What a mixed day in the world of current affairs. As an unashamed liberal, I progressed through the newspaper and went from depressed, to even more depressed, to feeling a glimmer of hope. Three news stories which I care deeply about.
Harrowing
Firstly, most will have heard of Sakineh Mohammedi Ashtiani, a lady who has been accused of adultery and could, at any time, be stoned, and whose distraught son has pleaded with the Iranian government, and now the world, to stop this barbaric fate awaiting her. (The picture to the left is not here but depicts a woman about to be stoned in Iran in 1979). How tremendously awful it must be to be in the position of this woman. Not only is she awaiting death, but will be given little warning of when it will come, and she is in prison for a 'crime' which there is every chance she did not commit. I trust that the vast majority of readers would agree that no matter how strongly anyone might object to adultery, such treatment cannot be justified. Because this is far beyond the case of whether or not adultery is objectionable, due to a number of factors:
- An act being morally wrong in someone's eyes does not constitute grounds for taking someone's life;
- Despite a lack of evidence and pleas of herself and her son that she was innocent, she was found guilty;
- She was given the horrendous punishment of 99 lashes and told the case was finished (however, she was then accused of murder, acquitted of murder but re-condemned for the suspected adultery)
- It is not an acceptable attitude of any religious believer to follow archaic laws demanding criminals to be killed; it is not the place of humans to take other human beings' lives
Thankfully there is pressure from many external forces, including many Western governments and NGOs. I hope and pray that this makes the difference needed. If you want to help in some small way, please sign the petition:
I would not be so naive as to consider such a case a novelty or a rare occurrence. But the global attention this story is receiving could contribute even in a small way to sending a message that the world will not tolerate such abominable denial of human rights.
Thoroughly Disappointing
Another person who I would not choose to be at this time (or indeed at any time) is the Very Reverend Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans. He is a man so committed to his calling to the priesthood and dedicated to the service of others that he is willing to abstain from engaging in any kind of sexual relations with the man whom he loves.
But this isn't good enough for the Church. He was supported seven years ago as the next Bishop of Reading, but was forced to withdraw by his old friend and our (once openly) liberal Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Revd Dr Rowan Williams. Despite what must have been a real knock to his confidence and incredibly disheartening, he continued to serve God and the church with dedication. However, seven years on it seems the Church of England has not moved on. He was shortlisted and favoured (even by David Cameron) as the new Bishop of the very liberal Southwark diocese (for which such an informed liberal as himself would have been perfect) but, after a row amongst Church of England Bishops, another candidate has been chosen. Conservative Evangelicals with their tiresome incessant claims that homosexuality will split the church have once again stomped their feet, thrown their dogcollars out of the pram and have won. Dr Williams has once again been forced to betray his roots and true beliefs and to succumb to the will of those who refuse to allow any interpretation of scripture that doesn't take it literally.
People can claim to their heart's content that a CELIBATE homosexual will split the church. But whether liberal or conservative, I know of no Christian who can use the Bible justifiably to support a prejudice against homosexual orientation. There is nothing in the Bible condemning love for the same sex. Fine, let the conservative evangelicals stick with their mindless insistence that Leviticus etc. prove that gay sex is wrong. But there is no justification whatsoever in the Bible for a belief that a celibate homosexual is doing anything immoral. And this therefore becomes a matter of personal prejudice. The reality is many of our vicars grew up in a society and time where homosexuals were ostracised and it was considered perfectly acceptable to insult and victimise them. And now, faced with this situation, they cannot handle people whom they have viewed as different and inferior since their childhood being allowed to serve in the same capacity as themselves. The issue here is far beyond whether two men should sleep together; it is a question of whether for the rest of time people who are different should be forbidden from serving in a capacity which they feel God has called them to because we refuse to accept them, all for the sake of 'preserving unity'.
Am I alone in thinking that schism in the church would be a more desirable situation than the continued suppression of liberal, progressive Christians?
A glimmer of hope
However, as many will have heard that the Supreme Court has ruled that gay asylum seekers will not be forced to deport, and that they will be permitted to receive asylum on the grounds that they are gay and at risk of persecution in their own countries. This has arisen after the case of a gay men from Cameroon and his partner from Iran currently living in Britain because of the horrendous treatment they faced in their own countries. Finally Britain is doing something right!
Allow me to make the objections before the average Daily Mail reader butts in here:
- "I don't object to gay people [through gritted teeth] but this issue is a matter of the country being too full, not of homosexuality"
- "The country will become full of people pretending to be gay to be granted asylum in the UK"
- There is no proof that people are being persecuted in their own countries
- People could just hide their homosexuality and should if they want to be free from persecution
Firstly, I would ask people to ignore the fact that this about homosexuality. Really. It was well put by Antonia Senior, a journalist for the Times, who made the analogy to the Second World War. Asking a gay person to hide their sexuality and sending them back off to Iran would have been like asking a Jew to hide their Judaism/Jewishness and shovelling them back off to Nazi Germany. People shudder at the thought of the latter, so why do they see the former as being a completely different matter?
Secondly, with the matter of people pretending to be gay...I would hope that most would not assume that the country is stupid enough to let anyone in who just waltzes up and says "I'm gay". Granted, there is no official test in place (can you really test it?), but couples will be subjected to scrutiny and a general picture will be built up of whether they are genuinely homosexuals who are in danger, or heterosexuals who are pretending to be gay to escape their country. Yes, I don't deny that one or two will inevitably slip through the net. But it will not be a case of every Tom, Dick and Harry pretending to be gay and being granted asylum. And the few slipping through the net does not bother me in the slightest. Here's why:
Let's talk about the case of a man who is being called T to protect his identity, one of the men involved in this case. In his own country, he was seen kissing a male partner. A mob attacked him. Later, as he left church, he was once again attacked, and those attackers threatened to kill him, being told that: "you people cannot be changed." Once these attackers stripped T of his clothes, they attempted to cut off his penis with a knife. But then, at last, police officers intervened. And what did those policemen do? They asked why T was being attacked. They were then told that it was because he was gay. Their response? Well, one officer asked: "How can you go with another man?!", punched him in the mouth, then kicked him until he was unconscious, leaving him with such injuries that he was left in hospital for two months.
If this ruling saves even 50 people who suffer so tremendously, I don't mind one bit if there are a few who slip through the net, or a few more immigrants.
And with regards to all three, I believe in a God who would object to the stoning, support Jeffrey John and this new law if He were a citizen of this earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment