Religion and Family Values

“Homosexuality is contrary to religion and family values” according to the Serbian Right-Wing groups who attacked the Gay Pride march in central Belgrade earlier today. The Serbian Orthodox Church which stands for what the majority of what counts for religion in the area had condemned the organisation of the Gay Pride march although, to be fair, it had warned against violence against participants. The Gay Pride march had already been called off last year due to the threat of violence. Several hundred anti-gay protesters were quoted as saying “The hunt has begun. Death to homosexuals”.

“It is a shame for me to march, to stand for what I am, and to have thousands of cops protect me from hysteric [sic] nationalists,” lesbian activist Milena, 36, told Reuters. The BBC’s Mark Lowen says homosexuality is still largely a taboo in Serbia, a conservative and religious nation.

You’ve got to hand it to them. When religion and family values get down to work it turns out to be one hell of a party.

Facebook Comments Box

J'accuse : This Damn Nation

I read through Mgr Said Pullicino’s fire and brimstone sermon before the assembled judiciary and other representatives of the legal profession with the patience of a Job tried and tested. Earlier in the day I had published my initial reaction on the blog and for the benefit of those who are lucky enough not to yet have the words reverberating in their ears, I shall translate what LorSignor Said Pullicino (Their Sir – definitely not mine) said:

“Before such a clear doctrine of its Teacher (aka Jesus of Nazareth) the Church has nothing to discuss about divorce and the introduction thereof. She (the Church) must limit herself to teaching that whosoever cooperates in any way with the introduction of divorce into the laws of Malta, whosoever applies the law of divorce and whosoever makes recourse to such a law (not being the innocent party), is breaking the Law of God and therefore will be committing a grave sin (ghalhekk ikun qed jidneb b’mod gravi).”

My initial reaction was simple: The Church, being a private institution (even though we are press-ganged into its membership at a moment in life when we cannot raise much objections), is within its rights to determine the parameters of what constitute bonus points towards an eternity of roasting in hell in the egregious company of infidels. True. There are no two ways to go about that. This is no democracy – it is a Universal Catholic Top Heavy Illumination claiming that its dogmas and precepts are inspired by the Old Man in the Sky. Since the witch doctors, druids and augurers of the past, this has been an absolute unqualified condition of religious authority and it is not up to mere mortals to contradict that.

I bow my head low (as low as is politely possible) to such authority over their flock of fervent followers as I would bow my head to the authority of whatever religious leader has over his particular flock. When Said Pullicino does his pick’n’mix selection of biblical tracts and papal encyclicals in order to substantiate the conclusion that the Catholic Church reaches in this particular corner of the world, I cannot be bothered to cross-refer him to other similar collective quotations used by other denominations to reach dramatically different conclusions since I already know the retort that lies in such a battleground, and it involves diabolical citation of scriptural writings.

The Books of Our Judges

Sure. We cannot interfere in Said Pullicino’s expounding of Catholic dogma – nor can we question his absolute statement, which rules out any form of discussion with the Catholic Church on divorce. It’s their problem. “Their” being Catholics. The problem is that gathered before Said Pullicino was no ordinary flock but the representatives of our legal community (oops I almost said brotherhood) gearing up for the opening of another Forensic Year. I am told that such gathering is by invitation and does not form part of the official events of the legal fraternity so presence at such a gathering was optional.

Having said that, I do find it jarring that a symbol of the wisdom of the secular state and a group of people representing one of the main institutions that guarantee the balance of power in the land gather so forcefully before a particular confession to the point that the speaker from the pulpit could claim that “The tradition in the Church that at the beginning of the judicial year, the Judges and the Administrators come to the Altar to request the help of God, the Holy Spirit, in order that he can help them in their ministry (his words not mine) of administration of justice began in the Middle Ages”. So that’s it then? They gather for the sake of perpetuating tradition, right?

The eminent LorSignor goes on to expound the principle of illuminated decision implying that secular law is really an expression of Natural Law (the Law of God expressed by man in recognition of His Justice) and that such service as is given by administrators of justice is in order to put into effect this natural law for the COMMON GOOD. What follows is a rambling about no man being an island and then a warning of the dangers of a secular society. The cheek. The absolute gall. He WAS speaking to representatives of the state with a duty to apply the laws of that secular state when sitting at the bench.

LorSignor went on to attack the consequences of certain “secularisation” and lists the offending laws with the usual confusion of evils (divorce, abortion, homosexuals) that benefits those who have already ruled out any discussion on any one of them. Which is why he concludes the first part of the Sermon and the Rant with the unequivocal condemnation of collaborators with an eventual law on divorce to the status of “committers of grave sins”. Speaking to an assembled congregation of servants of the Constitution, he actively urges them to break the law by not performing their duty before the law.

And my reaction to that was simply: resign. Not Said Pullicino, but the judges called upon to refuse to administer the law of the land. Should they decide to do so then their position is untenable. We cannot have “conscientious objectors” sitting on our benches in court. We cannot have servants of the law subjecting their discretion to their moral values. Should a judge decide that Said Pullicino’s brand of Catholicism is also his then he is free to do. What he is not free to do is to usurp the workings of a secular state with the morals of a Church that dwells in Middle Age traditions.

The Satanic Versions

bert4j_101010What Said Pullicino fails to notice is that having judges sitting on secular courts but applying religious principles above secular law is equivalent to the final admission that this state of ours has succumbed to the Catholic Version of Sharia Law. Which is worrying. Because what will stop Said Pullicino from reviving Mosaic Law in his next Medieval Traditional Sermon next year? And what will he stop at exactly? Given the propensity to confuse adultery with divorce, and given the willingness to throw divorce, homosexual marriage and abortion in the same basket, what will stop LorSignor reminding next years’ legal beavers listening in to his rant that Leviticus 18:22 was confirmed by Paul the Tourist in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28?

What was that about? I’ll tell you what that was about. Here’s Leviticus: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” And here’s Corinthians: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” What guarantee does Said Pullicino give the secular members of this state that homosexuality will not become his next pet inspiration and anathema? And if it will not? Why not?
strong>To’ebah (abomination)

All is not lost though and it is important to keep matters in perspective. Others have begun to react to this Medieval Speech – Here’s what just-retired Judge Philip Sciberras had to say: “I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition.” Michael Falzon (of the Constructor’s Association) pointed out the apparent contradictions in Roman Catholic practices in his blog on MaltaToday (“The Tribe that lost its head”, Friday 8 October) and I.M. Beck also had something to say as to the insensitivity of some arguments.

The truth of the matter is that much as we might find it interesting to try to “convince” the Church and its flock of the politically and democratically heretic nature of this latest intervention, we might as well be arguing with a gagged, blindfolded and deaf monkey. Said Pullicino told us that clearly: “the Church has nothing to discuss”. And so be it. In doing so the Church (in the guise of Said Pullicino) is also abdicating its tradition of social contribution that started in the early 1800s.

I count myself among those who argue in favour of a social role of the Church in discussions about family, social cohesion and solidarity. What I refuse to consider is the Church of indulgences, fire and brimstone, mortal sin and whatever other superstition it chooses to revive. By shifting the argument from social participation as a peer with valid experience in society to the field of supernatural abomination and fear, the Church does not only not wish to discuss but it also finds itself in a position when it stops being anybody with whom it is worth discussing. The Church has abused the supernatural before to meddle with the secular – remember the abuse of the Fear of Mortal Sin in the 60s when reading a newspaper could win you a timeshare in hell?

Kill your idols

This is a secular society at the start of the 21st century. We are proud members of a wider community that recognises basic fundamental rights as being the foundation of harmonious living in which society strives towards a common good. These include respect for the dignity of man, the right to life, the right to integrity of the person, the right to private life and to a family and the right to marriage and the founding of a family. This society believes in freedom of thought, conscience and religion and believes that we are all equal before the law, which is why it is founded on the principles of non-discrimination and recognises cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

This society has enshrined such principles as solidarity, equality and justice in its basic tenets and now, thanks to the Charter on Fundamental Rights within the European Union, we have added an extra cushion and guarantee to these rights and principles. The preamble to the Charter states that: “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.” The ultimate aim is a future of peace based on common values.

Given the choice between the comfort of secular law inspired by the common fundamental values of mankind and the volatile superstitions of the Catholic imposition I know where my heart lies. What I do find disappointing is the abdication of responsibilities by the majority of our political leaders. It is evident that they are biding their time – unable to really fathom which way the wind is going to blow in the end. They have been dealt quite a blow by Said Pullicino since any MP voting for the law will surely be branded a “co-operator” and public sinner – so a huge big up (well done) to Pullicino Orlando for continuing his crusade. It is not a sinful crusade. It is a crusade to grant a civil right and possibility to numerous individuals who would love a second, civil chance at marriage. No amount of Taliban-like rhetoric should prevent that right from being enacted at law and applied in the courts of our land.

Pauline Privilege

I had not heard of the Pauline Privilege until the whole ruckus began. Look it up – it is an interesting, exceptional circumstance that relates to ‘pagans’ (who incidentally don’t only live in the African bush). It is an interpretation of another of Paul the Tourist’s letters (1 Corinthians 7:10-15) and is interpreted “as allowing the dissolution of a marriage contracted between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage”. In that case the Church is perfectly happy to recognise the divorce for the sake of greater proselytising.

Pauline Privilege or no Pauline Privilege, we are not meant to be discussing the contradictions of the Church. The issue at stake is the secular laws and their application. There is no doubt that Said Pullicino’s faux pas has not contributed in any good way to the issue of the introduction of divorce. When I say faux pas I repeat that this is not in any way a judgement on the beliefs and interpretations of the religious institution but on its evident intent of holding the servants of the state in a moral blackmail and preventing them from performing their duty.

It is in that sense that we risk being damned as a nation. Condemned to the damnation of the imposition of the beliefs and values of the few over the laws for and by the many. It is, in its own way, another watershed in the defining of this young nation of ours.

www.akkuza.com is recovering from a savage bout of the common cold and flu.

Facebook Comments Box

Pronto? Giacinto?

Calciopoli 2 continues at a surprisingly slower pace.  It took Calciopoli  I 86 days to condemn Juventus to Serie B. Funnily enough with much more proof at its disposal Calciopoli II is dragging its feet. But here is an extract from the phone call between Bergamo and Facchetti for the sublime delectation of football fans over the weekend. Intercettati FC.. pazza inter amala! Do note that Juventus were condemned for violation of the first article of the code – the same kind of violation that could occur should lets say a dirgiente of a football team such as , for example, Inter, were to call the designatore and say, for example: “Metti Collina”….

G.  \ Va bene, senti, per domenica allora?

P.  \ Senti, per domenica noi facciamo un gruppo di internazionali, perché non vogliamo rischiare niente, quindi sono quattro, tutti e quattro possono fare la partita, c’è…

G.  \ Va beh, ma metti dentro Collina

P.  \ Ma tutti internazionali, Giacinto, così perlomeno non c’è discussione, perché c’è dentro Collina, c’è dentro Paparesta, c’è dentro Bertini e c’è dentro Rodomonti, quindi…

G.  \ Ho capito

P.  \ Sono tutti internazionali e abbiamo evitato che ci fossero anche troppi giovani, per esempio, anche se Trefoloni sta facendo bene, però preferisco lasciarmelo al girone di ritorno

G.  \ Ah

P.  \ E poi… e poi non abbiamo altri, sinceramente, perché, sai, tolti questi quattro, Messina non mi dà più garanzie per una partita così dura

