Bad day for ecumenism as Moderator says no
The Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Harry Uprichard, has caused controversy by refusing to attend a service to celebrate the RUC’s George Cross Foundation- because of the involvement of catholic clergy.
Dr. Uprichard, who was on the receiving end of much criticism last summer when he appeared rather tardy in his condemnation of a loyalist campaign targeting catholic homes and properties in his native north Antrim, would undoubtedly have wished that the news would have been carried on any other day than Good Friday, given the significance of the day for all christians, regardless of denomination.
I don’t think a Presbyterian moderator, or any other true Protestant cleric, has any place at ecumenical worship. Good for you, Mr Uprichard
I don’t know this Uprichard fellow, so I can’t work out whether he’s a bigot, but I am sure that his declining of this invitation is NOT evidence of bigotry or anything like it.
May I remind everyone that the people involved in this situation are religious people. This means that they often believe in ideas that rely on ‘leaps of faith’. Of course there is also a lot of thoughtful theology behind it too, but the millenia of disagreements within Christianity and between all the religions and non-religions show that it’s quite possible for decent intelligent people to come to different conclusions.
Also, remember that he’s only refusing to attend a short ceremony held by a few guys (some of whom are wearing dresses) in a stone building. What’s the harm? Some people will take offence, but then there’s always somebody to take offence no matter what you do. Some people would have taken offence if he attended and took part.
Everyone, Christian or otherwise, has much more important things to worry about than this little ceremony. Poverty and violence are more important.
Put simply, we have a religious man doing what he believes is the right thing by his religion. Religious people are prone to believe almost anything, so the most that he can be accused of is ignorance, not malice. I have no doubt that he is a generous and tolerant man, and this minor adminstrative spat over who attends what and in what capacity is not important.
Simply saying it’s not important and we should all just be worried about poverty does not make it so.
Unless community relations are important?
unimportant, I mean
Unless community relations are important?
But if you believed community relations were so important, then wouldn’t you expect people to begin with their own churhces?.
What we see here is an argument that community relations are more important than presbyterian beliefs, but not catholic beliefs.
Kensei
“Unless community relations are important?”
By attending the service the Moderator may have improved community relations in Northern Ireland but I dont think that can be absolutely proven.
Also, exactly how do we determine what is important enough to ask someone to compromise their religious beliefs for? Does community relations take no account for people’s beliefs if that belief happens to be that they cannot take part in ecumenical services?
We’re all now in a society where “respecting beliefs” has moved to a point where questioning beliefs is ruled out. Religion however requires an absolute belief in something to the exclusion of all others – for you to believe your religion is right must mean you believe all others are wrong. (most people dont like to categorise it like that in these trendy pc days).
It seems of course that ‘community relations’ is used as the excuse to drive us all to some bland nothingness of religion where we all believe in something but we shouldnt be too specific as to what we believe in for fear that might offend someone.
Maybe someone could point out how exactly community relations or any other problem in N.I would have been improved (specifics here not just platitudes) though the Moderators attendance at this service?
I never said community relations were unimportant. For all I know, Dr Uprichard is as concerned about community relations as anyone else and works hard to improve them. Unless somebody reports that he has been encouraging violence at interfaces or encouraging the desecration of Catholic graves, I have no reason to believe he doesn’t want improved relations.
For all those who have taken offence, by their own logic they should be asking the other participants why they weren’t able to plan an event which is tolerant of Dr Uprichard’s beliefs?
“But if you believed community relations were so important, then wouldn’t you expect people to begin with their own churhces?.
What we see here is an argument that community relations are more important than presbyterian beliefs, but not catholic beliefs.”
To be honest, I was more railing against the suggestion that this is all umimportant and we should all be worrying about poverty. It’s terribly patronising.
And I really don’t get the point about beliefs. I have no problems at all with there being lines that cannot be crossed. My problem is when someone has no way to reach out. You have to at least to attempt to find some acceptable form. Catholics don’t participate in Mass (or Communion, and there has been a kick up about that recently with Anglican Bishops involved – see the BBC), but they can find a form of service they can do. If the Moderator has no terms where he could sit down in the presence with God with Catholics, as he appears to, then at a fundamental level there is something wrong with his religion and it needs changed. Catholics were there once, and we changed. I respect he may have a different opinion, but my opinion is that is the point where he crosses the line into bigotry.
