Ralph Jones2013-05-19T19:12:53-04:00Ralph Joneshttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=ralph-jonesCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ralph JonesGood old fashioned elbow grease.It Needs Mending But It Doesn't Need Mentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27878562013-03-01T05:17:13-05:002013-05-01T05:12:01-04:00Ralph Joneshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-jones/
As an atheist discussing religion I always struggle to reconcile two conflicting impulses: on the one hand I believe religion to be a seriously detrimental and divisive ideology, but on the other I feel a duty to speak up for those believers against whom religion discriminates stupidly and relentlessly: Christian women wishing to be bishops; homosexuals; Muslim women denied fundamental human rights. It would be foolish to make life harder or more unfair for these individuals by insisting that religion stop changing the meaning of its supposedly holy texts in order to accommodate them. I believe that one can do duty to both impulses, pointing out in this instance where the Catholic Church has so obviously been going wrong for centuries while suggesting simple ways in which it could be improved for everyone.
Whether it admits it or not, Catholicism is "obsessed with sex", in Stephen Fry's words. Even by religion's standards it spends an inordinate amount of time worried about or condemning what is perhaps the most natural human urge. Senior clerical figures feel that they would be distracted from their duties were they to have sex; Joseph Ratzinger has levelled the most inhuman slurs at great swathes of the population because they wish to be joined with members of the same gender; and the Church believes that contraception is "intrinsically an evil". I've said it before and I'll say it again: why on Earth would one look to this institution for advice on matters of sexuality? I don't wish to condemn anyone for remaining a virgin their entire life - though needless to say they are seriously missing out - but the very least that can be asked in return is that these individuals don't preach about sex as if they know what they're talking about.
On the matter of celibacy, surely it is evident that maintaining this practice has in itself been a much darker distraction for many priests than marriage would have been, and has served only to transform intercourse into a sordid deed to be practised with shame. Catholicism has been dogged by hideous child rape scandals for the past fifty years, and it is clear that we have only really glimpsed the tip of the iceberg. But is anyone honestly surprised that such sexual abuses of power have been committed by clergymen who spend their entire lives believing both that their relationship with God is undermined if they wed, and that putting a condom on the end of one's penis is in some bizarre way "evil"? Again to quote Fry, "this is not natural and normal, ladies and gentlemen". It must be stated clearly: the celibacy of the clergy has contributed in a very real sense to the disgrace in which the Catholic Church now finds itself. I don't think it too simplistic to assert that, were the Church to revise this doctrine, a much healthier attitude towards sexuality would emerge. Even the loathsome Keith O'Brien is beginning to recognise this - although of course someone ought to remind him that if this type of revision is permitted, denying homosexuals the right to marry is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Similarly distorted and unhealthy is the Church's attitude toward women. Here it is far from the sole culprit, of course, as I have written previously, but it is obvious to all but the most conservatively religious that its treatment of women is simply embarrassing. A recent Guardian article by Joanna Moorhead (a Catholic) rightly points to a need for the Church to devolve power amongst the multifarious members to whom it can lay claim, including the women who are so integral to its survival. Has it really taken people until 2013 to recognise this palpably obvious point - that granting women the opportunity to attain an equal footing with men would be a progressive step? Would this genuinely pass for an epiphany in Catholic theology - that explicitly barring women from senior positions of authority might have engendered an unhealthy power dynamic between the sexes? It is not simplistic nor is it heresy to suggest that the introduction of women into senior clerical positions would bring about a serous positive change in the Church.
Where once the public might have been duped into believing that the moral compass of the religious was faithful and true, it is now painfully apparent that this compass is not only unreliable but has been tossed overboard. The Catholic Church is the epitome of this phenomenon and is in urgent need of transformation. These amendments may come about sooner rather than later (they will happen eventually), but in the Catholic Church, where a pope would be considered a radical if he changed the colour of his slippers, it might be advisable to strap in for the long haul. This delay would be a great shame for Catholics, because without these fundamental revisions I cannot see the Church escaping with much dignity if it wishes to be a member of a progressive and enlightened society.]]>A Malicious and Dangerous Old Virgintag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24079112013-01-04T05:40:42-05:002013-03-06T05:12:01-05:00Ralph Joneshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-jones/'Kill the Gays' bill continues to make headlines, one would have been forgiven for assuming that Pope Benedict XVI - henceforth referred to as Joseph Ratzinger - might have had the sensitivity and grace to, if not condemn such tendencies, at the very least avoid fanning the flames.
The infallible virgin had other ideas.
Preaching the obviously homophobic sentiment that gay relationships are inferior to those that are heterosexual, Ratzinger labelled them a "manipulation of nature" in his address to the Vatican on December 21. In an echo of Mother Theresa's idiotic claim upon accepting her 1979 Nobel Peace Prize that abortion is the greatest threat to world peace, Ratzinger decided to indict not only abortion and euthanasia but also gay marriage as a very real contributor to worldwide collapse. This is not an exaggeration; we're on familiar territory here. In January 2012 Ratzinger actually claimed that gay marriage threatened "the future of humanity". The same month, The Guardian's Andrew Brown leapt like a well-trained poodle to Ratzinger's defence and said the following: "The pope is a Catholic; perhaps it's in the nature of the news business to be freshly astonished by this fact every couple of months". Only in matters of 'theology' are journalists allowed to write such drivel. Yes, of course Ratzinger is a Catholic; we hadn't forgotten. But when his message - communicated to billions worldwide - becomes one not of love but of dangerous bigotry, we are perfectly entitled to be astonished and to seriously question his position. To do anything less is to neglect the indispensable thinking faculties we possess.
To secularists and atheists alike, it is absolutely mind-boggling that a man as miserably callous as Ratzinger is venerated as being the moral compass to whom millions of human beings look for guidance. Is it possible to conceive of anybody less qualified to pronounce on gay rights than an elderly Catholic virgin in a sparkly hat? And reflect for a moment on what effect his words are likely to have on the signatories of the 'Kill the Gays' bill. As has always been the way in cases like this, religious backing for violent homophobic discrimination will be found all too quickly and all too easily. Those in favour of the execution of homosexuals won't be wrong when they say that the (supposedly infallible) head of the Catholic Church officially deems homosexuality to be a sinister threat to the stability of the globe. All too often we wait until these issues reach crisis point before we take action; we need first and foremost to tackle leaders like Ratzinger if we wish to understand why homophobia persists and why it is provided such extensive, grovelling support in the media and in the pulpit.
Roz Kaveney's highly commendable article 'Rejoice! The pope is here to save the world from queers' rightly criticised Ratzinger's declaration on gay rights but concluded by referring to it as "careless viciousness". I would like to express my dissent. Ratzinger's words are obviously vicious but are by no means 'careless'; on the contrary they are the entirely premeditated remarks of an intelligent but homophobic man. Why does the media insist on employing euphemisms for homophobia just because it has donned a religious garb? Ratzinger's sentiments can only be deemed careless if he is making them for the first time and has not been alerted to their dangerous influence. This is manifestly not the case; the consistency of Ratzinger's homophobia doesn't disappoint. In 2005 he proclaimed unions between members of the same sex to be "contrary ... to human love" and in 1986 described homosexuality as a "strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil". Moreover, Ratzinger has vehemently maintained the farcical and deadly Catholic position on condoms, namely that even in HIV-stricken Africa prophylactics are not to be considered. What ought to be absolutely apparent is that this is a man miserably unqualified to discuss matters of sexuality. It ought to be equally apparent that it is not homosexuality but religion, and its ghastly and nauseating representatives, that is the chief source of division and hatred across the world. It is puzzling to me that we persist in believing that religion is motivated by the desire to do good, rather than the desire to enforce outdated and increasingly damaging restrictions and dogmas.
