The glorious golden city
Again a top cleric – excuse me, a “faith leader” – frankly admits that religion is the opposite of egalitarianism. Once again a “faith leader” (male, of course) admits that he and his religion consider equality legislation incompatible with “religious liberty.”
Seems a bit stupid, doesn’t it? To come right out and say that your religion is opposed to equality?
The “chief rabbi” said
I share a real concern that the attempt to impose the current prevailing template of equality and discrimination on religious organisations is an erosion of religious liberty.
We are beginning to move back to where we came in in the 17th century – a whole lot of people on the Mayflower leaving to find religious freedom elsewhere.
Some far distant land, populated only by funny little people who can be brushed aside, where they will be free to treat women and homosexuals like dirt. The city on a hill.
Right… some far-off land where they can murder and enslave the indigenous population, rape their women and brainwash their children, keep all the natural resources for themselves and enjoy the “religious freedom” of a pre-Enlightenment “golden age”. Maybe a couple of Inquisitions and witch-burnings, just to set the tone.
Golly, think we could take up a collection for their boat passage? I’d be willing to send them a bon voyage party too… as long as they promised to never come back.
Oh, and he’s a “lord”… fuck him and his pseudo-royal privilege. There’s half your damned problem right there.
Gee whiz, this must mean they resent having to argue the toss with David Hume and Adam Smith… you know, those great thinkers of the Scottish enlightenment… people who knew that killing in the name of religion or privilege had to be a bad idea, considering what it did to Scotland…
Not only is it a dazzling show of intolerance, but it’s also one of blind privilege and an awful knowledge of history. Equality legislation in the form of Catholic Emancipation or the repeal of the ‘De Judaismo’ laws in the UK were steps towards equality for everyone, and in those specific cases religious people, it now continues in the form of gay rights.
It’s sad to see faith leaders of any denomination throwing other minorities under the train. Especially when it was equality legislation, built up over hundreds of years, that helped their own faith achieve de jure equality.
While this country might still have serious problems with religious and LGBT intolerance, at least there is recourse to the law for the people of faith that are affected, gay people deserve the same.
Rabbi? Didn’t he get a whole country of his own to stop annoying the Europeans?
Erk! Sili, that’s a horrible comment on multiple levels.
Ophelia, is Sili’s comment really “horrible” on any level, besides lacking the “required” nuance that rabbinical privilege has carved out?
Another reason to believe that religion is the problem. When you get right down to it, is there an Abrahamic religion (I can’t comment on others) that is fully committed to complete equality for all humans? I’d guess there are a few minor Christian sects that come close, but the vast majority persecute somebody.
The right answer is so simple and obvious, but religion doesn’t seem to ‘get’ it.
Tim DeLaney @ #9
You make a great point, that none of these tools representing the Abrahamic religions against secular values has a leg to stand on when discussing issues of freedom or rights. The leaders and most vocal adherents among them want the freedom and right to strip others of freedoms and rights. That’s just not going to fly in any secular democracy… at least I hope not. We’ve seen some stirrings over the last few years among the most devout followers among the Catholics, in Ireland and elsewhere, that the Catholic church is losing its sway. We’ve seen in the U.S. that Jewish Americans generally support Democrats even though the most Zionist-leaning Americans vote for Republicans.
We’re in an age where I’d not be surprised to see the Muslims jump well ahead of the Christians and Jews as far as secularism… if everyone plays their cards right.
@ Sili & Improbably Joe
Yes it is ‘horrible’, it first assumes that Jews aren’t ‘European’ when they’ve been resident in Europe for thousands of years, in fact a lot longer than some of the traditionally ‘European’ tribes that immigrated from Eurasia at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Second, it assumes that Jews ‘annoy’ Europeans in some way that is justified. When they’ve been used as scapegoats in several huge purges, England in the 13th C. Spain in the 15th etc., just because they were a people apart and were without the political protection.
It’s the same kind of rubbish as the Protocols or blood libel.
I’m an atheist and think that any religion is absurd, but to imply that someone of a certain religious faith should be expelled just because of their choice of religion isn’t just absurd, it’s dangerous. I’ll be the first one marching in protest against anyone who attempted to ban the free excise of religion.
Legislate against aspects of it, yes, certainly. Religious practises like FGM, or 2nd class status for women/LGBTs are abhorrent, but the persecution of the religious is just as abhorrent. Equality under the law is just that, equality, the freedom to make absurd decisions as long as they don’t impact the rest of us.
Yes, Joe, it’s horrible. Akheloios is on the money.
