7000 Lashes for Sodomy
October 5th 2007 23:38
News agencies have reported the brutal flogging of gay men in Saudi Arabia in accordance with sharia law. The resurgence of theocracy is beginning to make me very nervous. While the imposition of sharia is unlikely in Australia, there are already calls by radical Islamists for certain parts of the UK and Europe to be governed by sharia.
It's not just an Islamic issue, though. Nor is it a question of just being a bit "backward" or not up to date. It's not just that Islam has yet to catch up with the West's Enlightenment - "We used to hang sodomites but we don't anymore since we became educated".
Rene Girard's classic, "Violence and the Sacred", outlines the predictable responses from almost any religious group to a perceived threat - whether that be internal (ie sorcery) or some external one. Some groups and individuals can only maintain the plausibility of a particular worldview by finding someone to persecute - homosexuals are a frequent target because they are sexual "heretics".
The neo-conservative movement in the christian churches is a case-in-point. The more liberal society becomes sexually, the more sternly boundaries have to be drawn. You do that by attacking individuals who are seen as outside the norm. In order to appease the American Church's neo-con agenda, even the Pope has joined in, declaring that he needs to cleanse the Church of "filth". Mary Douglas would have been able to write a few books about ritual purity on that line alone.
The Anglican Church, being a creature of historic constitutional compromise, has within its bounds very traditional christians and very modernist ones. The current disputes about homosexuality have resolved themselves into the question of whether or not homosexuals who have a sexual partner should be made bishops, and if so how do you cope with the impaired communion that springs from that. Most African christians, for example, have a visceral abhorence of homosexuality, and would reject out of hand the ministry of a gay bishop. He might be lucky to escape with just the 7000 lashes should he be rash enough to try.
The extent to which government decisions on social issues are made in consultation with religious leaders and the covert influence exerted by activist Christians of all stripes could become a problem. David Marr's hypothesis about the vast clerico-fascist conspiracy is badly misdirected (if only he knew where the bodies were really buried!) There is no doubt, though, that gay marriage will not be on the agenda in Australia for some time. Considering that heterosexual marriage is so hopelessly compromised by legislation rendering it a contract much less enforceable than the one I currently have with Optus for my phone, you wonder why the forces of christian civilisation want to make a stand defending a citadel that has already crumbled. I suspect the answer lies not so much with Freud as with Rene Girard - it is an issue of emblematic importance, of plausibility structure maintenance.
Christian theocracy is a grey and ghostly kingdom. It is nevertheless a real thing - even if it lies mostly below the surface. Both cognitively and politically few Australians would admit that we live in a christian commonwealth and are governed, often unwillingly, by a moral notion based on christian revelation. It is a soft "sharia", but sharia none the less.
It's not just an Islamic issue, though. Nor is it a question of just being a bit "backward" or not up to date. It's not just that Islam has yet to catch up with the West's Enlightenment - "We used to hang sodomites but we don't anymore since we became educated".
Rene Girard's classic, "Violence and the Sacred", outlines the predictable responses from almost any religious group to a perceived threat - whether that be internal (ie sorcery) or some external one. Some groups and individuals can only maintain the plausibility of a particular worldview by finding someone to persecute - homosexuals are a frequent target because they are sexual "heretics".
The neo-conservative movement in the christian churches is a case-in-point. The more liberal society becomes sexually, the more sternly boundaries have to be drawn. You do that by attacking individuals who are seen as outside the norm. In order to appease the American Church's neo-con agenda, even the Pope has joined in, declaring that he needs to cleanse the Church of "filth". Mary Douglas would have been able to write a few books about ritual purity on that line alone.
The Anglican Church, being a creature of historic constitutional compromise, has within its bounds very traditional christians and very modernist ones. The current disputes about homosexuality have resolved themselves into the question of whether or not homosexuals who have a sexual partner should be made bishops, and if so how do you cope with the impaired communion that springs from that. Most African christians, for example, have a visceral abhorence of homosexuality, and would reject out of hand the ministry of a gay bishop. He might be lucky to escape with just the 7000 lashes should he be rash enough to try.
The extent to which government decisions on social issues are made in consultation with religious leaders and the covert influence exerted by activist Christians of all stripes could become a problem. David Marr's hypothesis about the vast clerico-fascist conspiracy is badly misdirected (if only he knew where the bodies were really buried!) There is no doubt, though, that gay marriage will not be on the agenda in Australia for some time. Considering that heterosexual marriage is so hopelessly compromised by legislation rendering it a contract much less enforceable than the one I currently have with Optus for my phone, you wonder why the forces of christian civilisation want to make a stand defending a citadel that has already crumbled. I suspect the answer lies not so much with Freud as with Rene Girard - it is an issue of emblematic importance, of plausibility structure maintenance.
Christian theocracy is a grey and ghostly kingdom. It is nevertheless a real thing - even if it lies mostly below the surface. Both cognitively and politically few Australians would admit that we live in a christian commonwealth and are governed, often unwillingly, by a moral notion based on christian revelation. It is a soft "sharia", but sharia none the less.
| 26 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
"David Marr's hypothesis about the vast clerico-fascist conspiracy is badly misdirected (if only he knew where the bodies were really buried!)"
Do tell - please!
"Both cognitively and politically few Australians would admit that we live in a christian commonwealth and are governed, often unwillingly, by a moral notion based on christian revelation. It is a soft "sharia", but sharia none the less."
Given that many, if not most, of the moral prescriptions are to some extent universal (eg, the prohibition on murder), and have the acceptance of the secular community, is this really a problem?
And what alternative would you propose?
Comment by Ephraem
God and Caesar
First of all the distinction between revelation and reason: whatever is based on reason (in moral terms what Cicero calls the natural law, eg prohibitions on murder) is universally (or ought to be) held and within limits enforced by the state. What is based on revelation (eg the prohibition on eating pork or on some sorts of sexual intercourse) is not. This latter is not a suitable subject for legislation. There is, of course, an argument about which is which.
and second the degree of secrecy attending some sorts of influence in Australia's polity. Reasonable people ought to be able to explain their idea, rather than use political manipulation, subtle or not, to enforce them.
I should make it clear that I don't think we should throw over the christian bases of our commonwealth ( I amd a social and constitutional conservative), but honesty demands a more exact examination of how those cultural and religious roots interplay with modernity. I think especially that varying notions of human rights continue in a state of tension - perhaps creative, perhaps not.
I can be emailed at ephraem.chifley@gmail.com
Comment by Anonymous
Thankyou for your reply, it is most enlightening.
I'll send you a mail soon.