Joseph Ratzinger obviously is not infallible; no intelligent person would ever have believed that he was. Worse than that, however, he is now a sinister and retarding force for both religion and gay rights, out of touch with the majority of the faithful and totally unqualified to preach morality. He is not only fighting a losing battle, he is fighting a battle that, if won, would mean the world were a considerably uglier place. His views are revoltingly bigoted as well as supportive of the cultures that deem it excusable to kill others on the basis of what they do with their genitals. We have no obligation to listen to him and every obligation to underline his bigotry.]]>Hell Obviously Doesn't Existtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23776662012-12-31T19:00:00-05:002013-03-02T05:12:02-05:00Ralph Joneshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-jones/
If we atheists are correct, none of us faces such a ludicrous and disproportionate punishment.
What is immediately obvious about the threat of Hell is that it is borne of insecurity. If one needs to terrify infants into believing that thinking contrary to certain doctrines and dogmas will lead to an eternity of fiery torment, a) one ought to look first of all at how one is spending one's time on this planet, and b) the doctrines and dogmas are likely to be too stupid to be believed without recourse to blackmail.
Can you imagine if science, or indeed any other discourse, were to employ a tactic even remotely similar? "You must believe that the Earth rotates around the Sun otherwise you're going to roast for rather a long time". The proposition is absurd. The claim is either true or it isn't. One's belief in it has no bearing whatever either on its validity or on the consequences for oneself after death.
Where Christianity is concerned, what believers rarely acknowledge - or perhaps even realise - is that it is not until "gentle Jesus meek and mild", in Christopher Hitchens' sarcastic phraseology, that the doctrine of Hell is even introduced. It is perfectly clear that, as conveyed in the Old Testament, an all-powerful God could exist without the need for the invocation of any Hell. It is to Jesus - or, more accurately, those upon whom we rely in ascertaining his words - we must look if we need an instigant of the terror and misery inflicted upon countless millions of gullible individuals. The argument could be made at this juncture that Jesus did not invent Hell and was thus doing mankind a kindness by alerting it to the danger that lay ahead as a consequence of unbelief (or the wrong sort of belief). Even if this ludicrous proposition were true, what does this imply about those who lived prior to Jesus' arrival? Was Hell a real threat for them and, if so, oughtn't God have alerted everyone to it? Or did they all automatically enter Heaven? If this is expected to be believed, and Hell was therefore not a real threat before Jesus, the blame really does rest squarely on the Nazarean's shoulders.
The continued (though fading) belief in Hell is easy to understand. If a religion were not to offer an afterlife reward or punishment, then its truths and dogmas would need be examined in the cold light of day and argued to be truly transformative independent of post-mortem consequences. Because this claim can be so easily refuted, the teaching of hell (and of course heaven) persists to this day, however cloaked in euphemism it may be.
As is the case on a number of issues pertaining to religion, I have a great deal more empathy here with the fundamentalists than with the more moderate believers. If I did genuinely believe what I cannot possibly imagine believing - that a friend of mine were due an eternity of punishment after death - I would do all in my power to prevent this awful fate. The number of believers recruited specifically to proselytise and to conscript more members is, admittedly, absolutely vast; but what is going on in the minds of those who do believe in a Hell state but do not attempt to rescue those they believe to be doomed to it? Do they in fact struggle to believe in such a mercilessly cruel God but fear saying so?
Many contemporary Christians might assert that they themselves do not recognise the existence of any Hell in the afterlife. They are perfectly entitled to adopt this position but they ought to remember that the person they are thereby directly contradicting is the founder of their religion and the man they believe to be the son of God. As Diarmaid MacCulloch writes about the Sermon on the Mount in A History of Christianity, "There is much punishing fire flickering round the preacher's words. There is nothing gentle, meek or mild about the driving force behind these stabbing inversions of normal expectations".