G.  \ Perché? Non sta andando bene?

P.  \ Ma non è che non va bene, è che ogni volta che lo proviamo nelle partite grosse… l’altro anno lo provai in “Milan – Roma” e l’ha fatta male

G.  \ Ah

P.  \ Ed è un po’ scarico, è un po’ scarico, perché a livello internazionale è ormai messo da parte

G.  \ Ah

P.  \ E quindi lui… ora ci devo parlare, deve ritrovare più forza, più determinazione

G.  \ Ma lui non è… non è nella “first class” adesso?

P.  \ No, sì, è nella “first class”, ma c’è momentaneamente, perché…

G.  \ Ah, ho capito

P.  \ Il posto suo lo prende… lo prende Rosetti, perché Rosetti ha delle aspettative, è giovane

G.  \ Sì

P.  \ Sta facendo meglio a livello internazionale, hai capito?

G.  \ Ho capito, ho capito

P.  \ E’ un po’ un problema

G.  \ Va beh, con Bertini abbiamo avuto qualche problemino, eh

P.  \ Con chi?

G.  \ Con Bertini, abbiamo avuto qualche problemino anche l’anno scorso là a Torino e anche un paio di altre partite abbiamo avuto qualche problema con Bertini

P.  \ Mah, semmai sfortunatamente fosse così, ci parlo, perché, anzi, semmai… semmai è meglio, ti devo dire, eh, capito?

G.  \ Eh, non lo so

P.  \ Uhm

G.  \ No, volevo dirtelo, perché…

P.  \ No, hai fatto bene, hai fatto bene

G.  \ Qualche problema lo abbiamo avuto, proprio “Juve – Inter”

P.  \ Ma io mi ricordavo a Perugia

G.  \ A Perugia clamoroso

P.  \ Sì

G.  \ E a Torino… e a Torino con la “Juve” l’anno scorso, anche là è stata una – inc. –

P.  \ Cos’è stato laggiù?

G.  \ C’è stato il gol loro, il gol loro che è fuorigioco e non… perché il portiere era fuori e non ha visto che c’era solo un giocatore dietro, no?

P.  \ E ma quello è l’assistente, Giacinto

G.  \ Ah

P.  \ Per l’arbitro era difficile vedere il fuorigioco, eh, se sbaglia l’assistente sei morto purtroppo

G.  \ Ah, ho capito

P.  \ Eh, eh, e quello sbaglia anche se c’è Collina, eh

G.  \ E poi abbiamo avuto, insomma, un certo tipo di… di tensione, so che erano arrabbiati tutti i giocatori, Moratti anche lui, anche quest’anno lo abbiamo avuto, non erano molto contenti, non è solo l’arbitraggio, eh, ma va beh, vedi…

