contrasts somewhat with the view of the Catholic church leadership, with Pope Benedict XVI having previously described homosexuality as:

"more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil."

Now for me, it sounds like the Pope's stance is pretty unequivocal: If you are gay, you are on a bearing to evil. I wouldn't hold my breath for a change of heart on the part of everyone's favourite pontiff. Nice to see good old Tony keeping his face in the paper though - even if he is fighting a losing battle.

Read more...

The Gospel according to the BNP

The BNP have started a billboard campaign in the run up to the European election. They've decided that Jesus would support their campaign of hatred, and are using the following message:

"If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you" - John 15:20... "What would Jesus do?"

For a start, He wouldn't have raged a campaign of hatred to run immigrants out of a country. And I don't profess to know who Jesus would vote for, but I think we can be pretty sure, it wouldn't be the BNP.

If ever the phrase "What the... ?" was merited...

Read more...

The Catholic EU?

I know I shouldn't mix religion and politics... but here's a story that does.

It seems that the EU has annoyed Christians in the Netherlands (of a Protestant denomination)... on the basis that the EU flag (with 12 stars in a circle) is too similar to the 12-star halo that surrounds the head of the Virgin Mary in Roman Catholic art.

Here are both:










So, they might have a point.

But you have to ask, is it something worth getting offended over?

Read more...

The Pope and Africa

After Pope Benedict XVI's latest public comments regarding HIV/AIDS, several (including myself, though not yet publicly) have been quick to criticise the thoughts of the man. For an alternative view, see here. Just for reference, he said that AIDS in Africa is:

"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."

Where to begin? I guess with some facts.

• Africa is the area of the world most affected by HIV and AIDS, to the tune of 24 million people (for reference, that's nearly 5 times the population of Scotland).
• Catholicism in Africa has, since 1900, risen by a staggering 670%, from 1.9m to 139m followers.

So, there's an issue there. On the one hand, aid agencies etc are passing out condoms, telling people in Africa that if they are having sex they must use them or are in danger of contracting the virus. On the other, the Pope and Catholic missionaries, who have forever preached abstinence outside marriage and that contraception is tantamount to abortion. You see the difficulty. When the man styled as God's representative on Earth tells you you can't do something, pretty sure 139 million people are going to listen.

But the problem with the Pope's approach to sex is not that abstinence is not a good weapon in the battle against AIDS and HIV (if you don't have sex, you won't contract the disease that way). And this is the theological part. It appears that His Holiness does not recognise the inherent flaw in his own theology - the human condition.

For centuries, Christianity has preached the weakness, the vulnerability of man. Abstinence works, yes, as weapon in the battle. But it fails far more often in the shape of human weakness. And you simply have to look at the number of Catholic Priests involved in sex scandals to realise that Catholicism is not immune to this weakness.

The Pope and the Catholic Church must face a new reality. There must recognise the power and responsibility of the position of the Pope. They must also recognise the global challenges that face us - AIDS in Africa and, to the same extent, environmental degradation. And they must recognise that they are in a position to help influence not only decision-making in those fields but also action.

Until then, we can only expect the problem to worsen.

Read more...

Geert Out! And don't come back!

I might be inviting controversy here, but I have a wee question. What is the difference between the following two statements?

"The Koran is an inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror.... it is a facist book and should be banned like Mein Kampf."

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The first, as you have no doubt recognised, is from a film released by Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who this week was barred from entering Britain for spreading "hate".

The second, perhaps more suprisingly, is a quote from Pope Benedict XVI, addressing a university where he used to teach theology in 2006. Equally unsuprisingly, these words provoked anger in the Muslim world.

Both statements - at their base level - say the say thing: That Islam is a religion which is incompatible with peace, with Western beliefs and ideology and spreads evil. That is not a sentiment I share.

But I do have a question for the Home Office.

If Wilders is to be banned from Britain (and that is something I have huge issues with) surely, in the interests of fairness and balance, the Pope should be too?

Like I say, inviting controversy I know. But there's something in the Pope's "I was quoting a 14th Century text, of course I didn't mean it" defence that doesn't wash with me.

Read more...

Mistletoe and whine

This is a short post because I'm incredibly busy. Someone thought it a good idea to have "some friends" over on Friday night... and "some friends" has turned into "almost everyone we know" (but not really) and thus there is loads to be done - alongside all the reading I have to get through, presents to wrap, politicians to mock...

Anyway, I wander off topic. This is really a response to my last post and a question I want to ask people who read this:

Are those people who classify themselves as "atheists" or those who do not subscribe to Christian beliefs hypocrites if they indulge in present giving or any other feature of the Christmas holiday?

A question that has been bothering me for a while. Guess if the answer is yes then we're talking about a huge percentage of the population.

I don't know if I think it or not - I just wondered if there was anyone with a strong view on the issue?

Read more...

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...

Now here's a line I didn't expect to be writing any time soon:

I agree with Boris Johnson, Iain Dale and Tom Harris MP.

And I'll tell you why.

Boris is appearing at the GLA Christmas Carol Service - and apparently annoyed some of his staff by putting out a press release calling it just that - a Christmas Carol Service. Apparently the PC brigade in his office had it down as a "Multi-Faith Concert."

But that's not all. Apparently the Christmas Tree for City Hall has to have "no Christian symbols, colours or fairies... [no] political colours... [and] no star or fairy." A Christmas Tree devoid of anything that symbolises Christmas.

Now I accept that we now live in what could be described as a multi-faith society. And I'm all for making that easier for everyone - tolerance of each other for their different beliefs etc makes for a better society. But this is ridiculous.

Christmas IS a Christian holiday. There's no getting away from it. And if that offends people then they need to take a look at themselves and think about why they get up in the morning. Okay, historians will tell you that the date was half-inched from Pagans who had a celebration in late December and that a lot of what goes on - the trees, decorations etc - have also been taken from that holiday. But, at its base, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus and a celebration of that. Whether you believe in God or not, whether you accept Christianity or not, the reality of the situation is that we wouldn't be celebrating Christmas if it were not for Christianity.

So when you are sitting on Christmas Day opening presents or eating your 17th sausage wrapped in bacon (a personal record!) remember why.

Read more...

RC church supports death penalty for homosexuality

Sensationalised title - yes.

But true nonetheless.

The Vatican is to oppose a UN Resolution calling on governments to decriminalise homosexuality.

You can read the Irish Times take on it here while the International Herald Tribune has the story here.

And there was me thinking Catholics were concerned with the right to life yet now stand opposed to ending death sentences for those who are "convicted" in countries where homosexuality remains a crime.

It's a bizarre world we live in.

Read more...