Tag Archives: abortion

Tess Rafferty on Trump’s election as US president.

For a complete change of pace, I thought it would be good to hear from someone who appears to have no religious faith at all. Here is Tess Rafferty, an American citizen, reflecting in the most heartfelt manner possible on the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States. I share it with people because a lot of what she says cannot be disputed, because she is right to be very worried about what Trump and his supporters will do domestically and internationally, and because she is entertaining and enlightening in almost equal measure.

People in the UK still incredulous that a majority of those who bothered to vote voted to leave the EU might like to play a small game. Replace a few names and/or phrases (e.g. “Conservatives” for “Republicans”, “when people of the UK voted for Brexit” for “when Donald Trump was elected the next US president”, “far right extremists” for “KKK”, “David (Cameron)” for Hillary (Clinton)” and you soon realise that the rant might apply almost as well to the mess in which the UK now finds itself.

Stand by to be enlightened, entertained and, perhaps, shocked!

Covington, Kentucky, USA

Covington, Kentucky, USA

In my youth I thought politics was very black and white. I wanted nothing to do with you if you were Christian or Republican. “Don’t get personal,” people, usually Christians and Republicans, always said to me. But for me it was personal. The things I was passionate about were the things that these two factions were intent on taking away from me and that affected me personally. I think it’s hypocritical of someone to tell you to not take something personally when what they’re trying to do is take away your personal freedoms. Over the years I’ve tried harder to find common ground. I’m trying to see what I like about people as individuals and remember that we’re friends and that we all have to be friends when all of this is over. And I’ve seen polite discussions change some perspectives, and I know they’ve changed mine. After last Tuesday (when Donald Trump was elected the next US president), I think my younger self had it right.

I am so damn tired of trying to see it from the other side. I’m trying to discuss nuance while they paint us and our candidates with the broadest of hateful brushes.

I’m tired of pretending that it’s somehow reasonable to teach creationism in public schools with my tax dollars, while you tell me that two same-sex people who love each other and get married somehow threaten your marriage.

You voted for Trump – I am tired of trying to see things your way while you sit in your holier-than-thou churches/white power meetings refusing to see things my way. Did I just lump you in with white supremacists? No, you did that to yourselves. You voted for the same candidate as the KKK. You voted for a candidate endorsed by the KKK. For the rest of your life you have to know that you voted the same way as the KKK. Does that feel good to you? Here’s a hint – it really shouldn’t feel good, especially if you call yourself a Christian.

I’m tired of pussy-footing around what offends your morals while couching what offends mine, because racism, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia offend mine.

Let me say it right here – if you voted for Trump, I do think you are a racist. I do think you’re homophobic. I do think you’re a misogynist. Racism and homophobia and misogyny are all a spectrum and you’re on it. You might not be a “cheering while a black man gets lynched” racist, but, boy, did you just sell them the rope and look the other way.

Don’t like getting painted with the broad brush of racism? Now you know what it feels like when you get told that you want to rip a baby out of a mother’s womb at nine months when that’s not what happens. That’s NEVER what happens. You want to call yourself a Christian? Then look inside yourself and try to find some compassion for these women who get told in their third trimester that their baby’s not going to live. They’ve already had the shower. They’ve already decorated the nursery. They already know the sex and probably have a name picked out. But look at all that and keep screaming “Baby killers” at them, and not voting for the candidates who are defending their biological necessity to have to do the unthinkable – and I think I’m still cool calling you a racist.

I tried to be polite, but now I just don’t give a damn, because, let’s be honest, we don’t live in polite America anymore. We live in “grab ‘em by the pussy” America now. So thank you for that; being polite was exhausting.

Part of the Republican heartland, Texas, the USA

Part of the Republican heartland, Texas, USA

And don’t come at me with how you just didn’t like Hillary; this was bigger than Hillary. This wasn’t your standard “I just want lower taxes and smaller government” Republican – we had Germans warning us that this guy was scary. And still you cried – emails and Benghazi or “that voice”. And still there’s been mountains of evidence proving that nothing that you think Hillary did was that big a deal or even true. Some of the finest minds in the world have drawn you graphs and charts proving that no crimes were actually committed and you were either too dumb or willfully ignorant to care.