“For all those who have taken offence, by their own logic they should be asking the other participants why they weren’t able to plan an event which is tolerant of Dr Uprichard’s beliefs?”
Certainly if there were any form of worship that was acceptable to him, they had a moral duty to ensure the event was planned accordingly.
My question is if any form actually exists.
kensei,
I take your point about the potential for my comments to be interpreted as downplaying the importance of community relations. To clarify, in my opinion community relations are extremely important here, and are linked closely to many other issues that I mentioned such as poverty.
My point is that the Moderator may well be working hard at community relations, whether that be discussing theology with Catholic priests, condemning violence and desecration of graves, or engaging with Catholics in any number of ways.
Of course, I don’t know what the Moderator does, all we seem to know about him is his declining an invitation to attend a short ritual. Community relations is about real people on the ground trying to live their lives, and I don’t think the rules on who can attend what ritual are important to community relagions at all (except for those who choose to be offended).
Occasional Commenter: “My point is that the Moderator may well be working hard at community relations, whether that be discussing theology with Catholic priests, condemning violence and desecration of graves, or engaging with Catholics in any number of ways. ”
If I may quote from the above…
‘Dr. Uprichard, who was on the receiving end of much criticism last summer when he appeared rather tardy in his condemnation of a loyalist campaign targeting catholic homes and properties in his native north Antrim’
‘Dr. Uprichard, who was on the receiving end of much criticism last summer when he appeared rather tardy in his condemnation of a loyalist campaign targeting catholic homes and properties in his native north Antrim’
Yeah, but where was the criticism coming from?
Just because some people go out of their way to take offence (and trust me, it’s really a sign of desperation when you complain about someone being ‘tardy’ in their condemnation).
And do we have a link to some of this critism, after all, if there was ‘much’ criticism some of it ought to be on record.
All we have is the usual nod and a wink from people who are determined to find fault with their protestant neighbours.
I note a marked contrast in peoples willingness to engage in this thread compared to the story about the fuss over protestants attending catholic mass.
By their fruits shall ye know them
Dread,
having read the article linked to above, I don’t believe the “appeared rather tardy” is a fair summary. That’s Chris Donnelly’s interpretation of the story as reported on the BBC.
I still have no reason to believe he didn’t condemn the attacks. It seems he just said there was no point walking alongside the Catholic bishop (but he would feel comfortable doing it if he felt it was useful). That BBC article doesn’t have much useful information unfortunately.
We really need a hell of a lot more information on him, his beliefs and his comments before we can have any reason to doubt his integrity or his Christianity.
But it does appear that you agree that his declining of this particular invitation is in fact irrelevant, is this right? Would you agree with me that practical on-the-ground community relations is a different thing altogether from discussing rules and regulations over the conduct of religious rituals?
TAFKABO: “Just because some people go out of their way to take offence (and trust me, it’s really a sign of desperation when you complain about someone being ‘tardy’ in their condemnation). ”
In examining the BBC story, there is actually no mention of *any* credible response by the Moderator vis-a-vis the Loyalist violence. And ignoring the sectarian attacks, predominantly on Catholics, for three months before mumbling something about he’s not “really against walking in solidarity with the Bishop, he’s just not sure its useful” speaks volumes, esp. when contrasted against the CoI bishop in the news item.
Its a “sure sign of desperation” when someone so blatantly misrepresents the facts is a story, wouldn’t you say, TAFKABO? Perhaps not as desperate as simply ignoring what is going on, as the Moderator did… or perhaps that was just his tacit approval for the attacks. When those who claim to shedherd the morals of their flock are silent in the face of these crimes, as was the Moderator, is that *NOT* tacit approval?
TAFKABO: “All we have is the usual nod and a wink from people who are determined to find fault with their protestant neighbours. ”
Actually, if you read the article from the BBC, the CoI Bishio was quite accomodating, as was his church. Maybe the problem is just the immoderate Moderator and others of his ilk?
Occasional Commenter: “But it does appear that you agree that his declining of this particular invitation is in fact irrelevant, is this right? Would you agree with me that practical on-the-ground community relations is a different thing altogether from discussing rules and regulations over the conduct of religious rituals.”
Comme ci, comme ca…
Both are important. The catch is that, from what I read in the story, the Moderator sat on his hands for three months — a point that goes unchallenged in the BBC story. Contrast that with the reaction of the CoI Bishop’s and I have to wonder the Moderator’s feelings toward these acts.
