|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: BNP make a good point?
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Can I say how extraordinary I find it that in the UK, which has been held up so many times as so much more liberal than the US, a party such as the BNP can get any mainstream following at all, or at least, can get so much support that there is a need for a "Manchester against Racism" rally!
It doesn't get mainstream support. That doesn't mean its not nasty when it crops up. Nor does it mean it shouldn't be opposed.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
I came across the Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes thing by watching a play called No More Sitting on the Old School Bench, where the useless teacher introduced the idea to the kids and then wondered why the classroom got trashed in the resulting riot.
With regard to BNP types taking photos at meetings, surely a better response would be to take photos of them and see how they like it (of course, this would mean 'going equipped' for it).
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Can I say how extraordinary I find it that in the UK, which has been held up so many times as so much more liberal than the US, a party such as the BNP can get any mainstream following at all, or at least, can get so much support that there is a need for a "Manchester against Racism" rally!
It doesn't get mainstream support. That doesn't mean its not nasty when it crops up. Nor does it mean it shouldn't be opposed.
Also, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that we have held ourselves up as 'more liberal'. Quite a few of us have railed against the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker, generally nasty bias of our tabloid newspapers. These are not minority papers, as I believe US tabloids are, but mainstream. And they frighten the hell out of me.
The headline that Ken quoted on another thread - "Mum Weeps For Little Johnny Killed by Immigrants" - is a typical example. As are hysterical articles about how "millions" of our money is spent on asylum seekers, who swamp towns and live lives of luxury. Things which are not, in any reasonable sense of the word, true.
It is this kind of influence against which meetings like Fr G.'s have to stand. If Coronation Street stars can challenge the preconceptions of people whose only news source is The Sun, then good on them.
{spelling ![[Frown]](frown.gif) )
[ 16. January 2004, 13:18: Message edited by: Rat ]
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
If the Press Complaints Commission was beefed up so that the tabloids couldn't get away with daily headlines like "illegal asylum seekers housed in five star hotels while Britons starve" then this would be a much nicer country to live in.
They should be forced to print a massive, grovelling apology on the front page (with the wording supplied by the PCC) for every damaging error.
Or maybe every nasty, vicious little article about asylum seekers should, by law, be accompanied by two cuddly human interest stories along the lines of "plucky little Sarah from Sudan escapes jaws of death, gets top marks in grade 8 trombone"... Dream on, eh?
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I would like to branch in another direction related to the OP. If we were to assume that the BNP really is a supporter of racial segregation that abhors violence of any kind, and had it responded to the churches by saying that the church criticism of racism is ironic given that some churches are sexist, might it then have made a "good point?"
It does seem to me that a segregationist party that says "Neither God nor nature intended for races to mix" is in a position to call some churches' positions against racial segregation hypocritical. These church positions basically say that Holy Scripture teaches that God did not intend women to serve sacraments and that Nature and God both teach that marriage and sexual relations between the same sex are not intended.
In both cases, there is a separation of privilege (marriage and holy orders) based on arguments from nature and faith and not in rational distinctions (like calculus for physics professors). The result is divisiveness and bitterness in women and gays. Perhaps the only reason why sexism has not led to overt violence is that homosexuals were able to attain positions of power by hiding their difference with others and so were in a position to effect a "quiet revolution." Most women live in association with men and their children. It is difficult for them to take their children, separate, and go to war with men.
But heterosexual males from minority racial groups have the capability of responding with violence, and eventually it seems they do when they are forced to suffer rationally arbitrary discrimination.
So this is my question: if the BNP were "peaceful segregationists" would they be in a position to claim hypocrisy in churches denying full religious status to women and gays that criticize BNP segregationist policies? I think so, and would remark that it is sad to think that so many see secular society ahead of the church in this area of moral progress with the church lagging behind. It should be the church leading secular society in morals, not the other way about.
I notice that Nightlamp has not made an appearance since the OP. Is this perhaps what he was referring to, or something like it?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
But the BNP site makes the argument that no adherent of any faith can make any claim about the immorality of voting for an organization like the BNP unless that faith is entirely free of internal moral strife and no member of that faith ever does anything wrong.