And if you really cared about crimes, you’d care about any of the three pending against your candidate. Take your pick. I’d start with the rape of a thirteen year-old girl, but if you voted for Trump, you probably don’t care much what happens to women. Doesn’t matter anyway. She received so many death threats from your political peers that she dropped the charges. But ask me again why more women don’t come forward.

And speaking of smaller government and lower taxes, enjoy not getting mine. If Trump actually does what he says he’s going to do, then your petty backwards state and your small angry town can pay for your own school to not educate your children. I live in California, the largest economy in the United States, and the sixth largest in the world. We’ll be fine. But have fun affording all those children your health insurance won’t pay for your birth control to prevent. I’m just kidding – you’re not going to have insurance. Won’t that be just great again!

And while I’m done being polite, if you voted third party, unfriend me. I don’t care how much we enjoy each other on every other level. I don’t care how badly you wanted to make your third party a viable option. Fuck you. You basically told me, and the LGBTQ community, and people of colour, that our needs take a back seat to your need to have another option. Well done! Now we’re not just riding in the back seat, we’re actually being dragged behind the car.

And how’s that third party coming? Tell me, what are you doing about it today? Are you volunteering for your third party so that you can get more candidates for the state and local elections? Are you working hard so you can figure out how to make them a viable option for the mid-terms? I look forward to seeing who you present to us to save us from all of this in 2020, if there’s anything actually left to save. Also, while I’m on it, if you’re one of these people this week telling me how Bernie would have defeated Trump – unfriend me. But kudos to you for living in a world where you think being Jewish wouldn’t have mattered to a Trump supporter. I’d like to buy property there. Tell me, what are the schools like that far up your own ass?

The truth is, that for those of us on this side, there is no “when all this is over”. Things are just getting started. We think last Wednesday (when the result of the election was confirmed) was bad – we don’t know what bad is yet. This isn’t something you get over; this is something you endure. We’re going to face attacks on every right we fought the last sixty years to gain. The deck is so stacked against us that we may not win. The best we can hope for is gridlock. And that’s just nationally. Internationally, who the fuck knows what this lunatic is going to do. And the scarier thought is that the only thing worse than this guy is the guy who’s one angry tweet away from the presidency – Mike Pence – advocate for gay conversion therapy and mandatory funerals for fetuses.

So now’s the time you might want to see things from my side. Because, if we’re all going to have to be friends after this, imagine me having to be polite and having to respect your vote to take away my rights and freedoms and those of my friends, while we fight desperately to try to hang onto them, because that is what you did.

Temple Square, Salt Lake City, Utah

Temple Square, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

To say nothing about what you just said about us as women. I haven’t gotten to that yet because, if I do, I may start screaming, and if I start I might not stop. So let me just say that you’ve told every woman out there that being sexually harassed does not matter. Being sexually assaulted does not matter. Working hard does not matter. You took the most qualified candidate we’ve had in decades – a woman – and belittled her every mistake and miss-step, while taking the least qualified candidate we have ever had, a man, and ignoring every mistake he ever made. But no – you’re not sexist.

And if you’re a woman, girl, you’ve got issues. And I say that as someone who crawled out of the bitter, self-hating womb of one of these women. I mean, I know that these women are damaged and that I should feel some compassion for them. But I’m not there yet, because I am so sick of damaged people damaging the rest of us. And isn’t this somewhat of an abusive relationship at this point? If you have friends and family like this, cut them off! They didn’t give two shits about your freedoms and happiness last Tuesday. You don’t have to pretend that it’s all cool to pass them a plate of turkey two weeks from now (at Thanksgiving). It’s like we’re all abused partners saying to each other “But you don’t know what he’s like when he’s not racist.”

Being racist isn’t the same as liking Dire Straits. This isn’t the same as just disagreeing about musical tastes. Being racist is always racist and if you voted for Trump you’re racist.

So, protect yourself friends. God knows those assholes always do.

Advertisements

Religious people still behaving badly (and far, far worse), four.

One.

A halal abattoir at the centre of horrific animal cruelty allegations has gone into administration, six months after covert footage of practices in the slaughterhouse were revealed. The move came as the UK’s Food Standards Agency announced it was close to concluding an inquiry into how animals were treated, an inquiry which will be handed to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider launching criminal charges.