The Moderator declining the invitation was, in timing and in light of past inaction, a poor decision. While “positive” symbollic action may not always be the productive, “negative” symbollic action can be damningly corrosive and undercut any “real” action he’s taken over the same period.
Whatever the guy does now, he better do *something* to show that his heart is in the right place.
I for one do not believe it is. Like Dread Cthulhu, I see a man who turns a blind eye when it suits him, and hides behind his “beliefs.”
Dread,
I wouldn’t put much store in that badly researched BBC article. According to that article, the Moderator was interviewed by the BBC. BBC Radio should have asked him directly what he thought of the attacks, and the BBC website should have reported his answer. But something went wrong in the BBC and we now have this useless drivel from the BBC. All we have is a Catholic priest complaining about the Moderator – I want facts and I want the Moderator’s opinion sought.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=687030
The above is the only other news story I’ve found re: the Moderator.
To read his statements, he’s not so much worried about clergy as he is about the possibility that there might be Catholics in the pews…
‘However, as a number of Roman Catholics served in the force it seemed to me only fair that there would be in an element of joint worship in the Dungannon service,’ to quote the Moderator.
‘Dr Uprichard has followed a rigid personal policy of declining invitations of this nature.’
Also, ‘Dr Uprichard comes from the conservative wing of the Presbyterian Church…’
Sounds like a “Old Light” Presbyterian…
Hey, TAFKABO — what was the definition of “bigotry” again? Something about rigid personal beliefs?
Either way, Dr. Uprichard doesn’t really sound like someone who is going to leap to stifle Loyalist violence against Catholics — might sound like inter-church cooperation or some such.
Its a “sure sign of desperation” when someone so blatantly misrepresents the facts is a story, wouldn’t you say, TAFKABO?
Which blatant misrepresentation are you referring to?
Perhaps not as desperate as simply ignoring what is going on, as the Moderator did… or perhaps that was just his tacit approval for the attacks.
See, I would argue that leaping to such a conclusion is willful and blatant msirepresentation of the available facts.Unless you can showme something which would support claims that the moderator has ever aproved of such actions in the past.
When those who claim to shedherd the morals of their flock are silent in the face of these crimes, as was the Moderator, is that *NOT* tacit approval?
Again, you make the assumption that those carrying out these despicable attacks were members of this mans ‘flock’.
Upon what evidence can you make such a claim?
Please explain to me how you can be so sure that the people carrying out the attacks are members of a church to begin with, and that the church they belong to comes under the remit of the moderator.
If you cannot do so, I’m bound to conclude that what have have just said and done amounts to a ‘blatant misrepresentation of the facts’.
Hey, TAFKABO—what was the definition of “bigotry” again? Something about rigid personal beliefs?
No, the defintion of bigotry is, according to dicitonary.com
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot, intolerance.
Note the last part about intolerance, and reflect upon your own unwillingness to allow this man to follow his faith according to his beliefs.
I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church. I was obliged to study and publicy laffirm my support for the Westminster Confession of Faith as the subsidiary standard of our belief before my ordination. As such I totally support the stand of the Moderator who is only abiding by the doctrine of the church.
In the nineteenth century Presbyterians would have been hostile to the Church of ireland too, for its doctrinal failings on the querstion of baptism, and appointment of bishops- the slogan often quoted was “Neither Popery nor Prelacy” .
The real pity is that the Church allows people like Ken Newell to attain high office when his ecumenism seems incompatible with the vows he took at ordination. Perhaps if our theology students actually studied Calvin-amazingly they no longer do- and the reasons for there being a presbyterian Church- we would be better off, and freed from the quasi-establishment ecumenical mush which this service undoubtedly is . it’s rarely the Church’s business to become involved in State occasions.
And Rev. Uprichard is not an Orangeman, cathy. Nor BTW, is Ian Paisley a presbyterian. He’s a Baptist by doctrine , but his church is Presbyterian in structure. Confused? So are 99% of his members.
Dread Cthulhu,
That Belfast Telegraph story is useless as well. It tells us what we already know, i.e. that he can’t attend certain types of ceremonies.
Then you say: “Either way, Dr. Uprichard doesn’t really sound like someone who is going to leap to stifle Loyalist violence against Catholics”
There is no mention of anything that directly or indirectly backs up that assertion in that Belfast Telegraph article. There is still no evidence backing up your position. The Belfast Telegraph didn’t mention the attacks on Catholics homes in any way.
Does anybody have any evidence of the Moderator being asked a relevant question about the attacks and his response to it?
“Confused? So are 99% of his members.”
I reckon the Lord must be mighty confused too, Darth.
TAFKABO: “See, I would argue that leaping to such a conclusion is willful and blatant msirepresentation of the available facts.Unless you can showme something which would support claims that the moderator has ever aproved of such actions in the past.”
The key word is “tacit,” TAFKABO…
Tacit: implied: not expressed directly;
When someone is wandering the neighborhood attempting murder and arson, esp. in a region given to sectarian violence, silence can be deadly. He does not have to sally forth with his megaphone, in the fashion of some other Presbyterian leaders, and whip the crowd to a frenzy. He simply has to ignore it.
TAFKABO: “Again, you make the assumption that those carrying out these despicable attacks were members of this mans ‘flock’.”
Really? Does the man have to know, or even *suspect* that his congregation is committing acts of violence to have to speak out? You infer what was not implied, TAFKABO. As a leader of a church, he is, allegedly, a spiritual and moral guide. Last I checked, “Thou shalt not murder” (I know its rendered as “kill” in more recent editions, but I’m something of a pedant…) is a nearly universal moral value within the Judeo-Christian faiths. Firebombs going off in the neighborhood — I would think that would warrant a mention or condemnation as a matter of Christian principle, wouldn’t you?
TAFKABO: “If you cannot do so, I’m bound to conclude that what have have just said and done amounts to a ‘blatant misrepresentation of the facts’.”
Tsk tsk… such grandstanding, with so little substance or cause. You read far too much into other peoples comments, the better to misconstrue them, I suppose… Were I to have meant to make such an accusation, I would have said it plainly and with supporting exhibits, not wishing to cause Mick any legal difficulties. All I have said is that for a religious leader living in a neighborhood where sectarian violence is occurring, he seems, as a minimum, remarkably obtuse and curiously silent.
Again, I would contrast the reaction of the CoI bishop and his congregation with those of the Moderator. Do you believe that the CoI congregation, in the Bishop’s mind, were committing these acts and had to be told not to?
You and Archbishop Sean Brady Darth:
Bigotry: “intolerant of those who differ”.
Whilst it is relatively easy for people to take dodgy inferences from Dr Uprichard’s adherence to his own moral and religious code they may also be open to ridicule if they then deny him the ‘right to differ’ from their own cultural and religious norms.
kensai
“If the Moderator has no terms where he could sit down in the presence with God with Catholics, as he appears to, then at a fundamental level there is something wrong with his religion and it needs changed. Catholics were there once, and we changed. I respect he may have a different opinion, but my opinion is that is the point where he crosses the line into bigotry.”
Why on earth should a religion have to ‘change’ just to fit in with some notion which you find nice. Catholics may well have “been there” once, but maybe they were wrong to change. Surely “sharing the presence of God” is a very personal issue and at the core of all religions. If the way in which this person, his denomination or even one section of that denomination choose not to do it your way then those beliefs should be respected and not coerced into changing just to appease the views of others.
Darth Rumsfeld
Some very useful comments. There’s been a lot of comments about “old light” Presbyterianism and reference to Paisley – it seems mostly by people who aren’t scholars of theology and at the end of the day that’s what this debate is about. Lots of pronouncements have been made about what someone should or should not believe in reference to their own particular religion/denomination without giving any theological backup.
Tsk tsk… such grandstanding, with so little substance or cause. You read far too much into other peoples comments, the better to misconstrue them, I suppose…
OK, in a previous post I gave the dictionary definition of bigotry, but I’m going to cut and paste the above paragraph if I’m ever asked to define irony.
DC: “Tsk tsk… such grandstanding, with so little substance or cause. You read far too much into other peoples comments, the better to misconstrue them, I suppose… ”
TAFKABO: “OK, in a previous post I gave the dictionary definition of bigotry, but I’m going to cut and paste the above paragraph if I’m ever asked to define irony. ”
Let’s ee… I suggest that the Moderator may be displaying tacit approval in his silence. You turn this into an accusation on my part that it is the Moderator’s congregation responsible for the assaults…
What’s next — I offer you a ride to the beach and you run to Mick saying I’m threatening to drive you into the sea?