One ought always to be on one's guard about those who assert that to think in a certain way is to commit a sin. This is the immoral and bullying trick that religion plays. Couched in cosy rhetoric and increasingly vague threats is the assumption that, in dissenting, you are subjecting yourself to an eternity of howling pain and misery. Quite apart from spectacularly lacking in evidence of any conceivable kind, this is a direct and patronising threat that cannot go unchallenged. Never forget that Heaven only exists and is made so appealing because it has to contend with Hell. And never forget that there are millions of people around the world who believe that you, in deeming the evidence for any God - or even one specific God - to be insufficient, have an appointment with the devil. Thank your lucky stars that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
One thing about any afterlife remains absolutely clear: religious convictions set aside, I would not want to spend an eternity with the people self-righteous enough to claim themselves most deserving of reward in a sickly Heaven state. The people I'd like to run into after my death are some of the very people most likely in religious terms to be damned in Hell. Torture though the fires may be, the conversation would no doubt be of a higher calibre.
An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell? No, said the priest, not if you did not know. Then why, asked the Inuit earnestly, did you tell me? - Annie Dillard]]>Strangely Enough, Equal Rights Have to Be Equaltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22893202012-12-12T21:13:26-05:002013-02-11T05:12:01-05:00Ralph Joneshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-jones/
Not one to say the following without a little discomfort, I applaud David Cameron and his publicly declared support for the legalisation of gay marriage. I have watched with disappointment the criticism to which he has been subjected over the last few days. We are, due to the campaigning and persistence of a small group of people, experiencing an exciting and significant period of change in this country; we are being provided a glimpse of the equal rights that will doubtless be afforded to gay people in years to come.
In exchange for this optimism we are witnessing extraordinary levels of childish disgust and reactionary bigotry. For the most part this unpleasantness masquerades as 'religious freedom'. Why are we allowing homophobia to adopt such a hideous disguise, and letting members of the Church of England (and, unsurprisingly, countless Tory MPs) preach revoltingly homophobic sentiments while claiming themselves to be paragons of virtue?
I am, to put it mildly, not a Christian, but this does not for a second affect my belief that every Christian is an equal citizen deserving of equal rights to those of any other person irrespective of gender, race, sexuality, or religion. There is by implication absolutely no right to which I would deny a Christian. This type of thinking comes easily to me and to many others, but it comes neither easily nor naturally to the religious, who are capable of believing things absurd enough to make your hair curl. The happiness of others is assumed to have a direct and damaging effect on theirs; in some strange way the inclusion of homosexuals in the (forever evolving) institution of marriage invalidates their own marital status or bond. This is, and we ought not to be afraid of saying so, a sinister position to adopt: either we are all entitled to equal rights, or we are not. Imagine for a moment, as I find myself doing, the situation transposed so that the issue being discussed, rather than what one did with one's genitals, was the colour of one's skin. (This is not a purely hypothetical experiment; the types of discussion in which we are currently engaged have always been conducted about members of different races.) We have advanced to the stage at which we are able to label such pitiful whining: it's called racism. We ought therefore to be confident enough to condemn it as homophobia even if it is wearing a crucifix and a stupid hat.
The issue is after all not a party-political one, nor one of popularity, but of fundamental human rights, and it is astonishing that people like Jake Wallis Simons (writing for The Telegraph) can be employed to say of David Cameron that it "serves him right" if his "crusade" in favour of gay marriage finds no support. Jake is in favour of gay marriage, of course, but he does wish people would stop banging on about it. Of course, he goes on to say, he is neither a Christian nor a gay man, so his opinion needn't count for anything. Just imagine anything this patronising being said in relation to equal treatment of black people in organised religion. "Yes, I think the Church ought to let two black people marry, but a) if they could keep their voices down that would be appreciated, and b) at the end of the day it doesn't affect me because I ain't black and I ain't a Christian". It is an embarrassment that articles like Simons' find any platform at all, because their contempt for gay rights is so palpable.
As things stand, all that is required of the Church of England is that it say the following: that homosexuals are equal citizens (can you believe that, in 2012, this sentence even needs to be written?); that it rejects the 'quadruple lock' that would make it impossible for it to conduct same-sex marriages; and that it will begin to allow willing clergymen - of whom there are many - to conduct the ceremonies. Given that there are thousands of homosexual Christians, many of whom would like the opportunity to be married in the eyes of God, this seems an extraordinarily easy concession to make. In failing to do so, the Church of England serves only to reinforce the notion that it is institutionally homophobic.