An international furore erupted and protests were held outside the abattoir in Thirsk after film obtained by Animal Aid was released showing a worker hacking and sawing at animals’ throats, in direct contravention of Islamic practice. It took workers up to five attempts to sever blood vessels. Other film included sheep being kicked in the face; lifted by their ears, fleeces or legs; thrown into solid structures; and a worker standing on the neck of a conscious sheep and jumping up and down. Also, staff are shown laughing while a sheep was bleeding to death with green spectacles painted around its eyes.

The film drew widespread condemnation because the law requires abattoirs to stun animals before slaughter to prevent unnecessary suffering, although there are exemptions for meat producers supplying the Jewish and the Muslim markets. Under the halal code of practice, animals are supposed to be killed quickly with a single sweep of a surgically sharp knife.

Islamic calligraphy

Islamic calligraphy

Two.

The Sikh Federation UK, said by some to be the leading Sikh lobbying organisation in Britain, has so far failed to condemn the actions of a group of Sikhs who disrupted a wedding between a Sikh and a non-Sikh in a gurdwara in Southall, west London.

A group of about twenty Sikhs arrived at the gurdwara on Friday 9th August while final preparations were taking place for the wedding of a Sikh woman and a white, non-Sikh man. The couple were forced to cancel their wedding after the gang stormed into the gurdwara.

Sohan Singh Sumra, vice-president of the Sri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara, told a leading UK newspaper that the men “were all thugs” who objected to the ceremony simply because it was a “mixed marriage”. Mr. Sumra said the group wanted to “intimidate” the bride and groom and that the police had to be called.

The journalist Sunny Hundal later confronted the Sikh Federation UK on Twitter about the incident and asked it to condemn the actions of the gang, but representatives of the federation refused, stating only that what happened at the gurdwara “should be avoided”. A representative of the federation said that those who “understand” and “respect” the Anand Karaj (the Sikh marriage ceremony) will “realise it is more important” than the couples’ “‘big day'”.

Mr. Hundal warned that “gang-mentality puritanism” would lead to a “Sikh version of the Taliban”. He also posted comments made against him by “fundamentalist Sikhs” who objected to his criticism of the Sikh Federation UK. He went on to allege that instances of “hypocritical and fanatical thugs” arriving to disrupt “interfaith weddings” are becoming more common.

When asked by Sunny Hundal if they “support or condemn these thugs going around disrupting interfaith marriages at gurdwaras?”, a representative of the Sikh Federation UK replied obliquely that they “stand by and defend” the tenets of the “Sikh faith”.

A letter published in “The Times” newspaper on 21st July warned of a “recently placed” ban on gurdwaras “solemnising marriages between Sikh and non-Sikh”. Moreover, advice from 2007 stipulates that the Anand Karaj should only be between two Sikhs.

Guidelines published by the Sikh Council UK in October 2014 state that “Any person wishing to exercise the choice to marry in a Gurdwara Sahib through the Anand Karaj ceremony must sign a declaration” that “he or she is a Sikh, believes in the tenets of the Sikh faith and owes no allegiance to another faith”. Such people must also pledge to “endeavour to bring up any children from his or her marriage as Sikhs”.

National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson said, “This kind of fundamentalism is very dangerous. It may amount only to bullying at the moment, but as fanaticism increases it can escalate to frightening levels of violence. The government should stamp down on this now before it gets out of control. They must learn from the experience with Islamism that ignoring the problem on grounds of political correctness will only allow it to fester and get worse.”

P.S. This is not a new problem. The BBC website has an article dated 11th March 2013 about the disruption of “interfaith” marriages at gurdwaras. The article concludes by mentioning that a documentary called “The Sikh Wedding Crashers” could be heard on the BBC Asian Network on Monday 11th March 2013 at 5.00pm, or listened to thereafter on BBC iPlayer.

Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Three.

Despite the growing popularity of secularism and Protestantism in recent decades, the Roman Catholic Church is still a major social influence in Latin America, so much so that the Vatican’s hostility to abortion is enshrined in the legislation of most Latin American nation states. Chile is said to have the legislation that is most hostile to abortion in that it is presently illegal without exception. The Chilean abortion law is therefore considered one of the most restrictive in the world.

However, this dire situation for women may at last be about to change, and it may be about to change because of what follows, a case of sexual abuse that came to light in 2013:

The case of a pregnant girl aged eleven who was raped in Chile by her mother’s partner set off a national debate about abortion in one of the most socially conservative countries in Latin America. Chileans were outraged after state TV reported that the child is fourteen weeks pregnant and was raped repeatedly over two years. Police in the remote southern city of Puerto Montt arrested her mother’s partner, who reportedly confessed to abusing the girl. The case was brought to their attention by the pregnant child’s maternal grandmother.