Some people are making accusations that the Moderator has been silent on issues he shouldn’t have been silent about. This happens a lot, and on further investigation it often turns out that the person in question wasn’t silent.
Just because some reporter failed to notice or report on condemnation, that doesn’t mean the condemnation wasn’t made.
Another example, on a unrelated subject, would be this thread http://www.sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/adams_a_shared_space_for_orange_and_green/ where you can see numerous examples of statements made by Adams which are forgotten. This probably isn’t a good example, because I don’t want to bring that thread’s discussion into here, but it does show that accusations of silence are often based on incompetent reporting and forgetful punditry.
Mick Fealty: “Whilst it is relatively easy for people to take dodgy inferences from Dr Uprichard’s adherence to his own moral and religious code they may also be open to ridicule if they then deny him the ‘right to differ’ from their own cultural and religious norms.”
So, as a not-so-rhetorical question, Mick — where do you propose we draw the line between “live and let live” and “tolerating intolerance?” I’m sure the leaders of the BNP have their own “moral codes,” as do the Muslim chaps who blow up subways…
If the Moderator was just another fellow, pontificating in his beer at the local pub, I’d shrug. This is, allegedly, someone who should have a bit more sense than the fellow at the bar.
To be wholly fair, Dr. Uprichard may simply be painfully tone-deaf and a much better theologian than politician. However, to live in a neighborhood where sectarian violence is occurring and not even be able to provide a manly furrowing of the brow and a simple, straight-forward condemnation of violence in blanket form for public consumption seems just a little *too* tone-deaf.
Am I to assume that since the moderator didn’t make a statements condemning all those thousands of deaths during the troubles that he must secretly support them?
And truth be told, the more I investigate, he’s been silent on the Kennedy assasination, the Hindenburg disaster and the sinking of the Titanic.
Quick, someone call Austin Powers, we may have an evil genius in our midst.
Occasional Commenter: “Just because some reporter failed to notice or report on condemnation, that doesn’t mean the condemnation wasn’t made. ”
Okay — but this is not some minor priest who can be misquoted and any subsequent protest ignored. Would not such a trampling of the Moderator receive some sort of response from his Church? A protest, perhaps? A press release?
I’ll keep looking, OC… tried the BBC’s internal search and Google. All I get is the stories we’ve already kicked around. If what you sketch out is truly the case, there *should* be some sort of response, somewhere.
TAFKABO: “Am I to assume that since the moderator didn’t make a statements condemning all those thousands of deaths during the troubles that he must secretly support them? ”
*Sigh* Now you’re just playing with hyperbole, TAFKABO…
However, to indulge your childish questions, no, that is not what I’m saying. However, the violence in his immediate neighborhood should have warranted a comment, don’t you think?
Likewise, if he, as Occasional Commenter suggests, was so badly mauled in the press by the BBC, some sort of response would be extant, neh?
However, the violence in his immediate neighborhood should have warranted a comment, don’t you think?
It depends on a number of factors.
firstly, the violence you are talking about is not a new phenomenon, so I’m doubtful as to the purpose seved by rushing out to make a public statement for ever incident, Would the new media give the space for every condemnation?
Exactly how many different flavours of community leaders ought to be commenting on each event, and should the media give space for every condemnation?
Is it the place of the media to approach the community leaders and ask for a statement, or is it the job of the community leaders to approach the media?
Which media outlets ought to be approached?
How do we know that this man didn’t condemn the attacks in his weekly services, if he gives weekly services?
Isn’t the pulpit where he ought to be speaking, if anywhere?
These are but a few different questions I can think off.
It’s up to you to convince me that you have found an event that not only warranted his comments, but that every other person in a similar position made such comments and that every other event of a similar nature recieved such comments.
What you are doing is speculating upon speculation and finding this man guilty of something, because of what he hasn’t done.
I think that’s contrary to natural justice.I wouldn’t want to be measured in this fashion, and consequently I try not to measure others like this.
The conversation started out about him not wanting to take part in an inter faith service, but seems to have swerved into some bizzare Spanish inquisition.
TAFKABO: “The conversation started out about him not wanting to take part in an inter faith service, but seems to have swerved into some bizzare Spanish inquisition.”
*SWOOOOOP*
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!
.
.
.