There's just no way to make a good point out of these ingredients...
Can one find reasons to be critical of violence and oppression in the name of faith? Sure... Does this have anything to do with the BNP or their spew on the site? No.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
There's just no way to make a good point out of these ingredients...
Can one find reasons to be critical of violence and oppression in the name of faith? Sure... Does this have anything to do with the BNP or their spew on the site? No.
Jerry, please understand that I am not trying to make a "good" out of the BNP by saying "it would be OK if the BNP would completely back off violence." I am trying to level a "bad" against churches that are "sexist" in the terms I described in my post. The "bad" is that "sexist" churches at best are only as good as supposedly "peaceful segregationists." Given that "peaceful segregationists" are guilty of arbitrary discrimination, so are sexist churches.
This is not a defense of the BNP or any segregationist political party. It is offering a concern for discussion that churches with "sexist" practices may well be in a weak position to criticize "peaceful segregationists." This does not mean one should accept "peaceful segregation." It means those churches should rethink what company they are in.
PM me if you have concerns. Perhaps this should be another thread to get rid of any concern or confusion about supporting the BNP. That is not what I am suggesting for discussion.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
I do think it would be better to have that debate in a BNP-free thread... though I also think the point is terribly weak and, examined in a context free of heat over issues like racism or catholic bashing, would rapidly fall apart.
You could, for example, unpack the point and find in it a general statement like this:
No person who is a member of a group that engages in any irrational assignment of privilege has the moral authority to speak against any irrational assignments of privilege by other groups...
No politics until the escahton, then.
You might just as well say: As the United States is riven by racism and sexism and has an ignoble history of attrocities perpetrated in the cause of those evils, no American is in a position to speak out against racist and sexist organizations anywhere else.
And people do try to use this absurd argument to silence opposition. I recall one example of this from Catherine Caulfield's book In the Rainforest it came out sometime in the 1980s. Caulfield was discussing the genocidal impact of the clearance then underway in the Amazon with a rancher who dismissed her with something like this: You Americans had your indian problem and solved it. Now, living in the prosperity you created by wiping those natives out, you criticize us. Just shut up, and let us solve our indian problem the same way you solved yours.
The argument that all Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Christians should remain silent on social injustice until such a time as there is no irrational assignment of privilege within any part of their religions is as good a point.
Of course, I believe that you are right that there is a problem with these evils in the Church. I would not have joined any church if I had not been able to find a church that was assertively opposed to just such injustices. The divisions within in the denomination on issues of social justice do not negate the good work of the specific church I joined.
If anything, the reactionary plans of our opponents within the denomination and the faith should be a call to people who believe in social justice to redouble their efforts to reform the denomination and faith. But that's another thread, I think.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add something about the specific individuals attacked in the BNP statement...
Let’s look at a the religious people denounced as murderers and hypocrites by the BNP.
First up: Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, Bishop of Manchester;
From the "who’s who" section of the Diocese of Manchester website
quote:
Interfaith issues are close to Bishop Nigel’s heart. He watched with horror the civil disorder that broke out in Oldham last year. Since then, churches have been among those working hard to secure goodwill on the ground. An interfaith forum has been established and there is regular contact between faith leaders. In the Wakefield Diocese Bishop Nigel has made sensitive links with the area’s ethnic groups and communities of other faiths. Earlier this summer he was invited to give a ‘Christian Perspective’ at the funeral of the family of eight who died in the house fire in Huddersfield. More than 5,000 Muslims were there.
During his time in Wakefield he has gained respect and affection from all sides for his ability to be a reconciler and healer. This is matched by a readiness to speak out with courage for what he believes in.
Is it a good point to say that such a man should be silent on an issue he believes in until every Christian is perfectly ethical?
Next: Terence Brain, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford;
Brain was chairman of a group within the Church that in 1996 produced a Healing the Wound a document on pastoral care for victims of child sexual abuse. In the forward to that document, Brain discussed the responsibility of the Church for its own abusive priests and workers.
quote:
Our report comes from a commitment that abuse is sinful and the Church must and will oppose sin wherever it comes to light. When it has come to light within the very heart of the Church it has not been easy to understand or respond in a pastoral and healing way. It is true that people in the Church have made errors of judgement and acted in a manner that has been more a reaction to the shame than to the hurt of victims.
