"POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.
Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act."
I'm so glad Muslim Leaders promised not to reveal intelligence they are shown. That makes me feel SOOOO much better. I trust that. Sure. I do. Really. Honest. NO, REALLY!
Do they consult the Church of England before they arrest Christians?
Just askin'
The Gunslinger
Yes, you are slow on the draw...for a gunslinger...(-:
ReplyDeleteDidn't you know all Muslims are peceful and honest? There's no need to ask them to sign the OFA, it might offend them.
It's us infidels who can't be trusted.
Silly Billy.
What goes around comes around, I just hope it happens in my life time. It's possible, I'm 44.
ReplyDeleteG.K. Chesterton was once asked what would shape the course of history. His answer: 'Events!'. Things don't just happen, they're made to happen.
ReplyDeleteOr not.
Unless our mob do something, everything we love will vanish in the night without so much as a whimper of protest.
Mr. Smith- Agreed. (Although GKC had some rather dated and dodgy ideas about women...about much I agree with him.) :-)
ReplyDeleteI do not doubt we will "do something", my only fear is that we will wait so long that Churchill's warning will apply: "...you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival."
Heheh. Now I'm curious as to what of his ideas you consider 'dated and dodgy' and why...
ReplyDelete"do they consult the church of England before they arrest Christians",a good point,they never consulted my local church when I was arrested once,SHIT,I am taking them to court,THE BASTARDS!.(he he he)
ReplyDeleteMr. Smith,
ReplyDeleteI don't have the reference immediately to hand—but I think he particularly addresses the "woman question" in "What's Wrong with the World". If I remember correctly, essentially, he feels all women ought to stay home and be good mothers and dutiful wives; that men are better at dealing with the "world" (in this he and C.S. Lewis agree, though for different reasons), and in general ought to shut up and let men get on with it.
Now, I'm the first one to accept the natural differences between men and women, and consider the lengths to which modern feminists have gone to pretend they don't exist, preposterous.
But...I am certainly not of the opinion that all women are best employed being ONLY mommies...any more than I believe all men are best employed being ONLY coal miners.
He & Lewis were devout Christians, and I'm sure that informed their views to some extent. They did, after all, have St. Paul to deal with. But they were also products of a different age, and that is something difficult, even in the most intelligent and incisive minds, to overcome.
Agreed, all this insane appeasement is doing is showing everybody who cares to watch that violence works. Just look at the IRA, kill enough people and suddenly you've got a valid point and are an essential part of things. Amazing. Maybe a new religion (or a spin off an old one) would do the trick. Having no beliefs of their own, governments make a lot of allowances for those who do. Provided the incentive is there. Example, in the UK Sikhs are allowed to carry fixed-blade knives as part of their religion. This applies to no other group in the country.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Chesterton and Lewis. I've not read all of Lewis just yet but I've never read him saying that women "ought to stay home and be good mothers and dutiful wives...and in general ought to shut up and let men get on with it."
Interesting that you mention Chesterton's What's Wrong With The World, I'm reading it at the moment and have just gotten to the part on feminism. Who knows, it might help me put a few things into perspective.
Ok, I've just had a scan of the chapters ahead dealing with this and have found what might be the crucial point, or at least a crucial point:
"I do not deny that women have been wronged and even tortured; but I doubt if they were ever tortured so much as they are tortured now by the absurd modern attempt to make them domestic empresses and competitive clerks at the same time."
A few more questions on this, and I hope you don't mind my being argumentative, but I do think these are important points to discuss:
- What's 'to deal with' about St. Paul?
- In what sense were they products 'of a different age'? It was, I think, Chesterton who said that 'the Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age'.
P.S. - I've posted a reply to your comment on my blog, too.
ReplyDeleteMr. Smith--
ReplyDelete"ought to stay home and be good mothers and dutiful wives...and in general ought to shut up and let men get on with it."
I wasn't quoting them, just giving a rather general assessment of my impression! (grin)
'the Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age'.
