Clerical Catholic Imam, George Pell, has done it again. Proven why secularism is a necessity, that is.
He has threatened politicians who are Catholics with exclusion from communion, which is not quite excommunication but nevertheless still pretty drastic, if they vote in favour of a secular law permitting stem cell research. Note that these Catholic politicians, who are elected to represent all Australians and not just the Catholics, are not themselves undertaking stem cell research. They are merely voting, if they choose, to allow others to do it if their conscience permits.
But the Grand Imam wants to impose his morality, for theological reasons that have no purchase outside his faith community, on everyone, and he's prepared to bully his flock to ensure it. He thinks he can dictate ethical concerns to those who are not his co-religionists, just because he's right and everyone else is wrong.
Look, I don't give a shit if Catholics think stem cell research is genocide and leads to dancing. They have no right to impose that view on the rest of the community that think it is just a procedure that offers some benefits in medical knowledge, and so far as most of us can tell, has no downsides to anyone.
- Log in to post comments
I suspect the use of the title Imam in what seems to be a derogatory sense is a bit over-the-top.
Pell does seem to be acting his part, an authoritarian dimwit, but I totally fail to see the connection with Islam. That's not to say there aren't Imam's who also act that same kind of part, or Rabbi's for that matter, but methinks what was meant here was "crypto-terrorist". And there's a helluva lot of Imam's, Muslims, and so on for whom that is a highly insulting and inaccurate description. It ("crypto-terrorist") seems accurate for Pell--at least as a rhetorical device--but why go out of yer way to upset an entire profession and/or belief system due to the farting of one particular arsehole? (The insulted professiona and belief system are related to Pell's own, but so what?)
I'm tired of religious figures thinking they can control or unduly influence the course of a nonreligious nation. It's the very same behaviour whether it is a Taliban imam or a Catholic Cardinal. We are more familiar with the office of cardinal and archbishop and so using those terms simply fades into the background. So calling him an imam points out the exact parallel in social arrogance between the two. I do not apologise for this and I never will. Once I might have, but the behaviour of these theocrats has rubbed away my good nature in this regard. We are seeing a shift away from secular freedoms. I do not think politeness is called for at this time.
If I meet, and I have done, sensible, secularist clergy, then I treat them with the respect any secular person is due. But I do not think we should continue to respect the office of clergyman (or woman, but since they exist largely in the more open-minded denominations, they are rarely at fault in this respect) and in particular, with the way the leading denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and the Baptists and their ilk) are moving towards conservative authority again, the leaders of those denominations.
If they want respect, let them earn it, by not behaving like imams.
Does this outburst mean that you believe New Atheist militancy, as a political strategy, is more effective against the Pells of this world than agnostic accommodationism?
I have never said we should remain accommodationist when the religious try to hijack society. I'm all for militant secularism, and I expect it from my sensible religious friends as much as from open tent firebrands like Myers ;-)
The senior Catholic Bishop in Scotland has come out and said exactly the same thing in the last week, with his Welsh counterpart speaking up in his support. The reaction in the UK has been much like PZ's, they have no right to impose their religious doctrine on the rest of us.
I cannot help but wonder how many Catholics would accept treatment either derived directly from embryotic stem cell research, or even treatments derived indirectly from knowledge gained during such research. Only today there is a report of a potential new treatment using stem cells to reverse macular degeneration. To date it has been done with adult stem cells with some success but the team doing the research want to use embryotic stem cells as they think it will prove more effective.
(Emphasis in original.) It could if imam, and muslim, and related terms, hadn't acquired the meaning of "terrorist" or "undesirable" in recent years. And it also seems to be playing to a cartoonish version of islam (something along the lines of "all muslims are fascists"). It is these hidden readings which are bothering me.
My suggestion for making clear the authoritarian mindset and actions is führer or generalissimo--labels whose meaning has understandably changed and which gets the point across with less likelihood of causing confusion as to what the point is.