And later he goes on to address this in explicitly Christian terms:
quote:
We need to become a Church more conscious of our own needs for repentance. ... Whatever our past failures, our lives can be recreated. We know all too well that this is a costly process; forgiveness is not easy or painless. Christ's risen body still carries the mark of his wounds. If we are willing to seek the risen, wounded Lord, we and our world can be transformed.
His patoral letters comment on the evil of allowing fear to pervert our inter-religious inter-ethnic and inter-racial relationships and aslo specifically speak against bigotry against immigrants… hardly someone who is unconscious about the problems of his own church..Link, Link, Link.
We could go on like this, but I’ll leave it to others to Google these topics and find the resources I have…
David Arnold, president of the Jewish Representative Council;
Rt Rev Michael Lewis, Bishop of Middleton;
Afzal Khan, of the Muslim Council of Britain;
Peter Brain, moderator of the United Reformed Church;
AK Sinha, a Hindu community representative;
Henry Guterman, vice-chairman of the council of Christians and Jews;
Fr Ephrem Lash, of the Orthodox Church, and the
Rev David Willie, of the Methodist Church
I will point to this negative comment on Rev David Willie as he is a methodist: The complaint is by activists working against persecution of Christians. They were scheduled to speak in several Methodist churches in the UK and those dates were later canceled. Rev Willie felt that their defense of persecuted Christians in Muslim regions could be seen as conveying an anti-Muslim message, something he was being careful to avoid in the charged atmosphere during the run up to war in Afghanistan after the Al Qaeda attack on America. Regardless of where you stand on the issues involved, this hardly seems like the action of a Christian blind to problems in his own church…
Finally, read through this Orthodox statement on"Religious Tolerance and Peaceful Coexistence" scan for the section about the "Bosporus Declaration" – in the light of such efforts by Jews, Muslims Christians and then ogoing internal debates over issues of gender and sexuality being carried on by at least some members of each of these faiths, can anyone legitimately deny, on the basis of their faith alone, any follower of these religions a voice in public debate on such issues and their expression in political parties?
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
Is it a good point to say that such a man should be silent on an issue he believes in until every Christian is perfectly ethical?
[tangent] No. But it might be prudent for a Bishop whose diocese contains one of the largest gay and lesbian communities in the British Isles to concern himself with sexual, as well as racial diversity. And his case against the bigotry of the BNP might be even stronger had he not caved into pressure and got the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement booted out of his cathedral last year. Of course the BNP are exponentially nastier than the CE's anti-gay lobby, but I just felt I had to get that dig in. [/tangent]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
...in the light of such efforts by Jews, Muslims Christians and then ogoing internal debates over issues of gender and sexuality being carried on by at least some members of each of these faiths, can anyone legitimately deny, on the basis of their faith alone, any follower of these religions a voice in public debate on such issues and their expression in political parties?
No Jerry, I cannot deny them a voice. I appreciate your links as well, and gave them a good scanning. They all have excellent records and reputations and I would never silence any of them.
But I would ask all of them in churches that deny ordination to women and gays, "Do you criticize your own church as roundly for sexism as you condemn segregationist political parties for racism?" If they answer "Of course I do," then I would not call them hypocritical or in a weak position. If they answer "Of course I don't: as my church says, God never intended women or gays to be priests," then I say, "I think you are being hypocritical and in no position to criticize segregation, although I welcome your support anyway. You might want to rethink your position on sex in light of your position on race."
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If i thought sex and race were at all comparable, JimT, I might do so. But I don't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If i thought sex and race were at all comparable, JimT, I might do so. But I don't.
If you're up for it, may I ask you to post your thoughts on the other thread? I'd be interested in your thoughts in light of all the discussion there.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Which other thread?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
The one entitled "Do official sexist...etc." started by me. I see this morning that Josephine posted on it.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
