Start "rethinking", says Blair

The reader will doubtless be aware of the former PM Tony Blair's comments regarding the Pope's stance on homosexuality, and his belief that the Catholic Church ought to start "rethinking" the issue, and become more liberal-minded.

Imagine my ambivalence towards this man and this incident as a partly but not entirely liberal Christian and Anglican, with views on homosexuality, Catholicism, and the place of politics in religion...and vice versa.

On the one hand, I agree, in the most part, with what Blair has said. I don't see it as being unfair to suggest that the Catholic Church might want to rethink its stance on an issue which it has held for centuries, irrespective of the distinctions between contextual and universal truths, or literal vs allegorical truths, or alternative perspectives of approach to particular Biblical passages. Furthermore, such strong anti-homosexual views as those expressed by Pope Benedict last December isolate ca. 10% of the population, and almost by default exclude them from the organisation - and for that reason, also, Blair's point is reasonably valid.

Hmmmm...

But on the other hand I do feel a little uncomfortable about Blair telling the Pope what to do. For a number of reasons.

1. He isn't PM any more. He's...actually, what is he now?
   
2. Even if he was, politics is somewhat "poking its nose" into the affairs of religion, which therefore begs the question, ought religion/the Church be entitled to have a greater influence in politics?
   
3. The word 'hypocrite' springs to mind (as do a number of other terms). It is interesting that now all of a sudden Blair has the boldness to take the moral high ground on an issue, when his views on potentially even more important affairs (abortion, for instance, is a biggie - a biggie for which Blair, I might add, expresses full support) are perhaps not as widely accepted as morally stable.

So, in summary: valid opinion, but expressed by an unsuitable spokesman!

One step closer to Orwell's 1984

Everyone will have heard by now how the Dutch foreign minister Geert Wilders has been banned from the UK, following his intention to give a speech expressing his controversial opinions about Islam as a political ideology.

Of course, what gets me is that Wilders' comments are completely unjustifiable. His information is entirely inaccurate.

Let us take a few examples:

"Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever...and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word ... And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims."

The man's got it wrong! The Quran is open to interpretation however Muslims see fit, and Muhammad is not in any way a role model for how Muslims should live. It's not as if they believe Muhammad was God's messenger and had a special relationship with him!

What else did he spout? "Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about its goal." Oh, what claptrap! Since when did Islam mean submission? It means peace, doesn't it? (even if it does originate from the root s-l-m, or derived from the Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit.")

He also claimed absurdities about the activities of Muslims today! He tried, for instance, to claim that a teacher punished two boys who refused to pray to Allah! And that a primary school cancelled its Christmas nativity play - disappointing children and parents and breaking a much loved and treasured tradition - because it interfered with an Islamic festival!

Don't be silly - Muslims don't have such power and influence in this Western secular democracy...

The sharper (!) of you will have detected just the slightest hint of sarcasm is this article so far. I am, to be quite frank, outraged. Thoroughly pissed off. One man expresses anti-Islamic opinions and he's BANNED from the country? Over-reaction to statements which dare to suggest that Islam can be criticised...now where have I heard that one before? Oh yes, that's right...the Pope at Regensburg in 2006, of course. Muslims cleverly responded to the Pope's referral to a 14th century theologian's suggestions that Islam might be a violent religion by burning effigies, sabotaging churches and stabbing nuns. Cleverly done.

To conclude, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is, after all, one thing in Wilders' speech which really is bollocks:

"For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. "

And I'm sure he feels the same. He spoke too soon, there.