It is often rather tiring to criticise organised religion, and note at every turn its absurdities, contradictions and irrelevances, but it is at times like this, when issues of such fundamental significance are at stake, that it is so very rewarding. It may be tempting to believe that the fight has been fought, the battle won, the concession having been made that the Church of England won't 'be forced' to perform same-sex marriages if it doesn't want to. This, I contend, is both surrendering to a lazy way of thinking and delaying the inevitable: we are all very aware that it won't be long before gay marriages are able to be conducted in every religious building. The sooner this moment arrives, the better.
My proposition is a simple one, if the Church is unable to make the three statements listed above: churches that do not allow same-sex marriages should no longer be given tax breaks. If punitive measures like these are not taken, churches are not only avoiding reprehension for blatant discrimination but are actually continuing to be rewarded for it. Imagine the same being true of any other publicly subsidised organisation and I hope you will see the transparency of my argument.
In 250 years, when this country will have either loosened or entirely relinquished the moronic grasp of organised religion, how do you think this issue will be chronicled in the history books: as a crucial battle for the inalienable rights of homosexuals, or as the period in which the Church bravely stood up tall against the immorality of a sinful nation? If you are able in any way to express your opposition to those who state, in whichever slippery method they choose, that homosexual couples ought to be treated differently to heterosexual couples, please do so. Do not for one second accept that discrimination may be practised in the name of 'religious freedom'.]]>Most Parents Would Prefer Their Children Not to Be Tory MPstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22700162012-12-10T06:52:33-05:002013-02-09T05:12:01-05:00Ralph Joneshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-jones/
The opinions of myself and the honourable Member of Parliament for Monmouth differ ever so slightly on this issue of fundamental human rights. I believe that most parents would prefer their children not to be Tory MPs.
One isn't, after all, born with a desire to become a Tory MP; one chooses of one's own volition to adopt the lifestyle. No matter what results the tests bring back, however insistent the researchers' claims, we know that the decision is entirely voluntary. Parents are of course devastated when the news is brought to them by their offspring - and who can blame them, they're only human. But, faced with the vision of a barren future ahead of them, they put on a smile and adjust as best they can. They know, however, deep down, that in that moment they have lost something very valuable to them: the chance for their child not to be a homophobic, bigoted Tory MP. Little Davey will never really be Little Davey ever again.
I praise whole-heartedly the courage it must take to come out as a child wishing to become a Tory MP; although the extent of the dislike may not be obvious at the time, there will always be a recognition, if only in the unconscious, that one is going to become more unpopular and more unpleasant as one grows up. Most of all, of course, and most painfully, one risks the ostracism of one's parents; it is common knowledge that the yearning of most parents is to hear, at the very least, the pitter-patter of tiny Labour MP feet running across the living-room carpet.
Though it is of course difficult to comprehend why a child would wish to become a Tory MP, it is our solemn duty as a society to ensure that we can love the sinner and hate the sin. We ought never to be afraid to condemn moves to prevent two Tory MPs from marrying one another in the eyes of God; if God had wanted Tory MPs to marry, he would have made us all Tory MPs! It's Adam and Eve, not Churchill and Thatcher! Next time someone chastises you for condemning Tory marriage, tell them they are infringing upon your freedom of discrimination. If, God forbid, two Tory MPs were in love and wished to marry, it would be wrong of us to invite moral and societal collapse by permitting such a union. To take such action is not of course to be Toryphobic. I myself once had a cage-fight with a Tory MP and she seemed to be a perfectly agreeable woman.
There will soon be courses available to those who have chosen to adopt the heinous lifestyle of a Tory MP. With the right help, the behaviour can of course be altered, the ailment cured. For most, however - and it is with great sadness that I include David Davies in this category - the affliction is so severe, the sin so deeply ingrained, that treatment may be futile.