Doctors say the girl’s life and that of the foetus are at high risk. But in Chile ending the pregnancy is not an option.

Chile allowed abortions for medical reasons until they were outlawed in 1973 by General Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. The current government of conservative President Sebastian Pinera has opposed any loosening of the prohibition.

Many Chileans vented their outrage on social media. Some started an online campaign to demand legalisation of abortion in cases of rape or health risks for the mother. “When I heard about this little girl, my first reaction was to support abortion because I think it’s the best option in this case,” said Eduardo Hernandez, a web designer aged thirty. “It’s the first online petition I’ve signed in my life, but I think this case really deserves it,” Mr. Hernandez said. “We should have a change of law. I hope this case serves as a precedent to have a serious discussion about abortion.” The Chilean Senate rejected three bills in 2012 that would have eased the absolute ban on abortions.

“Chile is a country that has modernised when it comes to its economy, but when it comes to its social and political culture, it has become stagnant and this is seen with the abortion issue,” said Marta Lagos, head of the Santiago-based pollster Mori. “It’s a country that is opposed to change, that panics with any change, which is seen as a threat,” Lagos said. “The weight of Catholicism is still a major issue and we also have an indigenous culture that always lived alienated from the rest of world.”

The Roman Catholic Church retains a strong influence over society, although it has lost credibility since 2010 when four men alleged that they were abused by one of Chile’s most revered priests when they were between fourteen and seventeen years-old.

Former president Michelle Bachelet, the frontrunner in the November 2013 presidential election, favours legalising abortion in cases of rape or risks to the health of the mother or the child. She has spent the past two years heading the UN agency for women.

Her opponent, former Economy Minister Pablo Longueira, was close to Pinochet. He opposes the legalisation of abortion and the morning-after pill.

The following is part of a recent article in “The Guardian” newspaper:

The debate about abortion comes as Chile, one of Latin America’s most socially conservative countries, grapples with shifting views on once-taboo issues. The mostly Roman Catholic country began to allow divorce in 2004. This year, Congress recognised civil unions for gay couples and, recently, a pilot programme in Santiago harvested the country’s first legal medical marijuana.

The changing attitudes mark a generational shift as young people born after the 1973-1990 military dictatorship come of age. The trend has accelerated since a wave of student protests demanding educational reform began in 2011 in the wake of Catholic priest sex abuse scandals that have provoked questioning of Church doctrine.

A recent discussion on abortion at Santiago’s Diego Portales University drew a packed audience with many students forced to sit on the floor.

“As a country we are behind,” said Fernanda Saavedra, a student who attended. “We need to evolve and think more about women.”

Chile legalised abortion for medical reasons in 1931, eighteen years before it allowed women to vote. But during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, abortion was banned under all circumstances. Today, women found guilty of having abortions face prison terms of up to five years.

Still, an estimated 120,000 illegal abortions are performed every year, according to the Miles Group. Most women use the drug misoprostol, buying it on the black market, to end first-trimester pregnancies. Others undergo conventional abortions in secret. Those who can afford to travel seek abortions in neighbouring Argentina or beyond.

And this suggests that change for the better is not far off:

Chileans online are engaging in heated debate over abortion, twenty-six years after the procedure was completely banned in the country. In August 2015, the Chamber of Deputies’ health commission is set to vote on a new bill that will decriminalise abortion under three circumstances: in a case of rape, when a mother’s life is at risk, or when a foetus will not survive the pregnancy. The proposed law is backed by Chilean President Michelle Bachelet.

Montilla, Spain

Montilla, Spain

Four.

Evidence grows suggesting that the Islamic State has used chemical weapons (mustard gas, in all likelihood) against the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Chemical weapons have already been used by the Alawite-dominated regime of Bashar Al-Assad that clings to power in parts of Syria. Inevitably, the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds reminds those of us with long memories about how Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime used such weapons against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988 killing about 5,000 men, women and children.

Battalgazi, near Malatya, Turkey

A Kurdish family, Battalgazi, near Malatya, Turkey

Five.

