.
A couple of rants
Rant #1
Yes, I'm one of those 'wishy-washy pinko liberals'. I'm in favour of freedom of speech and against censorship. I don't pay much attention to what's in the news; it mostly seems to revolve around the Beckhams and which celeb is having it off with whom - usually people I've never heard of and have no interest in.
But every now and then, something seeps through - or blasts through in the case of the London bombings, et seq. The Civil Liberties people have had quite a lot to say about all that...
Another news item to hit me between the eyes (or ears, as it was radio) was the life sentence given to the Muslim extremist who murdered the Dutch film maker, Theo van Gogh. The murderer gave as his excuse for the slaying that, in his opinion, van Gogh's films insulted Islam. He also said he felt no pain for Van Gogh’s family, and would do exactly the same thing given the chance. Ni-ice! Insult his beliefs (in his opinion) and he'll kill you. Makes the 'an eye for an eye' doctrine seem almost civilized.
So I'm hoping that the Civil Libertarians are appreciative of just how lucky we are in having our democratic system, imperfect as it is. Without it, it is by no means certain that they could issue condemnations of the government and the police force as they do. Not that I'm criticizing them in principle, just some of their loopier utterances.
I'm also hoping they realize that if the extreme fundamentalist terrorists got their way, there would be no Civil Liberties. We would be ruled by men like the hook-fisted Abu Hamsa. Ruled by men, please note, not women. Women wouldn't be allowed out of the house without a black burka, and as for driving - forget it. There would be no criticism of the clerical rulers, because that would be regarded as an insult to Islam and, as we can see from the van Gogh case, insulting Islam is a capital offence.
N.B. This does not refer to or include the generality of Muslims. They see the barbarous acts of the past few weeks in much the same way as everyone else, and must be well pissed off by the way the terrorists are giving Islam a bad name.
--:--
Rant #2.
Yes, I'm one of those 'wishy-washy pinko liberals'. I believe in gay rights and equality for all, including the right to marry the person you love. Our government is passing/has passed changes in the law to permit gay marriage. Not sure when this will take effect.
According to bits of the Bible (not, so far as I can see, the bits relating Christ, per se), gay marriage is Not Allowed.
According to our laws on sex discrimination together with the new laws on gay marriage, gay marriage Is Allowed (or soon will be.)
The Anglican Church is thus firmly placed on the horns of a dilemma. Its P.T.B. have therefore come up with the following compromise: gay clergy
will be allowed to marry,
but they will have to give an undertaking to their bishop that they will not be having sex. Yes, bishops will have to ask their clergy about their sexual intentions... This is the 21st century, isn't it?
During a radio interview on the subject with a representative of the church, the guy stated that marriage is the union of one man and one woman
for life. (My stress.) Based on this statement, divorce is Not Allowed either, right?
Now, looking at all this from a literalist standpoint, as the church has already decided that it
does accept divorce, then it can equally well become reconciled to gay marriages. Can't it? Fair dos.
Either you have divorce
and gay marriages,
or no gay marriages and no divorce. Oh calamity!
And if they're prepared to accept gay marriages in name, but demand celibacy for gay clergy, then in the name of sexual equality, married clergy who happen to be straight should also be celibate, and bishops should be prying into their sex lives too. Imagine the fuss that would cause!
Whatever, I just wish these church folk would collectively extract their heads from their arses and let folk live their own lives. That seems a simple and straightforward principle to me but then my thinking is unclouded by religious dogma.
See, I'm an equal opportunity religious critic. 8-)