But seriously… the Moderator gets made to look ineffectual and callous in one BBC story and at least tone-deaf and potentially bigoted in another and his church simply sits on their hands sighing “just remember, this too shall pass?” I don’t buy it. Given the hack-job you seem to saying he got, the utter silence in response is deafening. BBC tramples Moderator and no one’s offended?
“Why on earth should a religion have to ‘change’ just to fit in with some notion which you find nice. ”
No, it has to change because it has some notions that don’t belong in the modern world. If you want to keep them, fine, but then don’t tell me you’re not a bigot.
Kensai: “No, it has to change because it has some notions that don’t belong in the modern world. If you want to keep them, fine, but then don’t tell me you’re not a bigot. ”
Okay… let us take a look at this one…
Does this mean that the Roman Catholic dogma and history that officially opposes female clergy needs to go to the curb? Shall we dismantle Orthodox Judaism? Oooooh, how about Islam — shall we drag it, kicking and screaming out of the 14th century?
Frankly, arguements here to the contrary, I really could give sod all about what a person believes in their heart of hearts. What a body thinks is their business. What they do, for good OR for ill, and, arguably, do not do, is another matter. Thought crime — the criminalization of anti-social thought… not sure I want to go there, outside of fiction.
So the consensus is that the good moderator is not a bigot.
If he ceases conversing with his children if they happen to fall in love with a romanist or hindu, is he then a bigot?
If he ceases conversing with his children if they happen to fall in love with a romanist or hindu, is he then a bigot?
Why not ask him if he has stopped beating his wife?
cladycowboy: “If he ceases conversing with his children if they happen to fall in love with a romanist or hindu, is he then a bigot? ”
TAFKABO: “Why not ask him if he has stopped beating his wife? ”
Aw, c’mon, TAFKABO — that one’s easy… just because he beats his wife, that *necessarily* don’t make him a bigot…
It would depend on a number of factors…
I’m trying hard to see if there actually is a serious argument left standing here. It’s like one of those Marathon dance competitions which were so trendy in the 1920s and 30s.
As Wikipedia says of it: “Many out of work people competed in the contests in order to achieve fame or win monetary prizes”.
Well there are no prizes, and the fame of some you is turning quickly to notoriety. When you are reduced to making up fictional scenarios to back your assertions, perhaps it’s time to finally quit the dance floor ladies and gents?
“Does this mean that the Roman Catholic dogma and history that officially opposes female clergy needs to go to the curb? Shall we dismantle Orthodox Judaism? Oooooh, how about Islam—shall we drag it, kicking and screaming out of the 14th century?”
There are sound arguments for all those things. I personally draw the line at when it starts to damage other people. I think promoting anti-Catholicism does that. Again – you’ve have attempted the question – at what point does conviction become hate, and should be opposed? I have at least attempted an answer.
“Frankly, arguements here to the contrary, I really could give sod all about what a person believes in their heart of hearts. What a body thinks is their business. What they do, for good OR for ill, and, arguably, do not do, is another matter. Thought crime—the criminalization of anti-social thought… not sure I want to go there, outside of fiction. ”
The question is whether or not bad thought, or more precisely, insitutionalised bad thought, leads to bad action. It most surely does. You are attempting to treat symptom, not cause.
Ken,
What I cannot see in your argument is where the moral authority comes from that allows you define someone else’s view as ‘bad thought? The decision of the moderator on the other hand can be measured against doctrine of his church. I, for one, cannot find any serious error there.
By and large this is not the kind of judgement people in liberal democracies choose to get involved with. There are some matters that simply should not be subject to the wider consensus of society. Personal conscience is one. Actions however may be subject to civil or criminal law. Since the moderator was perfectly at liberty to absent himself from that service, that would hardly apply.
Mick
Hi all,
I really liked the statement, “If they happens to fall in love with a romanist (Catholic) is he a bigot….?” If ‘he’ is a member of the royal family we do know ‘he’ can’t marry the Catholic becaus it is against the law of england….
So, if William or Harry or any other royal falls in love with a romanist (Catholic) is he a bigot…or better yet…is the law biggoted?
Kathy_C: “So, if William or Harry or any other royal falls in love with a romanist (Catholic) is he a bigot…or better yet…is the law biggoted?”
If William or Harry falls in love with a papist, definitionally, they would not be bigots UNLESS the fact that fact leads the royal in question to treat the object of their affection poorly on the basis of that religious affiliation.