Just because Chesterton said it doesn't make it true! Christianity has been the bane and horror of generations of women...whether they were burned at the state, turned out because they got pregnant, beaten by Christian fathers and husbands "for the sake of their souls", forced into convents and perpetual virginity, considered to be without souls, refused the priesthood, and treated as the evil daughters of Eve the Temptress, and held responsible for the FALL OF MAN.
"...domestic empresses and competitive clerks at the same time."
I certainly agree as far as this goes...but he fails to mention the option of being Prime Minister, or CEO of a major corporation, or artist or writer, or scientist. Between clerking and homemaking, no doubt homemaking is the more desireable. But those are not the only options, so it is, in the end, a false argument.
Saint Paul has demanded the silence of women in church (1Cor 14:34-35)
And he has (albeit confusingly) expressed the opinion that man is subject to God, but woman to man. (1Cor 11:2-16) Whatever he meant by these and other remarks, they've been used as clubs to keep Christian "women in their place". A "place" in which Chesterton and Lewis, in a refined and civilized manner to be sure, consider she ought to remain.
Lewis, in "Mere Christianity" addresses the "man is the head of woman" argument by saying that in any partnership, there will be disagreements. And in that case, one person must be the final arbiter. He considers it should always be the man...because he is more objective, worldly, and fair. He uses the example of the child who breaks a neighbor's window (or something similar). He claims that the mother will admit to no misbehavior on the part of her child, will circle the wagons, so to speak, to protect her offspring and lash out at the accuser. He goes on to maintain that the father will be more realistic about the situation, more civil and objective. His point is that women are so emotional, so attached and protective, so fiercely loyal that they are incapable of the level of objectivity, fairplay, rule-following, and "honor" that men are; that women are biased toward their loved one and friends, causes and beliefs to such an extent that they are incapable of being objective with regard to them. In other words: women are emotional, not rational.
Pshaw!
If that's isn't someone enslaved by the limited, skewed worldview of his age, I've never seen one!
Gunslinger,
ReplyDeleteThis is a little hobby of mine, this kind of discussion, so I hope it won't come off as offensive at all. With that in mind, here goes:
"I wasn't quoting them, just giving a rather general assessment of my impression! (grin)"
Fair enough. Nobody can be expected to be a walking encyclopedia.
"Just because Chesterton said it doesn't make it true!"
Nor did I say it did.
Christianity has been the bane and horror of generations of women...whether they were burned at the state, turned out because they got pregnant, beaten by Christian fathers and husbands "for the sake of their souls", forced into convents and perpetual virginity, considered to be without souls, refused the priesthood, and treated as the evil daughters of Eve the Temptress, and held responsible for the FALL OF MAN.
Those are some massive claims there, and all of them aimed at the doctrine of Christianity itself, as opposed to just the one Church or the other. Some of them even in quotation marks. This suggests that you have evidence of something in the doctrine of, shall we call it, mere Christianity, which proclaims such a role for women. So what is this evidence, please?
I certainly agree as far as this goes...but he fails to mention the option of being Prime Minister, or CEO of a major corporation, or artist or writer, or scientist. Between clerking and homemaking, no doubt homemaking is the more desireable. But those are not the only options, so it is, in the end, a false argument.
I fear yours might be, too. You seem to be suggesting that since Chesterton only mentioned clerking, he could only have imagined women being clerks, and clerks, and clerks, ad infinitum. Myself, I find it very hard to believe that the man who wrote Father Brown, The Man Who Was Thursday, and The Ball and the Cross had such a tiny and limited imagination. Under such, I think it makes more sense to take that statement as referring to all jobs which turn humans into slaves which, as another great thinker once said, is all paid jobs.
Saint Paul has demanded the silence of women in church (1Cor 14:34-35)
And he has (albeit confusingly) expressed the opinion that man is subject to God, but woman to man. (1Cor 11:2-16) Whatever he meant by these and other remarks, they've been used as clubs to keep Christian "women in their place". A "place" in which Chesterton and Lewis, in a refined and civilized manner to be sure, consider she ought to remain.