All that is left is to pray that the afflicted see the error of their ways before it is too late.]]>Why Is Religion So Afraid Of Women?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22431852012-12-05T19:00:00-05:002013-02-04T05:12:01-05:00Ralph Joneshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-jones/
The university's feminist society labelled the decision "hugely discriminatory, deeply offensive and sexist to women"; no argument from me there, but just apply this quote to religion in general, whose history is mired in inescapably revolting attitudes towards women, and you need not change the phraseology. The insistence that the Church ought to change its ways in this regard is like asking a vegetarian to eat a fillet of steak. It is also a relatively recent development and will always be swimming against an enormous tide of misogyny founded in Scripture.
Will religion, then, ever be able to shake off its subordination and discrimination towards women?
The Christian Union's move comes in the immediate wake of - and may well have been inspired by - almost 50% of the Church of England's House of Laity deciding that permitting women bishops would be a step too far in the name of equality. The fact that the vote made the news at all demonstrates how much progress has been made in the Church over the years and how appallingly its sexism has become enshrined.
Rowan Williams is not of course particularly at fault in this debate - supporting as he did the introduction of female bishops - but he is guilty of uttering the emptiest platitude imaginable, saying that he had "prayed" that the vote would be passed according to his wishes. Williams here of course means 'prayed' in the literal sense; given that one would assume that Justin Welby, the newly elected Archbishop of Canterbury, also said his prayers, God managed therefore to ignore the interests of two of the most senior members of his own Church. It is difficult not to ask why Williams et al. do not feel that this is a sign that God is vehemently against the introduction of women bishops, when presumably the opposite result would have lead them to the conclusion that he was in favour. The clergymen don't believe in divine intervention only when it suits them, surely...
At the heart of this issue lies an extremely problematic and unanswerable question: what does it mean to be a true Christian? It is very difficult not to conclude that, based on the overwhelming number of sexist passages in the Bible, the Christian doctrine is by definition one that views women as inferior to men. It is also difficult not to comment that passages in the Bible can be used to validate almost any conceivable viewpoint and that if one were desperate enough one could argue the case that the Bible condones rather than advocates sexism; but this seems rather like shaping Scripture to suits one's needs, not basing one's life on what Scripture teaches.
Those wishing to be a member of a Church taking the Bible as its inspiration are perfectly within their rights to demand equal treatment of women but it seems rather obvious that to implement this equal treatment is to act in direct opposition to the codes of conduct established unambiguously in a book supposedly inspired by a divine (and chauvinistically male) creator. There do exist, I am very aware, feminist Christians, just as there exist numerous homosexual Christians, but these are unenviable positions to hold. From exactly what do these people believe they are drawing inspiration and comfort? Why are the terms 'feminist' and 'Christian' not irreconcilable?
The number of biblical references betraying disgust towards women and the workings of their bodies is extraordinary, but it ought not to surprise us: it is, after all, a book cobbled together entirely by men living in a barbaric and ignorant period of history, during which societies were governed largely by violence, a technique with which men are infamously more familiar. The role of women in Bronze Age culture was to bear children and little else, and, though the Church likes to avoid the issue, there are numerous biblical commands and injunctions for women to be raped and treated like property. Ephesians 5:22 explicitly tells us that wives must submit to their husbands as to the Lord, as does Colossians 3:18 and Peter 3:1; Matthew 5:32 makes clear that a husband can divorce his wife if she is unfaithful, but never is the corollary stated; 1 Corinthians 11:9 tells us that woman was created "for man"; in 11:3 we learn that the husband is the head of the wife; Paul famously states in 1 Timothy 2:12 that he does not "permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"; and Genesis 3:6, in which Eve eats the fruit of knowledge, could be argued to have been the incitement to treat women as inferior for thousands of years.
We would all like to see women treated equally in the Church. The indisputable and extremely ugly problem, however, is that the biggest hurdle standing in the way of this equal treatment becoming a reality is the very books on which the Church bases its conduct in the first place.]]>