In August 2015, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Scotland, Philip Tartaglia, said to the victims of historic child sexual abuse, “The bishops of Scotland are shamed and pained for what you have suffered. We say sorry. We ask for forgiveness. We apologise to those who have found Church reaction slow, unsympathetic or uncaring and we reach out to them as we take up the recommendations of the McLellan Commission.”

Published in August 2015, the report by the McLellan Commission makes for harrowing reading, this despite the fact that It is merely the latest such report to confirm how widespread child sexual abuse has been within the Roman Catholic Church and how inadequate the response of the Church has been when such abuse is confirmed.

Dr. Andrew McLellan was commissioned in November 2013 to undertake a review of all aspects of safeguarding policy, procedures and practice within the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. 2013 had been a difficult year for Scottish Roman Catholics. Early in 2013, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, had sent shock waves through Scottish congregations when he resigned following inappropriate sexual conduct toward his own priests. A few months later, allegations of historic child sexual abuse were made involving Fort Augustus Abbey School, an exclusive Roman Catholic boarding school in the Scottish Highlands.

Catherine Deveney is one of the many people who provided evidence to the McLellan Commission. In late August 2015 she wrote in the following manner in a national UK newspaper:

What did I tell McLellan? As much as possible, while protecting my sources. The decades of abuse; of cover-up; of moral and financial corruption. The enormous gulf between what the Church said publicly and what it did privately. Its ruthless dismissal of victims and of criticism. The fact that it failed to have coherent, consistent policies because each bishop was deemed autonomous in his own diocese. McLellan had produced reports on the Scottish prison service in the past and was neither delicate nor faint-hearted. “I am shocked,” he told me. “And I am not easily shocked.”

 In the same article Deveney refers to:

Father Patrick Lawson, an Ayrshire priest who had been speaking out against abuse for almost twenty years after exposing a fellow priest, Father Paul Moore, for sexually assaulting him and abusing two altar boys. Father Lawson, who was forcibly removed from his parish and is now involved in an industrial tribunal against the Church, also appeared before the commission and the final report recommends a policy protecting whistleblowers.

The two popes before Pope Francis. Gdansk, Poland

The two popes before Pope Francis. Gdansk, Poland

 Six.

Palmyra in Syria is one of the Middle East’s most remarkable ruined ancient cities, partly for the magnificent ruins that survive, and partly for the magnificent artefacts kept in the nearby museum. However, the Islamic State now (mid-2015) controls the region around Palmyra. In August 2015, Islamic State militants beheaded a renowned antiquities scholar and hung his mutilated body on a column in one of Palmyra’s main squares because the scholar refused to reveal where valuable artefacts had been moved for safekeeping.

The brutal murder of Khaled Al-Asaad – he was aged eighty-two – is the latest atrocity perpetrated by the Islamic State, which has captured a third of Syria and neighbouring Iraq and declared a caliphate on the territory it controls. The atrocity has also highlighted the Islamic State’s habit of looting and selling antiquities to fund its activities or destroying them.

Al-Asaad, who had worked at Palmyra for fifty years, had been held for more than a month before being murdered. Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said he had learned from a Syrian source that the archaeologist had been interrogated by Islamic State militants about the location of treasures from Palmyra and had been executed when he refused to cooperate.

The Islamic State captured Palmyra from government forces in May, but so far has not damaged its monumental Roman-era ruins despite a reputation for destroying artefacts it describes as idolatrous. This said, it is very likely that damage will now be done to the ruins.

Palmyra is one of Syria’s six UNESCO world heritage sites, but five of them have been severely damaged by the war because of airstrikes, mortar attacks and extensive looting. The old city of Aleppo (once, along with the old city in Cairo, the most beautiful and intriguing old city in the Middle East) is largely in ruins. So far the old city of Damascus has been spared, but fierce fighting rages not far away and mortar shells occasionally fall within it. Government airstrikes have turned many of Damascus’s suburbs, once a short minibus ride from the old city’s Roman-era eastern gate, into rubble.

P.S. Just prior to publishing this post, news broke that Islamic State militants have destroyed part or all of the magnificent Baal Shamin Temple at Palmyra, which dates from 17 CE. The reason for destroying the temple? One or more of the following would seem to provide an explanation. Baal Shamin Temple is pre- or non-Islamic. It is a product of pagan piety. It is where people once engaged in practices that mainstream Muslims define as idolatrous. It provides humankind with an insight into the divine that conflicts with the view of the divine thought by mainstream Muslims to be true. Its destruction enrages public opinion globally.