I think I risk misunderstanding you here. I've gone to BibleGateway.com to look up those verses and find that the one commanding silence is the first half of a sentence which finishes with 'if the woman has any questions, let her ask her husband after church'. This, coupled with the admonition against multiple prophets speaking at once which goes just before it, suggests to me that it's a rule along the lines of 'don't interrupt the lecturer with questions until after the lecture'.
The question of headship appears to be one of natural order as seen by Christianity. If you don't believe in Christianity, you don't have to follow it. And if you do, then you have to find a way to make it work in harmony with charity and kindness, as opposed to any domestic abuse that, say, the CoE fears might result from a Christian marriage. (I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that no other ideology has done half as much to promote the ideals of charity and kindness as has Christianity.) Moreover, this headship clause does give men a crown, granted, but it is a crown of thorns. Ephesians 5, 22-25, makes clear that the submission of a woman to her husband comes at the price of the husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church. Lest we forget, Christ loved the church so much that he died for it under excruciating torments.
But perhaps I misunderstand your point of 'a place to keep women in'. Did you mean something other than what I've answered to?
"...He claims that the mother will admit to no misbehavior on the part of her child, will circle the wagons, so to speak, to protect her offspring and lash out at the accuser... If that's isn't someone enslaved by the limited, skewed worldview of his age, I've never seen one!"
It's funny, just as I read that, I have a Law and Order episode playing on my TV in which a mother has just been caught out in keeping her son's criminal acts from the police. Not, that is, that anybody in this day and age could believe that women would circle the wagons, so to speak, to protect her offspring. ;-)
Added to which, Lewis was writing in times when belief in God was rapidly vanishing, and there were growing calls for women to be priests. He wrote strongly and eloquently against these things, these, for want of a better phrase, signs of his times. Oh, one other thing. Chesterton wrote that the Catholic church keeps one from the slavery of ones own time. Lewis was many things, but a Catholic was not one of them.
Thanks for having this discussion, it's refreshing to find someone who'll engage with the question rather than simply dismiss it. I think I'll go answer your comment on my own blog now.
Ta-ta, old bean.
First, I'd like to say that I've never, ever, been called "old bean". And I quite adore it.
ReplyDeleteNow then, to work:
When I condemn Christianity's treatment of women, I mean the behavior of Churchmen, not Christ's doctrine. As far as I can tell, Jesus said almost nothing on the subject. He had female disciples, and admonished Martha when she wanted Mary to help with kitchen chores rather than listen to him. In a world where social interaction of men and women was almost unheard of, this is a pretty big deal. You might even say he was the original feminist.
Jesus himself spoke of God as a Father...but as a loving father to all people. He did not (at least in the gospels we know of) suggest that sons were more valuable to God than daughters. In fact, he raised two dead children (if I recall) one boy and one girl...making no distinctions, treating them no differently. I don't believe there is any record of his distinguishing between men and women disciples at all. And the early epistle writers named many women as teachers, supporters and leaders in the early church.
What the heck happened?
Subsequent Churchmen, it's clear, imprisoned by their various worldviews, looked for justification for their preferred sexist (and other) practises, rather than following Christ's example or that of the early church.
Indeed, not three years ago, a Pastor of the Anglican Catholic Church told me that the reason women are barred from becoming priests is because Jesus picked 12 men to be his apostles.
Now, this is interesting when you think about it. Apparently, historical context, is irrelevant to Churchmen. Even if Jesus was non-sexist, the world he lived in certainly was not. It would have been unthinkable, patently dangerous for any woman to travel alone, or with another woman, and scandalous to travel with a man she was not related or married to...on Jesus' business.
He may have been an idealist, but Jesus wasn't stupid. It was, at the time, culturally impossible to choose any women to be active, travelling, preaching apostles. And yet, the Churchmen use this even today, when women go everywhere and do everything. It's a patently absurd justification. And is indicative of an unspoken, hidden agenda.
Also, consider:
None of the apostles were gentiles. None of them was blonde. None of them were very tall. None of them had blue eyes. None of them had straight hair. None of them had white skin. None of them was black, or yellow, or red. Presumably, none was homosexual, crippled, aged or diseased.
