THE THINGS PEOPLE DO IN THE NAME OF RELIGION

The Adelaide Sunday Mail of 11 November 2007 carried an article headlined “Died For Her Faith”, reporting the death of a 22 year old English woman, a Jehovah’s Witness, who refused a life-saving blood transfusion after the birth of a twin son and daughter. It was written almost as if this woman was some sort of hero whereas I would say that this was one of the most selfish acts it is possible to imagine. To wilfully allow yourself to die when the means of living are immediately available, and thus knowingly derive two children of their mother can only be an act of supreme selfishness.

And once again, it is done in the name of some warped “religion” that claims that having a blood transfusion is the equivalent of adultery or sexual immorality. Apart from the fact that that is simply nonsense, even if it were supportable, neither adultery or sexual immorality would deny the children access to their mother. In circumstances such as this, the claim that religious faith should take precedence over the most precious right of a child, to receive the love of a caring mother, is some sort of sick joke.

The law should be clear and unambiguous. Refusal of a lifesaving transfusion on the grounds of religious faith should be made illegal. Full stop. And just in case anyone is foolish enough to try to extend this principle to euthanasia, I need to be very clear – euthanasia ought to be available under closely controlled conditions. This action by Emma Gough was not taken to end intolerable and unrelievable pain. It was based on a stomach churning distortion labelled “religious faith”. It is hardly any wonder that opponents of organised religion are gaining so much ground when this type of bias and bigotry can be allowed to flourish, and reported as some sort of brave, self-denying sacrifice.

Oh yes, it was a sacrifice all right. Two wholly innocent babies were sacrificed in the name of “religion”. In circumstances like this, I find it sad that there is no god to judge their actions. For if this was the case, any half-way just god would damn all adherents of such a principle to the deepest and darkest available hell. Perhaps these people should read and reflect on their own holy book, Matthew Chapter 18, Verse 6, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

GAY MARRIAGE

The religious right mafia continues to express its opposition to gay marriage, and in this, the major political parties follow along, docile and compliant. I probably need to make my position perfectly clear. I am a practising heterosexual (if I practice for long enough, I might just get it right) and I have no affiliation with any gay lobby organisation. I am simply a bystander who feels that there is a substantial injustice at work here. Edmund Burke, the Irish philosopher and statesman famously said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Whether I qualify as “good” and how much impact this will have are open questions. But it needs to be said. I should also say that I am using the term gay as “code” for the whole range of sexual preferences, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, and same sex attracted.

The crucial point about marriage is not that it conforms to some religious dogma but that it is a public statement by two people who are committing their lives to each other. The key issue is the commitment; the content, not the form. So there is absolutely no reason why it should not be equally as valid for a gay couple as for a heterosexual couple. The problem with far too many “Christian” apologists (and, regrettably, both the major political parties) is their emphasis on so-called “family values” (worse, “traditional family values”).

It is very difficult to pin down precisely what is meant by “family values”, but the reactionary lobby would have us believe in a family as a married heterosexual couple with two children living in some mythical form of domestic bliss. Even if this ever did exist, it is clearly not the case today; Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that, in 2003, 46% of families were couple families with dependent or non-dependent children, 38% were couples with no children and 15% were single parent families. In passing, in 2006, 76% of couples who contracted a marriage said that they had lived together before the marriage and, interestingly, 61% of those marriages were contracted by a civil celebrant, further indication of the lessening of the religious influence.

Given this background, it is difficult to understand the entrenched antipathy towards gay marriage. It is even more difficult to understand or accept the proposition that the “gay lobby” is out to destabilise the institution of marriage, particularly given that rough estimates place the proportion of gay people in our community at no more than 10%. In other words, the 90% heterosexual majority have nothing to fear from the claims of the gay community for equality before the law.

Heterosexuals are clearly destabilising the institution of marriage all by themselves. And the fact that close to 50% of all marriages ends in divorce suggests that “’til death us do part” and government registration is no guarantee of an enduring relationship. It is surely preferable that we recognise, support and celebrate two people who love each other putting this commitment into practice rather than deny some of them that acknowledgement. All the bigotry and discrimination in the world cannot disguise the fact that, if gay couples wish to make a commitment to each other, in private or in a public ceremony, they can and will do so. It doesn’t need the presence of a priest or registration with a government authority to make that commitment binding. What it takes is willingness and determination to make it work, qualities that are clearly not the sole preserve of the heterosexual majority.

The outrageous hypocrisy of those who choose to discriminate in this way but who then claim to be Christian is deplorable in its pretension. They might do well to read the 13th chapter of the first epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, which is unequivocal about the value of love. And if they’re still undecided, check out the parable of the good Samaritan.