Anne TootillUK Bishop claims moral vacuum left by the decline in Christian virtues
May 29th 2008 09:49
Accusation: Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali claims radical Islam is filling the moral vacuum left by the decline in Christian virtues.
It has destroyed family life and left the country defenceless against the rise of radical Islam in a moral and spiritual vacuum.
The Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said the country was mired in a doctrine of 'endless self-indulgence' that had brought an explosion in public violence and binge-drinking.
The Pakistani-born bishop dated the downfall of Christianity from the 'social and sexual revolution' of the 1960s.
The bishop said 'something momentous' happened in the 1960s. He quoted historians who point to a cultural revolution in which women ceased to uphold or pass on the Christian faith.
He quoted an academic who blames the loss of 'faith and piety among women' for the steep decline in Christian worship.
He said: 'It has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves.' In the place of Christianity there was nothing 'except perhaps endless self-indulgence'.
The bishop said the consequences were 'the destruction of the family, the loss of a father figure, especially for boys, because the role of fathers is deemed otiose (good word that, otiose, I had to look that one up) the abuse of substances (including alcohol), the loss of respect for human life which leads to horrendous and mindless physical attacks on people, the increasing communications gap between generations and social classes - the list is very long.'
Christian values of human dignity, equality and freedom could be lost as the way is left open for the advance of brands of Islam that do not respect Western values.
The bishop warned that views not founded on Christianity would not produce the same values. 'Instead of Christian virtues of humility, service and sacrifice, there may be honour, piety, the saving of face, etc'.
Over the past six months, Dr Nazir-Ali has made a number of criticisms of Islam and its influence.
Last weekend he was one of just three bishops who backed a move in the Church's parliament, the General Synod, to encourage the conversion of Muslims to Christianity
The bishop, himself an immigrant from Pakistan in the mid-1980s, admitted that he might be thought the least qualified person to discuss British identity.
Born into a Roman Catholic family in Pakistan, the young Michael Nazir-Ali converted to Anglicanism at the age of 20.
As a young man, he suffered rough treatment of the kind regularly handed out to Christians in a country where failing to follow the official religion can sometimes end in murder.
He moved to Cambridge to study theology and then returned as a priest to Pakistan before being brought to London in the 1980s to serve as an assistant to the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Robert Runcie.
He is one of the bishops who has been called on by the Prince of Wales to give advice on Islam.
However, Dr Nazir-Ali does not share the prince's enthusiasm for Islamic values. He has warned Charles to give up his hope of being 'defender of faiths' because of the incompatibility of different beliefs.
Dr Nazir-Ali has accused Muslims of promoting double standards by looking for both 'victimhood and domination'; he has called for the removal of veils from Muslim women for security reasons; and he has warned repeatedly over the dangers of extremism.
In particular he has called on Islamic leaders to allow Muslims to abandon their beliefs and adopt other religions.
I have a feeling that won't be happening any time soon.
| 77 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Wait. Wester values? Current western values? The ones he was only just criticizing? YOu know, these western values:
*sigh* -_- From that alone it's clear he just has an agenda he wants to ram home.
No offense to the guy but asking a Christian about Islam is like asking a Muslim about Christianity. Problem here is people are too caught up being busy bodies trying to make educated comments on other peoples beliefs while forgetting they're not exactly perfect.
Whats sad is Christians probably have moore to say about Islam than Muslims do, and vice versa.
The only two beliefs that are incompatible are tolerance and intolerance.
Let's get a Muslim to call for the removal of Crosses and converting Mosques to Churches while we're at it. It would probably get more media attention.
Comment by Anne Tootill
The Female View
I don't know you Ahmed but I'm assuming you are Muslum. I agree with you that tolerance of each other's beliefs is the key to peace on earth.
But I also agree with the Bishop when he said: 'It has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves.' In the place of Christianity there was nothing 'except perhaps endless self-indulgence'.
Letting a young person loose on the world without any moral values I believe is very dangerous, especially for young women. Having sex with whoever comes along just because it feels right from an early age could result in a very unhappy, lonely middle aged woman.
I can only speak from my own experience when I say that I had the very best of mothers who taught me self respect. Consequently I didn't jump into bed with lots of men and hopefully my children won't either.
Sorry to have a little rant there but back to the Bishop, I like him, I think he's got balls.
Thanks for the comment Ahmed
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Interesting that no matter what the topic, serious or otherwise, there's always someone who can come up with a statement like the one above. It seems that in this line of thinking saying that someone is a 'tosser' or some other equally insulting word is the level of their argument. It doesn't occur to them that such comments only show up their own lack of thought about the topic.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But how about this- the Reverend has managed to insult women, the entire Muslim world, the West and Britain all the while admitting that he "might be thought the least qualified person to discuss British identity".
