Write on: feature letter
Christianity and liberation
Barry Healy (GLW #389) is unjustified in criticising Nick Carr and Kate Carr for their article "Why God hates homosexuals and women (and we hate Christmas)" (GLW #388).
He charges Nick and Kate with being "theologically shallow and politically foolish" but doesn't make clear what is wrong with what they wrote. It may be true that those Christians fighting to overthrow capitalism may not have been helped by the article "to see that revolutionary socialists are their natural allies", but you could criticise the article on salinity on page 14 on the same grounds — neither was written for that purpose.
The problem that Barry implies, but does not state, is that the article, by criticising passages in the bible, may have put progressive Christians off working with socialists. Obviously the socialist movement has an interest in building political alliances in order to maximise the forces for progressive change, but there is no logic in sacrificing our political principles to do so.
Nick and Kate criticise features of the contemporary celebration of Christmas and point out that the story of the birth of Jesus is used "to add a veneer of depth to the annual Christmas shopping spree". They then differentiate "the benign Bible promoted at Christmas time" from the "angry God of the Old Testament". The rest of the article deals entirely with the reactionary notions peddled in the Old Testament. What's the problem?
Should we sweep our criticisms of the Old Testament under the carpet and pretend it has no influence in the modern world? Those Christians who also disagree with these passages shouldn't be offended by our criticisms. The only political impact of silencing our criticisms would be to strengthen those who do hold to the oppressive ideas of the Old Testament.
Have the "oppressive 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳" of the Old Testament really been overthrown for all Christians? I don't think Fred Nile or even vast numbers of Catholics would agree. And this is why the article serves a positive political purpose in mocking anti-homosexual and anti-woman beliefs.
A feature article in the January 20 Sydney Star Observer, titled "State of the Soul", outlines the variety of approaches contemporary Australian churches take to the issue of homosexuality. While the Uniting Church takes a "courageously" positive stance, it is "under intense internal pressure" with "more liberal ministers find[ing] it difficult to be accepted in many parishes".
With regard to the Catholic Church, the article explains that a 1986 Vatican statement asserted that gay sex acts are "intrinsically disordered", and that a gay inclination is an "objective disorder". In Australia, the article states, "opposition to the traditional teachings of the church is largely silent".
Michael Kelly, spokesperson of the Melbourne-based Rainbow Sash Movement, which campaigns for lesbian and gay rights within the church, is quoted in the article: "This is not the silence of neutrality or apathy — it's the silence of oppression".
The article goes on to point out, "There are groups like Acceptance who provide Mass in semi-private situations and support lesbians and gay men but who don't challenge the church in any overt way".
This silence is clearly identified as a problem by gay rights activists within the church; surely we should not be complicit in it. 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly doesn't refrain from criticising the religious right's opposition to women's right to choose abortion; it should be no different on the questions of homosexual rights and equality for women.
And as for revolutionary socialists, we are about challenging all forms of oppression, not accommodating backward religious views.
Erskineville NSW
[Abridged.]