So, none of it is horrible unless you assume a horrible context. You’re also assuming things that haven’t been said, like “Protocols or blood libel” and “someone of a certain religious faith should be expelled just because of their choice of religion.” That was the point I was alluding to earlier, about the privilege that the rabbis claim about any criticism against them being a sign of antisemitism… to which I call a hearty BS.
If a rabbi calls for a nation to accede to his religious claims over secular law, it is no more egregious to call for him to move to Israel if secularism doesn’t suit him than it is to call for a Catholic priest to move to Vatican City if he makes similar complaints about non-religious laws that interfere with his bigotry. And not coincidentally, I’ve made that very wish in another comment thread on this site earlier in the week.
The reference to Scotland and the general thrust of this note and comments reminded me of a passage about the Enlightenment in Scotland. Prior to that wonderful flowering of free thought a lord had the privilege of naming the pastor of his kirk. In one such case, the pastor’s brother had to stand in front of the pulpit with drawn sword in order for the pastor to be allowed to speak as the congregation was so opposed to his investure.
Ophelia… I’m not sure where the disconnect is, and I’m afraid to tread any further on this issue for fear of being accidentally offensive. All I know is that if I’m being an ass, I’m an equal opportunity ass and it is all on religious grounds. If someone wants to be a religious extremist, I don’t have a problem saying that they should go somewhere that those views are more accepted. If that means rabbis need to vacate to Israel, imams need to hightail it to Mecca, and Catholic priests need to all move to Vatican City, I’m fine with it… and I don’t see where saying so is a horrible thing.
It might be problematic for Protestants…
Joe, no, it’s different – Israel isn’t the equivalent of the Vatican (though it does have way too much in common with it, I agree with you there). Furthermore, the context is there whether it’s stated or not. Obviously I don’t think any criticism of a rabbi=anti-semitism, but comment #6 is not just criticism of a rabbi.
Let’s not argue about it, ok? There’s no danger that I’m going to be too protective of religion, so let’s just leave it.
Cross-post. I posted 16 before I saw 15. I think I sort of responded to what you said before I’d seen it! No worries.
I’m mostly going to drop it, except to note one thing: Israel is better than the Vatican. Shocking! At least if you ship extremist anti-secular rabbis off to Israel, they will face a large, vocal minority who will continue to oppose their extremist viewpoints. I don’t think you can say the same about Vatican City. For all of Israel’s flaws, it is not the twisted religious monarchy of the Vatican, and it is not led by the head of an international cover-up of child-raping priests. So in that sense, it is definitely unfair to compare Israel to Vatican City.
I like the rhetorical trick of saying that the theocratically inclined should move to Iran if they like it so much, but you can’t use it on people that have lived under forced expulsion, and have suffered horrendous treatment because of who the authoritarians in charge said they were. Jews, Romani, LGBTs etc. have all faced violence at the hands of an authoritarian state simply because they are an easy target.
That’s why it’s bad, using an arguement designed for sarcastic use against an authoritarian majority becomes dangerous and offensive when you use it against a minority that have actually been forced to do it in the past.
Joe, quite, and that’s why telling the rabbi to go to Israel is not like telling a lying bishop to go to the Vatican. That’s why the overtones are way different.
I disagree with why the overtones are there, but I agree that they ARE there… which is why I’m willing to drop this.
Jeez,I had something to say,too late. Unfortunately the subject’s been declared tapu.
The beliefs of the Mayflower Pilgrims is being seriously misrepresented here. While they shared many obnoxious qualities with the established church (women were “equal” to men but had to be subservient; a strong emphasis on corporal punishment in raising children), they were most definitely leaving England to escape religious persecution, largely because they believed strongly in the separation of church and state. Under Cromwell, the Dissenters had done quite well, but when the royalty was re-established and the Church of England returned to its establishment role in government, the Dissenters found that their secular beliefs were no longer accepted in England.
The Mayflower carried Pilgrims who were escaping persecution by anti-secular forces. This is exactly the opposite of what the Chief Rabbi is claiming.
^are
So how many rabbis were on the Mayflower (approximate figures will do )?
“America was settled by people who were looking for more religious repression than was available to them in Europe” – Garrison Keillor
er, Chris – the Mayflower pilgrims left for America a good 25 years before the English Civil War.