The law, however, on its face, is bigoted.
Mick Fealty on Apr 19, 2006 @ 06:07 PM “I’m trying hard to see if there actually is a serious argument left standing here….perhaps it’s time to finally quit the dance floor ladies and gents? “ I think it’s a very important discussion (and so should continue) but has gone of on a tangent.
In sum I think the Mod’s actions and words were of very poor choice. In a place of religious / political tensions (NI) everyone’s words and actions are important especially those leaders of society be they in politics, religion, sport, journos or whatever. In post-troubles NI, Dr Uprichard should have been first out of the blocks to condemn the church attacks in Antrim and should have accepted the ecumenical invite wholeheartedly. ‘Off carmera’, he may have had to bite his lip in doing either but I think NI’s society’s leaders must lead by example and try to be excessive in camaraderie with the ‘other side’. For the greater good of society he should have curtailed religious dogma for inter religious celebrations.
Dr Uprichard’s tenure will be remembered for the two actions (inactions) discussed and will possibly remain as a perceived denial of the hand of friendship.
“What I cannot see in your argument is where the moral authority comes from that allows you define someone else’s view as ‘bad thought? The decision of the moderator on the other hand can be measured against doctrine of his church. I, for one, cannot find any serious error there.”
Ok, let’s follow that argument to the end. Suppose the doctrine of the moderator’s church required him to kill Catholics. Even take a lessor one, to believe Catholics, Jews, whoever aren’t human. Judging by the contents of the Old Testament, it would certainly be possible to come up with some scriptural pretext. Would it be ok for him to follow his conscience then?
Clearly not. So at some point, his personal conscience becomes subject to the norms of society. There was a time when slave owning was personal conscience. Sociopaths? Their personal conscience will permit anything.
“By and large this is not the kind of judgement people in liberal democracies choose to get involved with. There are some matters that simply should not be subject to the wider consensus of society. Personal conscience is one. Actions however may be subject to civil or criminal law. Since the moderator was perfectly at liberty to absent himself from that service, that would hardly apply.
Mick ”
Nonsense. People in liberal democracies make judgements like this all the time. I believe a law was just passed making the glorification of terror a crime. I disagree with the law, but it is a the thick end of a wedge of things that curtail personal conscience. Political correctness excetera.
But now we get to the crux of the matter. What is regulated and subject society is the *actions that result from a person’s conscience*. It is impossible and undesirable to regulate thought. But what can be done is to make sure that the actions that result are treated accordingly. If there are severe enough, then punishment is normally jail or in some societies, death. If it is less severe, then it is usually with displeasure or stigmatism. Undesirable outcomes result in undesirable response, and this in the long run, changes behaviour. It is made clear that such behaviour is no longer tolerated.
When should society react this way? Society of course can be wrong, but then again it’s hard to be damaging and last in the long run. It is a difficult question, and will clearly depend on your political philosphy. As liberal, I believe that everything should be permitted save where it causes harm to others. The moderator’s actions clearly skirt this line. It is my duty, and the duty of all those who disagree with him to make our displeasure known. There is your moral force.
And that’s about the best statement of my position you are going to get. I hope it’s clear enough.
Ken,
Not so much a liberal as a secular supremacist then?
Hardly, and and it’s a rather nasty suggestion. I’m a practicising Catholic, and have no problems with faith schools or people being guided by deep religious conviction. My bottom line is simply least harm. If your beliefs are in some way causing avoidable harm to others, then there is something wrong with it. I would fall on the “social liberal” end of the spectrum, so I believe in effectiveness and importance of group action.
I also have few absolute positions (I’m naturally suspicous of them, to be honest, there are no easy answers), so nothing is perfect and that doesn’t entirely encapsulate my views. But merely being consistent with the moral code of your religion isn’t enough, as is trivial demonstrated. Suicide bombers?
You still ahven’t answered the question. Where’s your bottom line?
It is my duty, and the duty of all those who disagree with him to make our displeasure known. There is your moral force.
And that’s about the best statement of my position you are going to get. I hope it’s clear enough.
What’s clear to me is that you think it’s your duty to judge this guy, but not the hierarchy of your own church, which has come out with broadly similar disagreements with the notion of ecumenism.
If you are going to get into the judging business, the first thing you need to learn is that either you judge everyone equally, or you don’t judge at all.