Thanks.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
The interesting thing is that he's pointing out the problems inherent in the way young women are behaving (we have the same promiscuous, binge-drinking culture happening here in New Zealand with young women); he's pointing out that however much we may dislike the idea, Islam and Christianity are not compatible - they may have some good things in common, but they are never going to live happily together. He's hardly insulting the entire Muslim world. And saying things that are true about Britain and the West's culture hardly qualifies as insulting either of them.
The problem is that when people do speak the truth, there will always be people like yourself who think they're tossers. Which doesn't demean them at all; it says more about you and your way of thinking.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And who says the Reverend is "speaking the truth"? You? Since when do you get to decide what truth is? That's not my truth. Sorry but I don't buy into his rhetoric.
I dismissed him with a one throwaway insult because that is all I thought he deserved. I saw his statements as being so obviously devoid of reason and credibility that they did not warrant an in depth analysis. Yes, I think he is a tosser. That is my one sentence summarisation of his ridiculous statements. But I could write a whole essay on them if you would like.
Comment by Anne Tootill
The Female View
Hi Ruby, I'm a bit of a stirrer you know, I actually had you in mind when I posted this and I'm delighted you took the trouble to add a comment.
And Mike, thank you for understanding what I was trying to say.
I think there is only one thing seedier than a man with a long list of sexual partners and that's a woman with a long list of sexual partners.
Mothers - teach your sons and daughters well.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Hey, you do read a lot into something that's not there. I don't anywhere say that women are worse than men for screwing around. Both males and females need to practice moderation in all things, but they don't. What the bishop is saying, and I agree with, is that women have become far more promiscuous in the last few decades. It's not something that's doing them any good. It wasn't ever good when men were the only promiscuous sex; having women follow them down the same sick path is just ridiculous.
Ah, the old, my truth is my truth and your truth is your truth. Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Truth is truth, otherwise it isn't truth at all.
I think that's what you do on your own blog all the time, as far as I can see. As for his statements being devoid of reason and credibility: well, that's fine for you to say, but you don't back it up with anything more than your 'tosser' statement. Hardly a rebuttal.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Mothers - teach your sons and daughters well.
So sex is dirtier for the woman involved? And of course, it's the mothers fault right?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
What the bishop is saying, and I agree with, is that women have become far more promiscuous in the last few decades. It's not something that's doing them any good. It wasn't ever good when men were the only promiscuous sex; having women follow them down the same sick path is just ridiculous
Why isn't having sex doing women any good? Says who? How can you prove this? Has there been some major scientific study of which I am unaware? I happen to enjoy having sex. Hasn't seem to have done me any harm. Of course, perhaps what the Bishop and therefore you appears to be saying is- it has not done the Church any good now that women are more independent and are not willing to accept the subservient position that the Church feels they should have.
Actually the Bishop was only stating his own opinion. And admitting that he may not be the best qualified person to comment. Now just because you happen to agree with him does not make his statement a universal truth.
Truth is truth, yes but not when it is religious propaganda, that has no basis in any facts and cannot be backed up with the slightest bit of evidence.
I think that's what you do on your own blog all the time, as far as I can see. As for his statements being devoid of reason and credibility: well, that's fine for you to say, but you don't back it up with anything more than your 'tosser' statement. Hardly a rebuttal.
What do I do on my blogs? Write essay-style articles that I back up with evidence and references? And once again I will say using someone else's blog to diss my own just makes you appear like a coward.
The good Bishop says:
The bishop said 'something momentous' happened in the 1960s. He quoted historians who point to a cultural revolution in which women ceased to uphold or pass on the Christian faith.
He quoted an academic who blames the loss of 'faith and piety among women' for the steep decline in Christian worship.
He said: 'It has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves.' In the place of Christianity there was nothing 'except perhaps endless self-indulgence'.
Ah yes, just like Eve was to blame for the Fall of mankind, so too are women to blame for the fact that people are waking up to the idiocy that is the Bible.
But really, blaming the sixties? Because that's when women began making headway in their fight for their work rights, reproductive rights and finally actually realising that there may just be a life for them beyond the kitchen and laundry?
But what the reverend is overlooking is the small matter of education. Yes, the more educated a person is, the less likely they will be religious. And since the sixties also brought with it the advent of a new era when more women (and men) began tertiary education, then it may be more accurate to say that it is the fact that people are more educated than ever before that they are leaving the Bible behind.
The bishop warned that views not founded on Christianity would not produce the same values. 'Instead of Christian virtues of humility, service and sacrifice, there may be honour, piety, the saving of face, etc'.
Well that is just too easy. Honour and saving face are cultural characteristics of the Middle East which originate in its tribal history. These pre-date Islam and are not advocated by the Koran. So whilst some recent Muslim immigrants may hold onto these traditions, their children are less likely to do so since they will not be exposed to them on a daily basis as they are to Western culture. Given a few generations these values will peter out. There is a big big difference between culture and religion which the Bishop, and yourself, are failing to address.