And yet...we have gentile, blonde, tall, blue-eyed, straight-haired, white priests. And gay, black, yellow and red priests. And crippled, aged and diseased priests.
In all this glorious diversity, the one diverse physical characteristic that remained intolerable was female genitalia.
Now you have a situation where God is a Father AND a Son (not something Jesus taught, remember) and the only people allowed to be his representatives on Earth are males.
Women's inferior status in the Church became a forgone conclusion at this point.
This is not Christ's teaching. This is the sexual politics of the Churchmen.
----
"...all jobs that turn humans into slaves...which is all paid jobs"
It's a glib point. But doesn't really MEAN anything. Keeping a house and caring for children has its pleasures, rewards and joys. But it is also tedious, repetitive, boring, frustrating, unending, exhausting, and generally lacking in intellectual stimulation. Cleaning, cleaning, cleaning, cleaning. Just like a domestic servant. But without the paycheck. How much more like a slave can you get?
The idea that women, who are intelligent, quick, curious, talented, interested, ambitious, competitive, creative...will be more fulfilled being housewives than all other possible professions is just...stupid.
Of course, raising children can be profoundly fulfilling. And it is certainly good for the kids, the family and society. But I think it is a duty that good women perform (with love, joy and great satisfaction, it is to be hoped), not necessarily the MOST personally fulfilling thing they COULD do.
I would have preferred Chesterton to admit as much: "Even though women have the choice of doing any number of thrilling and exciting jobs, it's better for the kids, the family and the culture if they stay home and raise the children. And I earnestly encourage them to do it."
But instead, from his working study, among his books and papers, where he enjoys his adult persuits of reading, writing, thinking, conversation...he proclaims that this sort of thing just isn't really for women. They'd be much happier staying home with the kids and cleaning house.
The words INSUFFERABLE CONDESCENSION leap to mind.
Why not honestly ask a bright, strong, independent, loving, Christian woman to sacrifice for her God, country and children, rather than insisting that with her limited intellect and childish emotional nature she is best employed being a nanny and a drudge?
In the same vein, Lewis' notion that women are essentially not rational is desperate reaching, demonstrably false, and, well, just silly . As a convert and brilliant apologist, he required SOME WAY to make that bit of sexism sound sensible. But as good as he was, even he couldn't manage it.
----------
Poor, poor St. Paul. I have finaly come round to thinking that he's just terribly misunderstood, has been taken out of context, used as a justification for the most pernicious behavior, and has suffered a tarnished reputation as a result.
I think in the end that most things he said in his epistles regarding specific behavior was in direct response to particular events or problems in specific churches. Again, I think the Churchmen disregarded that fact, and used every word he said as if Paul meant it to apply universally both in time and space. I dare say he wrote to the Corinthians about chatty and women who disrupted services...but not the Romans. So isn't it likely they had some women at Corinth that were causing difficulty...and Paul was addressing that particular problem? I think it was. And yet, the Churchmen of various sects have used that and other statements to dominate, silence and control women in their congregations.
However, Paul is clearly speaking universally in his admonition that husbands and wives each give and take...she honors him, he loves and defends her. The picture he paints is of course the ideal union. He, deserving of honor and obedience because his every action is honorable and his every request fair and right, and she gracious, loving, and virtuous, inspiring him to adore her, and die for her if necessary. There is a perfected mutuality involved here.
Nice work if you can get it. (snark)
The problelm is obvious. No relationship on the planet has ever, in practise, worked that way. Churchmen enforced HER part of the compact regardless of HIS breach of it.
In some of the Bible Belt extremist sects here in America there were (are?) examples of this: women complaining to pastors about domestic beatings and being told they were to be "submissive" to their husbands even if they beat them. Maybe that's why I have a jaundiced view of "Christian" Churchmen.
Although, Europe wasn't exactly a shining example, was it? How many women were murdered during the inquisition???
(As for Law and Order...I was just watching an episode about a man who molests and murders children. Shall we assume ALL men do that, become SOME men do?)
OK, now I'm exhausted. But it's been so much fun!
The Gunslinger
The Gunslinger