P.  \ Scusa, aspetta soltanto un attimo, perché mi metti una curiosità, dunque avete fatto “Inter – Palermo”, uno a uno

G.  \ Con lui?

P.  \ Con Bertini

G.  \ Eh

P.  \ Ma “Roma – Inter”, per esempio, avete fatto tre a tre, ma lì vincevate tre a uno, poi s’è addormentata la difesa

G.  \ Sì, sì, no, beh

P.  \ La partita l’ha fatta bene a Roma, eh

G.  \ Sì, non mi ricordo, io so solo che… ho in mente… va beh, Perugina e l’anno scorso Torino

P.  \ Sì, Perugia l’altro anno sì, ma fu un errore talmente clamoroso

G.  \ Sì

P.  \ Perché ci fu il fallo di mano di – inc. -, ma lui era controsole lì, quindi…

G.  \ Sì

P.  \ E me lo ricordo quello, sì, ma insomma, dai, stiamo a vedere

G.  \ Va bene, va bene

P.  \ Semmai ci parlo, eh

G.  \ Va bene, okay

P.  \ Bene

G.  \ Ciao

P.  \ In bocca al lupo

G.  \ Ciao

P.  \ Ciao, Giacinto, ciao

G.  \ Ciao, ciao.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Collaborate and Be Damned

Today’s Times will carry the news that “all those who “cooperate” in the introduction of divorce, including judges who apply the law, would be “committing a grave sin”, according to the head of the Church tribunals.” And they’re at it again. Before you get involved into some giant backlash of church vs state, ceasar vs god, layman vs believer etc etc may I urge you to consider conversion. It’s not that difficult. The Lutheran church will admit you with a rebaptism. You will still be christian but without the cobwebs and barmy eejits behaving like latter day ayatollahs such as the head of the Church tribunals. It is after all matters such as these that instigated the great reformation by Luther. Consider it. Seriously. With a big enough rate of conversion I’m prepared to bet heavily that members of the church will suddenly revise its position on what constitutes grave sin.

Facebook Comments Box

On Lack of Politics at the UOM

J’accuse was shocked by a headline in the Times on the 5th of October claiming that a “Students’ body wants student’s council to be free of politics” so we decided to ask somebody from that movement – Mark Camilleri (known to most extra-uni people as the Realtà editor) to explain whether this impression of wanting to neuter the KSU was right. It turns out that Mark was just as apalled and had a few ideas of his own to express. Which is why his ideas are now here on this Zolabyte platform – for an open, mature discussion. As in every other Zolabyte J’accuse does not endorse the ideas in this article but encourages an open discussion about them – the floor is now open (Uni students are particularly encouraged to contribute).

Many students of the University of Malta and Junior College do not feel they are being represented by their University Students Council and the outstanding majority is completely alienated to politics let alone to the Students University Council. Some are not even aware it even exists. This is why I was pissed off at the headline which the TOM put on an article about the press conference, organised by Moviment Graffitti and Independent Movement which said ” Students’ body wants students’ council to be free of politics”. I can’t understand how a journalist or an editor can make such a bad mistake when they cover a press conference by a left-leaning political group which has contested the Council’s elections last year!

So, back to basics! The Council is first of all a political institution because it manages people, the students and a space, Students House. So the groups which contest its elections are by default political groups which carry ideological baggage. If we do not want politics to be part of the Council then we would be demanding its dismantlement which isn’t a bad idea farer all, considering that it has become a trojan horse to University, students and education. However our aim is to have a council which is lead by students who would work for a progressive and secular education, to help students and defend their rights. In other words we want a left-wing Council.

The Council has been reduced into an entity which has mainly two aims: to conserve the party-line of the PN with the limits of its powers, which mainly consists of an old style, Catholic type of right-wing politics, and to accumulate capital. It has became a powerful and reactionary force which resembles more a Centre of American Republicanism rather than a University Students Council.

The Council is run by the Christian Democrat Students and yes we did indeed protest against their way of doing politics, we did indeed protest against the Christian Democrats who are more interested in towing the party line, and even pushing it further to the right rather than defending student rights but we do not want students to be free from politics and if anything should be full of it.

Our press conference was a protest against how Freshers’ Week is being organised which is a fine example where the political ideology of the Student Democrats manifests in its extreme forms. During Freshers’ Week The Campus, and its surrounding areas, is filled with companies one of which is the company (Gasan Group of Companies) of the family of Stephanie Soler, a Culture and Entertainment Coordinator of the Council. Every year, the space allocated to financial companies increases at the expense of the space which students organisations can occupy. (J’accuse: This allegation has been countered by the current KSU president in this article on theTimes – “Call for more transparency in KSU finances“) So financial companies are not only being privileged because they afford paying, but the Council is dealing with the relatives of its members. But if this seems to be a conflict of interest it doesn’t compare to the favouritism and nepotism which take place through the Student Fund Scheme as I have indicated in this article: Bummers of University Unite! You have nothing to lose but your reputation.