While I'm an atheist and certainly support stem cell research, I can't fault the Catholics here. From their perspective, this is a form of murder. Is that a ridiculous position? Yes. But given that they've taken that position, they believe that they have a moral obligation to try to prevent the murder. (Say what you want about the Catholics, but at least they're consistent)
As long as they don't use force or violence to achieve their goal, I don't give a shit how they campaign for it. In fact, I'm glad they're denying communion to supporters of stem-cell research. What they're doing here is undermining their own institution. When they start denying communion to formerly wheelchair bound patients, or to the blind who have regained sight, the PR will be atrocious. Some of those people who are at odds with their pastors on this issue will be driven away from the church and towards a more secular lifestyle.
In general, when a religion stakes out ridiculous positions like this, the reality-based movement wins. In my book, that's a good thing.
This is disingenuous on Pell's part. He knows that most Australians, hell, most Australian Catholics, think that stem cell research isn't murder. He knows that for Australians this is not a morally bound activity, until the embryo gets a fair bit further along, at which point ordinary moral intuitions get messed up.
He knows these politicians are elected in a democratic constitution to represent all Australians and not to impose Catholic doctrine. He still insists on threatening politicians of his church with what everybody knows will be the formal equivalent of damnation if they follow their duty as respresentatives.
This is exactly the sort of behaviour one gets in theocratic societies, and say what you like, but it is almost definitional of imams, whether in the west or not. Islam is the exemplar of what happens when no distinction is made between social order and religion. It is intolerant, opposed to rights of women and non-Muslims, and this is, I'm, afraid, the norm. Few Muslims live under a conception of Islam that excludes these ideas, and few imams are not at heart trying to impose their sense of religion on the wider society in which they live, whether it's a part of the Umma or not.
I do not have your faith in the ridiculousness of religion being a cause of it losing out against reality.
If you are going to allow them to campaign for it, then their tax free status should be removed.
With respect to Matt's comment in #5, here's a consistent solution: Pell can say that Catholics cannot make any use of any medical technologies that might derive directly or indirectly from stem cell research. Now that kind of threat is fine by me - just don't prevent the rest of us from using them...
John: did you hear about the Pope himself saying that the Mexico City representatives that voted to approve a law that allows abortion for the first 3 months of pregnancy had earned excomunion? Check this link:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=70582
I would call that a Catholic fatwa, no less. His subordinates tried to do some damage control later, to no avail:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1625275,00.html
While I don't agree with Cardinal Pell's remarks, I think it's too far to impose secularism on politicians. With any major decision that anyone makes, whether they're a christian, muslim, hindu or jew, they're going to be influenced by their own personal faith. Sure, there will be some politicians that tow the party line, no matter what their beliefs say. And there are some politicians who will toss up both sides of the argument. But generally, their faith is a major point in any decision.
Forcing politicians to disregard their faith in any decision is just as bad, in my opinion, as threatening politicians with ex-communion for not towing their church's line.
I can't find any really damning articles in the CBC archives just now, but within the past couple of years, some of the Canadian RC bishops have made public statements about abortion, gay marriage, etc. implying that Catholic MPs had a duty to vote the Vatican line (IIRC, one of them even mentioned excommunication). Then-PM Paul Martin (a Catholic) replied that he had to do what was right for all Canadians, not just the Catholic ones. I say: good for him.
Ben, I am not saying they cannot be informed by their religious and moral beliefs. I am saying that they cannot use these beliefs as the sole justification for imposing laws that regulate other (non-coreligionist) people's behaviours.
That's what "secularism" means. It's not a competing religion or ideology; it's the basis for having a state and society that is not ruled by any religion or ideology.
get a life dude. If said guy who "runs" said club says he will kick out people if they don't follow the club rules how is this "imposing" anything on anyone but the club members. The politician is free to ignore the guy so he has no direct power. It is all moot anyway since you can create embryonic stems cells from skin cells now.
It seems clear that this is a perfect example where "as if atheism" breaks down. The Iman as you phrase it doesn't "give a shit" what you think anyone has a right too. You tell us that "He thinks he can dictate ethical concerns to those who are not his co-religionists, just because he's right and everyone else is wrong." Well, duh, and if you insist on saying "gee these aren't empirical knowledge claims so I am agnostic about them" you (and a lot of us) will burn at the stake because of it. Can't you do better than that?
Mike