None of the above are reasons that justify the temple’s destruction. Recent events at Palmyra confirm that the Islamic State must be resisted wherever it seeks to gain a foothold.

And they slaughtered the innocent (the story with no end)

And they slaughtered the innocent (the story with no end)

Seven. 

Ayoub El-Khazzani, a Moroccan national, had his August 2015 plan to murder passengers on an Amsterdam to Paris high-speed train thwarted by the intervention of two American servicemen, their American civilian friend and a UK businessman. El-Khazzani, known to the authorities for links with jihadi groups, is believed to have travelled through Europe to Turkey between May and July 2015, from where he may have crossed the border to spend time with Islamic State militants. He may also have links with Sid Ahmed Ghlam, an Algerian student who was arrested in April 2015. Sid Ahmed Ghlam is charged with planning to attack churches and other targets in Paris.

But…

The nuclear deal framework with Iran dating from April 2015 has resulted in the re-establishment of normal diplomatic relations between the Islamic Republic on the one hand and nation states such as the US and the UK on the other. Jaw-jaw is always preferable to war-war. How sad, therefore, that those who are most vocal in their opposition to the deal are Israel, Saudi Arabia and a majority of Republicans in the US. As unholy alliances go, the one that (sort of) exists between Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US Republicans takes some beating. I wonder to what degree religion has influenced Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US Republicans to oppose and/or regret the deal with Iran?

Part of the Republican heartland, Texas, the USA

Part of the Republican heartland, Texas, the USA

After this, no more Sex and Christianity. You can have too much of a good thing!

The third and final part of Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch’s TV series about attitudes toward sex in Christianity was so good that I cannot resist providing a summary of what he said. If, by summarising, I misrepresent what was originally said, the fault is all mine. Blame me and not the professor.

People began a fundamental questioning of the churches three centuries ago when the Enlightenment began. The Enlightenment began the process by which sex changed from being a sin tolerated only in marriage to being a recreational pleasure and lifestyle choice. Over time, gay people were transformed from being sinners to accepted members of society. Women, once dismissed by the churches as morally weak, sexually predatory and unfit for leadership, gradually found themselves accepted as ordained priests and other religious leadership figures. But for most of the last three hundred years, the churches fought against these radical changes.

The churches began to lose control of sex in the West in the 18th century as the rational power of science and learning challenged superstition, mindless obedience and religious teaching on many different matters, not least sex. But already by the year 1700, London, in common with many other large cities, was awash with prostitutes, brothels and meeting places for heterosexual and gay sex. There were drag queens and a Baptist minister who officiated at same-sex marriages, although no one but he recognised such marriages as legal at the time. The permissive times appear to have dated from at least the 1690s.

The Church of England sought to hold back what it saw as a tide of debauchery but it could do very little, not least because Christianity in England and most other European countries no longer had one voice. Dissenting Protestants existed in England and elsewhere, thereby compromising the power and authority of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The result? Churches could no longer monopolise power over people’s minds. People suddenly had new freedoms about who to be and how to live.

Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Kansas City, Missouri, USA

A new manifestation of Christianity at the time was the Evangelical Revival, which soon morphed into Methodism. The Evangelical Revival broke with Christian tradition when it empowered women to assume leadership roles. Methodism in particular was inspired by a desire to promote social justice, and it was not long before Sarah Crosby benefitted from such justice by becoming the denomination’s first female preacher. She was most active as a preacher during the 1760s and 1770s. Other women followed Crosby into the role of preacher and also opened schools and spread the Christian message. Women were suddenly seen to have high moral seriousness, which was in marked contrast with how they were seen not long after the foundation of Christianity until the 18th century. Methodist women even engaged in missionary activities in North America and the British colonies. But after Wesley died, Methodists began to react against the idea of women assuming leadership roles. In fact, the same thing happened in other Protestant churches. Just as early Christianity had done, the new manifestations of the faith first granted real power to women before denying them it, alleging that they were inadequate to the role. As ever within the faith, men reasserted their primacy and power.