We also reiterated the demand for full transparency of the Council’s finances. It is extremely silly how the Council can boast of its transparency just because they have an annual financial report signed by an auditor. The fact that the auditor introduced the report by claiming that the books which were presented to him had several inconsistencies, is not something of considerable importance to them. Their answer to the problematic question of transparency is, that he had signed his own audit report. How pathetic! An auditor will audit any kind of books, even if they are not detailed or lack information because he is being paid to compile a report. The report is a result of the accounts which are presented. So if you present bad accounts, you will end up with a bad financial report and it wouldn’t be the auditor’s fault. Silly isn’t it, that I have to explain basic accounting procedures to a university students council? Yes, unfortunately University politics does not only include disputes about politics but also about how to get your stuff right. If you have any doubts don’t bury these facts with the typical PN accusations of ”mud-slinging” but go and ask for a copy of the financial report from their office. Look for revenue and expenditure break-downs, especially break-downs of revenue for advertisement and rent. They aren’t there and the Council does not seem to be the least interested in publishing them. Hurray for full transparency!

However being a leftist I am not only involved in student politics to bring radical change but also for the sake of political survival. During the last year the Council evacuated Moviment Graffitti out of their office and members of the Council reported issue 8 of Ir-Realta’ to the University Authorities, the reason being that they were offended by a fictional story. They twisted the regulations of the Council’s Statute so as to avoid PULSE’s proposal of Proportional Representation from gaining ground in the Council’s Annual General Meeting of 2010. They started a strong campaign against the lecturers, acting more like strike-breakers than students who were critical of a bad situation when the lecturers had a dispute with the government and as a result started a work to rule strike. Carl Grech, the Council’s president had the cheek to say that the dispute was resolved by the Council during a debate held prior to the 2010 elections, on Campus. They even had the nerve to make a pro-Catholic campaign against a condom machine at University as if such a proposal was something worth opposing. So when such a Council is clearly bent to pursue a hardcore right-wing ideology, small and unconnected left-wing groups will get choked. Being on a continuous political offensive while uniting with different groups to form a movement will have our political opponents removed from the Council.

I will end my article with a plea. I greatly respect other organisations such as MOVE, PULSE and IDEAT but I still believe that they aren’t doing their best to unite in a bigger movement. The main problem is that PULSE has been demoralised by consecutive election defeats and their determination is slowing down. As usual the ego is sometimes also a problem as in a movement compromises have to be made. But this neither means that the left should compromise its ideals to defeat the Christian-Democrats. The left can be consistent and united only if those who feel to be part of it are ready to overcome difficult challenges.

J’accuse endquote: Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. (SDM Participation Campaign Slogan 1996/7 – from Plato).

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Facebook Comments Box

Bondi+ on VAT

The season’s begun. TVM is orphaned of Dissett and we have Bondi’s program to follow the hot topics. We’ve kicked off with MaidGate and an analysis of Tonio Fenech‘s slip regarding his home help. Rachel’s running around interviewing the MPs as per usual – why not a direct line with the MP’s every week asking them the question of choice? While the balance of the story was straightforward and simple – the tradition of non-tax paying maids vs the strict letter of the law we could not help but noticing one glaring flaw in the program.

The guest list:

  • Joe Friggieri – philosophy teacher (ghalliem tal-filosofija)
  • Toni Abela – lawyer /labour Vici-Kap
  • Francis Zammit Dimech – lawyer/ PN MP
  • Chris Cutajar – opinjonistà

Now. This was a case that kept bringing into question the issue of taxes and tax payments. Would it have been too much to bring a tax lawyer/ tax advisor to clarify certain issues on the programme? Do we really have to hear the “minghalija” (if I am not mistaken) and politically biased legal assessments of the guests?

And finally will Toni Abela spare us the “xamma ta’ korruzzjoni” business for the future? He is unable to stand bz his own allegations. What next? Xummiemu the investigator?

Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box