We are beginning to move back to where we came in in the 17th century – a whole lot of people on the Mayflower leaving to find religious freedom elsewhere
Ah yes, those Pilgrim Fathers (never are Pilgrim Mothers mentioned)! Unable to force their narrow religious views on the main population of England they took up their marbles and looked for another game where only they made the rules. They came to what is now Massachusetts and founded their colony where they did indeed make the rules – read the “Mayflower Compact” required to be accepted by all whether “pilgrim” or not. They ruled the colony with great strictness, allowing no dissent. Religious tolerance was never their desire or their intention. Their intolerance was, in fact, the direct cause of the original founding of the Rhode Island colony.
Sorry. I thought I replied last night, but I must have forgotten to post.
Yes, it’s horrible, but I’m generally horrible by nature (and I like to channel the bigots), and it seemed a good match for the rabbi.
Of course, the Jewish people have not deliberately been an annoyance to Europe (Europe as contrasted with the Middle East), but they have been seen as annoying, and that certainly was a good part of why Israel was carved out as a state. So the annoying rabbi (he annoys me) has somewhere to sail his Mayflower unlike the people he find so annoying. Israel is supposed to be secular despite all evidence to the contrary, so perhaps he won’t be happy in his supposed homeland either. Iran might be more to his liking. After all they don’t have any homosexuals at all.
Yes, it is wrong of me to hold oppressed people to a higher standard, thinking they should know better, as I have done in the past. The black couple who don’t want to foster gay children has as much right to be bigots as the rest of us.
Finally, it seems very odd for a rabbi to ask for more religious freedom, exactly because of the history of Judaism in Europe. What were pogroms if not expressions of religious freedom?
Sili – ah, I get it, I missed the irony. I guess that’s one of those places where the </irony> tag is useful…
I don’t want anyone to go away, I want them to be governed by the laws passed according to our understanding of individual liberty. We shouldn’t grant rights to groups to oppress their members or anyone else subject to their power.
Religious liberty is subject to limitations just as free speech and assembly are. You can’t riot in the name of liberty or advocate killing fellow citizens in the name of free speech. Liberalism has developed restraints on the illiberal uses of its principles.
What if a Muslim women seeks the protection of the law to go about in public uncovered, or even to become an atheist or a Buddhist? What are the demands of religious liberty that law and justice are required to vindicate, and what demands must be rejected in order to vindicate them? I say the answer will usually be found in the support of individual liberty against the claims of religious collectives. Religious liberty, in order to be real and worth defending, must belong to individuals. We support the rights of groups only insofar as doing so supports the rights of the individuals in them. There will always be hard cases like the burqa ban where interests are less than clear, but the general principle is a good one to apply.
I love this part. It really does sum up their goal. I never know just how to respond when people who are discriminating claim that they’re being discriminated against.
@ernie keller (#31): You make a good point. You comment reminds me of this blog entry by Adam Lee, The Fiction of Corporate Religious Freedom (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/11/corporate-religious-freedom.html).
I love the ending of the article, especially the last sentence.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, called on the Chief Rabbi to withdraw his “foolish” statement and apologise for suggesting that his religion is not allowed to flourish in Britain.
“If by religious freedom the Chief Rabbi means religious privilege, it is clear that he would be happier in some kind of theocracy,” he said.
“Rather than fleeing this country, he should thank his God that he lives here and knows that he and his people are safe and free to practice their religion within the law.
“The equality laws that he disparages are a wonderful achievement and something that most people – including many Jews – welcome as progressive, just and long overdue.”
Ani Sharmin, I think the attempt by liberal countries (Canada, U.K., U.S.) to practice accommodation against the liberty interests of individual students, women and various dissenters has been a disaster. It’s gotten so bad that Michael Ruse is fed up (for how long? for good?).
Sorry, I forget that I’m not a regular. I think people on Pharyngula know not to take me too seriously.
Not that I don’t make mistakes there as well – as evidenced by my mishandling of said anti-gay, black fosterparents.
Anyone else wonder why we put all religious beliefs under one umbrella as if they are all equal and we must not discriminate between any of them?
Is there something wrong with discriminating against people based on their beliefs? I mean really we do it all the time except when it comes to religious beliefs.
No prob Sili. (And you’re not completely not a regular. I mean, you’re not a stranger, like.)
That’s a rich vein of irony the Rabbi has opened there. My favorite nugget is that he’s complaining about religious “persecution” (ie. religious folk not being allowed to make life difficult for people their god disapproves of), in a country from which his co-religionists were once forcibly expelled, but where he now sits in the House of Lords. Methinks he’s forgotten the meaning of the word.
He’s hearkening back to the glorious tradition of My religious liberty to persecute You.