The French Revolution was the next substantive knock to religious authority in so far as it dented the power of the Roman Catholic Church, primarily in France but, long-term, elsewhere. The revolution stripped the Roman Catholic Church of much of its wealth and power in France, where it was thought to be steeped in superstition and corruption and to have many priests with an unhealthy appetite for sexual abandon. France became the world’s first secular state, but at great human and material cost. Marriage became a purely civil contract, divorce was possible by mutual consent and homosexuality was decriminalised, all of which were direct attacks on Roman Catholic teaching on sex. The reforms had a long-term impact in other European empires and nation states, but, when Napoleon Bonaparte ruled France, he signed an agreement with the Vatican which gave the Roman Catholic Church the chance to temporarily revive its fortunes. Ironically, however, the revival of the Roman Catholic Church was largely conducted by women.

By the early 19th century, and for the first time ever, nuns outnumbered monks and priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Nuns engaged in teaching, the provision of healthcare and meeting the needs of the poorest in society. A sort of Roman Catholic feminism emerged, and the main inspiration behind such feminism was the example of Mary, the mother of Jesus himself. But, in time, admiration for Mary led to reinforcement of the idea that her conception had been immaculate (free from the sin of sexual encounter), thereby making her unique among all human beings. The idea of the immaculate conception had been around since the second century, but now the idea caught on as never before. Mary was the uniquely sinless woman and women were therefore confronted with an ideal of womanhood they could never live up to, even if they never engaged in sexual activity of any kind. In 1854 the immaculate conception became an article of faith revealed by God and this heralded a new attack on sex because everyone but Mary was tainted by the sexual act itself.

During the 19th century some Victorians divided sexual acts into two categories, normal and perverse, and others experimented with photography, which soon led to a rapid increase in the availability of pornography. Prostitution remained common, not least in the United Kingdom, where Josephine Butler, an evangelical Christian married to an Anglican clergyman, championed the cause of women caught up in the sex industry. Josephine Butler complained that women who engaged in prostitution were criminalised, but men who exploited women to satisfy their sexual appetites were allowed to go free. She was eventually successful in repealing the Contagious Diseases acts both in Britain and elsewhere from 1869 to 1886 because such legislation harmed and unfairly imprisoned young women who were suspected of being prostitutes. But Butler did this without the support of the Church of England.

From the 16th to the 19th century, all marriages but those among Jews and Quakers were legal/valid only if the ceremony had been conducted by an Anglican priest. But in the early 19th century all the churches other than the Church of England clamoured for the Anglican monopoly to be broken. The monopoly did eventually end, but legislation also required that all marriages were subject to civil registration. This meant that marriages could now take place in local registry offices. This was the beginning of civil marriage as we know it today, the separation of marriage from religion. Gradually civil marriage was reintroduced throughout Europe, even in predominantly Roman Catholic countries where secular governments used civil marriage as a way to challenge Church power and authority.

The Roman Catholic Church had always maintained an absolute ban on divorce, but, in contrast, Protestant churches had allowed divorce in certain circumstances, except in England. in 1857 the British Parliament passed the Matrimonial Causes Act, an act permitting civil divorce on the grounds of infidelity. Divorce was now beyond the control of the Church of England. The act also allowed for the remarriage of divorcees, which was in direct opposition to Christian teaching at the time. In fact, the Church of England remained officially opposed to divorcees remarrying until 2002.

Salamanca, Spain

Salamanca, Spain

In the latter half of the 19th century, as European powers established colonies in ever more remote parts of the globe, Christians encountered people whose beliefs about marriage were very different from their own. This was perhaps most apparent in parts of Africa where polygamy was widespread. Even though Abraham, Solomon and many other Old Testament characters are said to have engaged in polygamous relationships, Christians were committed to monogamy as supported by Jesus. To Christians, polygamy was illegal and immoral, despite the many polygamous Old Testament characters not criticised for such relationships. But there had always been Christians on the margins of the faith who had sympathised with polygamy, and the early 19th century saw the emergence in the USA of what came to be known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints whose leaders said that God had solemnly instructed them to adopt polygamy. Even today, 20,000 Mormons are said to be in polygamous marriages in the USA alone. As for Christians who encountered polygamous marriages in the colonies where they worked, at first they tried to impose monogamy, but, where African and other communities resisted practices alien to their heritage, the missionaries gradually came to tolerate polygamy provided conversion to Christianity was assured. To this day among many Christians living in Africa polygamy persists.

