| atheism.davidrand.ca: Living Without Religion | |
|---|---|
| > Table of Contents | |
| > > News Archive | en français |
| Previous page | Next page |
| |
The Guardian — United Kingdom, 2004-02-20
As the opening approaches of the movie into which he has sunk millions of his own cash, the Australian superstar
is enmeshed in controversy over its religious politics and the 'fetishistic' violence critics have perceived in it.
...
But the most potent controversy, and potentially the most far-reaching for the director and indeed critics, has centred
on the film's treatment of Jews. Gibson has been variously accused of brutalising the Jewish characters in the film, of
portraying Jews as stock film villains - much as Hollywood has become accustomed to depicting Arabs - and of blaming
the Jews for the death of Christ. Particular spice was added to this controversy when it emerged, notably in a report
in the New York Times last year, that Gibson is what is known as a "Roman Catholic traditionalist". This is a follower
of a small and obscure church that denies the legitimacy of Vatican II, the decree promulgated by Pope John XXIII in
the mid-1960s that to some extent liberalised the Catholic church.
...
Gibson follows the teachings of the Society of Pius X, whose leader is the excommunicated French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,
and has put considerable funds into churches in California, as well as building his own private chapel in Malibu.
Webmaster's comment:
The movie we are stilling waiting for:
The Creation of the Christ, the Fabrication of a Myth
SFGATE.com — San Francisco Chronicle, 2004-02-18
The simplest solution to the controversy over gay marriage, and the one most respectful to this country's
tradition of separating church and state, would be to institute civil unions for everyone, in place of marriage.
Marriage is, as its traditionalist defenders say, a "sacred" institution. But for that reason it should
be protected by churches, synagogues and mosques, and not by the state.
The state has an interest in encouraging people to form loving partnerships, in which they can help each other through
life, and to form homes that provide a financially and emotionally stable environment for raising children. That is the
extent of the state's interest in marriage. But that interest can be fully met by recognizing civil unions for everyone.
Adding the word "marriage" is adding a word with religious connotations, and for our legal system to
incorporate religious notions is dangerous in the same way that state entanglements with religion are.
...
One of the most important reasons for the separation of church and state is the immense trouble governments get into when
they try to take sides on religious divisions like these. The law can and should preserve its neutrality on the question
of what kind of erotic love finds favor in the eyes of God. The advantages it sees in stable sexual unions, and the benefits
it confers to encourage such unions, are in no way dependent on the sexual orientation of the people in those unions.
Which is to say there are no good secular reasons for having the law prefer heterosexual to homosexual relationships. The
norm against homosexuality must be based on religion if it is to have any justification at all. There is no good secular
reason why two people who love each other may express that love erotically if they are of different sexes but not if they
are of the same sex. Of course, many people feel an aversion to homosexuality even if they are not religious, but that is
just bigotry: in no way different from the aversion to interracial marriage, which was also once written into law.
It is hard to avoid the impression that the politicians and activists who make such a fuss about the "threat"
of same-sex marriage are in fact playing to bigotry, hoping to make gains from a widespread irrational dislike of a small
population.
For religious people, the way forward has been pointed by Paul Griffiths, a devout Catholic theologian, writing in a recent
issue of Commonweal: to press for complete secularization of legal marriage, for civil unions for everyone. The public
culture of America is overwhelmingly secular, as Griffiths argues, and it is both a hopeless and an inappropriate task to
try to get American law to reflect anything but secular values.
Webmaster's comment:
Non-religious homophobes, pay particular heed to these words from the above article:
"many people feel an aversion to homosexuality even if they are not religious, but that is
just bigotry: in no way different from the aversion to interracial marriage."
| XHTML CSS |