open Democracy News Analysis - Homophobia,Theocracy & Modernity, Damian O'Loan - Comments

britologywatch on "Homophobia,Theocracy & Modernity"

britologywatch — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:32:02 +0000

@ Damian,

"Far from being a moot point, morality as the role of government is the question raised by Mrs Robinson". Fair enough; that is her question but it wasn't the question I was raising. I was asking whether - not asserting that - morality was a / the fundamental role of government. On the one hand, I agree with you that government in pluralist societies can no longer stand for absolutist systems of morality; but, on the other hand, I simply don't believe that it's possible for government to be divorced from public morality altogether, unless we're thinking of states such as Burma or Iraq under Saddam, which is not exactly what you meant. Governments do have to live up to, albeit limited, moral standards, even if those standards are set by the people they are answerable to. But those standards aren't 'morality' per se: I disagree with you when you say that "morality is as subjective as will'; and, indeed, you seem to contradict that statement yourself when you make a differentiation between rights and absolute non-rights, such as murder or child abuse. Political and legal rights are not moral rights: we have a right to commit adultery or abort our foetuses but this of itself does not make such things morally right. However, in a democratic society, I would like to think I could live up to the ambition of being prepared to fight to the death to defend our right to establish those relative rights and wrongs by which civilised society must live.

Damian O'Loan on "Homophobia,Theocracy & Modernity"

Damian O'Loan — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:15:32 +0000

britologywatch,

Thanks for your comment. I'll try to respond to the issues you raise.

"I think you're rather disingenuous in the way you associate the Cardinal's statement that governments should uphold 'God's morality' with Iris Robinson's apparent moral code. Not that I can act as a spokesperson for him, but I'm sure he would regard child abuse as a much more grievous sin than consensual gay sex or sodomy."

I imagine he would as well. He was wrong, though, not to make a statement on clarifying this distance. There may be some Catholics who feel he has lent his support to her stance, and this needs to be clarified. In any case, his comments were strictly on the role of government, and it is those that I take issue with.

"On one level, when a Catholic refers to 'God's morality', this just means true morality, or morality per se. Now, it's a genuinely moot point whether it is one of the responsibilities of governments to uphold moral values in this more general sense."

Far from being a moot point, morality as the role of government is the question raised by Mrs Robinson. You cannot address a different point ("it is one of..."); her view was anti-democratic, and she repeated it twice.

"resorting to cultural standards... instead of morally right or wrong."

Not quite cultural standards, but the will of the people. That is democracy. Morality is as subjective as will, though both can be manipulated and coerced. What is significant is that the people control government, as opposed to being controlled by theologians.

"Indeed, it's hard to imagine what our society would be like if governments didn't think they had any role in symbolising and encouraging moral standards of behaviour"

The standard should be the rights we have, and those we do not have. We have no right to muder, steal or abuse children. We do have a right to behave in accordance with our sexuality. We have those rights we choose by our votes. We have no responsibilities to government other than to vote and pay taxes; they are thereafter only to ourselves. That is not to support individualism, only the right to choose it. Particularly in an economically liberal state, that is the least that can be expected. It's not hard to imagine a state divorced from public morality, there are examples close to this model within the EU functioning as well as, or better, than the UK.

Patrick,

"all thanks to idiotic Iris"

All credit to the work you and others have been doing, though no credit is due to Iris Robinson. It is despite her, and those who feel too alienated to play a role in public discussions in the aftermath of her comments must be respected in their silence.

Further, I am considering the views expressed elsewhere that she may be experiencing personal difficulties, as the behaviour is extreme, even by her standards. I feel it's best to deal with her comments alone - "love the sinner, hate the sin," if you like.

Not logged in on "Homophobia,Theocracy & Modernity"

Not logged in — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:35:57 +0000

But on the upside... Northern Ireland's gay community is arguably more motivated and mobilised than ever before - all thanks to idiotic Iris. I give a review of the online and offline campaign to hold her to account and look forward to Belfast Pride 2008 on Belfast and Beyond.

britologywatch on "Homophobia,Theocracy & Modernity"

britologywatch — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:48:00 +0000

I think you're rather disingenuous in the way you associate the Cardinal's statement that governments should uphold 'God's morality' with Iris Robinson's apparent moral code. Not that I can act as a spokesperson for him, but I'm sure he would regard child abuse as a much more grievous sin than consensual gay sex or sodomy. There are, of course, many different interpretations of Christian moral teaching; and Mrs Robinson's appears to be at one extreme end of the spectrum.

On one level, when a Catholic refers to 'God's morality', this just means true morality, or morality per se. Now, it's a genuinely moot point whether it is one of the responsibilities of governments to uphold moral values in this more general sense. In our so-called 'post-Christian' era, governments in this country have tended to evade this question, resorting to cultural standards such as 'British values', 'decency', 'social acceptability', personal and social responsibility, even political correctness, instead of morally right or wrong. But at the same time, those cultural values do mediate a vestigial or, for some politicians, actual Christian set of moral standards. What is our 'public morality' actually based on, after all? I would say it's more Christian in origin and inspiration than 'purely' secular or rationalist. Indeed, it's hard to imagine what our society would be like if governments didn't think they had any role in symbolising and encouraging moral standards of behaviour - even, in Gordon Brown's sense of rights and responsibilities, encoding and enforcing them.

Homophobia,Theocracy & Modernity, Damian O'Loan

Damian OLoan — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:23:24 +0000

Damian O'Loan (Paris): What kind of company was Labour keeping when it relied on DUP votes to get 42 day detention through the Commons? The answer is becoming clearer by the day.

Iris Robinson MP, MLA, wife of Northern Ireland First Minister Peter, has made three horrendous statements on public morality. The latest to be reported: “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children.”

On the 6th June she described homosexuality as an “abomination” and mental illness. The resulting controversy lasted the eleven days until the quote above. Last Thursday she said “the government is there to uphold the morals of the scriptures.” The DUP has yet to make a statement distancing itself from her support for theocracy and homophobia.

On Sunday, Ireland's most senior Catholic, Cardinal Brady, declared his general agreement with the view that government's role is to“uphold God's morality.” Though he spoke after the Pope's apology,and has released statements since, he has not distanced himself from Mrs Robinson's views.

Aside from the damage to Unionism that the First Minister's wife is doing, aside from the suffering her comments must evoke in child abuse victims and the LGBT community, there is the question of how close this to party policy. The failure of the DUP to distance itself from her views, given six weeks to do so, means one can reasonably assume this is party policy, or within a hair's breadth of it.

Support for theocracy, or a move in that direction, could, ironically, be perceived as a vote-winner in a province that is far removed from Great Britain in terms of modernity. Having lost Ian Paisley, who was leader of his own evangelical church, there is a fear of losing hard-right grassroots support. The Catholic Church clearly has a place for theocracy, and the Pope has been confusing materialism and Enlightenment values:

“the radical detachment of Enlightenment philosophy from its roots becomes in the last analysis, contempt for man. ”

In a world where temptation without hope of satisfaction is rife, the simplicity offered by religious self-effacement must be increasingly attractive. But, as Camus reminds us:

“Heir to a corrupt history, in which are mingled fallen revolutions,technology gone mad, dead gods, and worn-out ideologies,... this generation knows that it should, in an insane race against the clock, restore among the nations a peace that is not servitude, reconcile anew labour and culture, and remake with all men the Ark of the Covenant.”