By the beginning of the 20th century science had transformed artificial contraception. With condoms and diaphragms more readily available, sexual intercourse could be separated from having children, which brought a more liberal attitude to sex. At the time, however, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches totally condemned artificial contraception. Attitudes began to change in the 1930s when Anglican bishops came to accept the merits of artificial contraception if, for example, it was necessary to limit family size or a couple were unsuited for parenthood. Anglican bishops finally agreed that people should decide for themselves whether they would use artificial contraception or not. The matter had become one of individual conscience.

From as early as the 2nd century, Christians had limited sex exclusively to having children, but now Anglicans were saying that sex could be indulged in for other reasons, not least pleasure. This was a very important break with the past. But in the 1930s the Roman Catholic Church would not allow Roman Catholics to use any form of artificial birth control.

The idea that sex could be enjoyed for its own sake had as big an impact among homosexuals as it did among heterosexuals, but, following the second world war, homosexual acts remained criminal offences. In 1954 no fewer than 1,069 men were imprisoned for homosexual acts. However, as discussion, albeit ill-informed, about homosexuality increased, it became apparent that some well-known members of the establishment were gay. This realisation helped to popularise the campaign to decriminalise homosexuality. Even more remarkably, leading clergy in the Church of England supported the campaign. Most such clergy felt that homosexuality was sinful, but their commitments to compassion and justice led them to argue in favour of decriminalisation. In 1967 homosexuality was decriminalised, by which time a majority of Anglican clergy, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in the UK and a majority of Methodists had expressed sympathy for the change of law.

It was also in 1967 that abortion was legalised in the UK. Although some Protestants came out in favour of legalising abortion, the Roman Catholic Church could not do so, but 1967 confirmed that core Enlightenment values such as freedom, equality and rationality were having an impact in specific Christian environments.

By the late 1960s it appeared to many as if the “permissive society” had taken a firm hold in many parts of the developed world, so much so that growing numbers of children were being born out of wedlock. Such “permissiveness” led to a conservative backlash in many expressions of religious faith, perhaps especially from heterosexual men who saw in the empowerment of women and homosexuals threats to their power, dignity and usefulness. But the tide of change could not be resisted indefinitely and, in 1994, the Church of England ordained its first women priests (the Church now has women bishops). However, reaching an accommodation with homosexuality has proved more of a challenge, so much so that, while the Church of England will ordain openly gay priests, such priests must not engage in sexual acts with other men. Conservatives in all or most churches seem to believe that, if ground is given in relation to homosexuality, all aspects of biblical authority will be brought into question. But research suggests a slim majority of Anglicans now support same-sex marriage and therefore have no problem with openly gay priests engaging in sex with other men. It is merely a matter of time, surely, before the Church leadership reflects the opinion of a majority of those they serve.

Extremadura, Spain

Extremadura, Spain

At least Protestants have been relatively open and honest in their discussions about homosexuality, women and marriage. In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church has denied such discussion to unfold within its ranks and has merely restated traditional Church teaching: no to homosexuality, no to women priests, yes to celibate priests, no to divorce, no to abortion, and no to artificial contraception, the latter even after the problem of HIV/Aids in the 1980s. Such reluctance to engage with the real world in an informed and compassionate way that might enhance the rights and opportunities of millions of people currently denied such rights and opportunities has done a lot to erode the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church, despite Vatican II suggesting that meaningful reform of the Church is possible, but even more damaging to the Church have been the revelations from many nation states around the globe that Roman Catholic priests have engaged in the sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of children. Other churches have had problems with child sexual abuse, but not on the scale in the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, no other church has sought so systematically to cover up such abuse, protect its priests from criminal prosecution and to save the Church from scandal at the expense of its victims. The status that priests have within the Church because of their sacramental responsibilities and commitment to celibacy encourage in some priests a belief that they are somehow superior to members of the laity and exempt from the rules of everyday society. They are not superior to members of the laity and no one is above the rules of everyday society. Moreover, priests are meant to serve their congregations, not preside over them.

Every so often Pope Francis says something that encourages one to believe that the Roman Catholic Church might one day embark along the road that some Protestant churches have traveled along, but, to date, nothing substantive has been done to suggest that attitudes within the Church in relation to a host of matters sexual will shift significantly short- or medium-term. But what can be said with confidence is that the Roman Catholic laity are almost as likely as the laity in many Protestant churches to do what they think is right and proper in relation to sexual matters, even if this means doing things that are at complete odds with Church teaching. The great majority of people in the West have been liberated from what Christianity has required of its followers in relation to sex for almost 2,000 years.