But hey why bother to actually learn anything about Islam when you can just let your ignorance rain down on an unsuspecting public?
And why bother trying to understand the real reasons for the decline of Bible-based faith when you can just do what the Church has done through all the ages- blame sex and above all blame women?
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Correct me if I'm wrong but it takes at least two people to have sex? I mean unless there is an anomaly, such as 2 male, 1 female threesomes we would have to assume that the amount of sex a women have increases linearly with the amount of sex men have.
I dunno, I think you're ignoring the core of the issue, sure women being sluts is not a good thing and neither is it good for men to be so promiscuous, but the problem is they are being promiscuous, not that it does them any good because they're men/women.
I think that while our Bishop might have some.. umm, validity to his statements, they are really biased against women. If he's worried about a social decline or whatever then he should be talking about the aforementioned social decline in its entire context, if he believes promescuiity amongst women is a problem then it is as well amongst men. His lack of willingness to handle the situation from a gender neutral point of view should be ample enough evidence that he has a thing against women.
I think at the end of the day, if you're to say the Bishop makes a good point about promiscuity then great, your choice. However he seems to be a bit of a sexist and it's better not to associate with anything he says because that not only gives validity to his whole argument but his blatant sexism would also end up rubbing off on you.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by Anne Tootill
The Female View
Hi again Ruby, I didn't say that sex is dirtier for women. I don't think sex is dirty full stop.
I think mothers are responsible for bringing a child to adulthood with sound moral values, one of which would be not to sleep around.
If the mother doesn't have any moral values herself, her children won't either.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
I certainly haven’t said that people shouldn’t have sex, Ruby, as you well know. I haven’t said anything against sex being an enjoyable experience. What concerns me is the misuse of sex (and I'm sure you're well aware of what I mean by that.) When clamidia is now one of the top infections in our country in both men and women, and when the TV is reporting that binge drinking and sexual promiscuity amongst women is not only higher than it’s ever been in this country, but higher here than in many other countries, then I think there’s probably a cause for concern.
In relation to another point, you may not be aware that the Anglican church in New Zealand was the first to have a woman bishop, and is soon to have its second. Women priests are at work in many parishes around the country, not only amongst Anglicans but also Presbyterians. Women are active throughout the New Zealand church, in fact. Perhaps it's your Catholic upbringing that means you're not aware of the extent to which women are involved in all areas of Christian life, since the Catholic church is rather behind on this matter.
You say, ‘the more educated a person is, the less likely they will be religious.’ This is an interesting idea which would presumably puzzle the large number of extremely well-educated people in my church (professors, doctors, surgeons, scientists, lecturers and the like). Are they letting their faith get in the way of their education, do you think? And that’s only one church: there are plenty of others around the country full of educated people. Equally, the Christian world is full of well-educated people. Most of them would be puzzled by your comment.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Anyway, to your comments. Firstly you have your wires crossed, I was not raised a Catholic, my family is actually Muslim but at 17 I converted to Christianity. At 19 I became an agnostic and I can't really say the exact point I became an atheist, I think the realisation just kind of crept up on me. When I say I used to be a Christian people just assume I was born into it.
I'm not saying that the Anglican Church is not ahead on some matters regarding women, but the Bishop is clearly blaming women for the decline in Christianity and that is nothing new.
I'm not saying that there are no educated people who consider themselves Christian. I am just saying that there is a negative co-relation between education and religious affiliation. From the Gallup International Millenium Survey:
Many other facts in the survey should also give us hope.
One of these facts is the negative correlation between education and religion, and also between intelligence and religion. For college graduates, 52% are religious and 25% are committed to church attendance, while the percentages are 70% and 33% for people who only completed primary school. These differences are also proven by the 1991 General Social Survey. A great number of surveys have also shown the negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity ("The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith", Free Inquiry, Spring 1986). Therefore, we may surmise that, as the general level of education will rise, the less theism will take hold.
read more here: Really Long Link
I don't want to discuss your statements on female "promiscuity" as it just makes me angry. I don't think there is anything wrong with sex as long as it is between two (or more I guess!), people who are of sound enough mind to give informed consent.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Thanks for updating me on your background; it’s interesting to hear you say that you converted to Christianity but stopped being a Christian within a couple of years. That’s not very long to have given Christianity a chance.
And it’s interesting to hear that you were brought up as a Muslim. My general impression of the way Muslim women are treated is that they’re worse off than Christian women. But then it may depend on where you were brought up.
I note that the link you give isn’t to the Survey itself but to a (fairly biased) commentary on it. One of its early paragraphs states: The general idea of the survey is bad news. The average of religious adherence in the entire world is 87%, and the average of theism is 92% - which is certainly higher than we were led to believe.
Because the writer believes that belief in a religion is bad news, therefore the survey is bad news. An odd conclusion. As for the section you quoted on negative correlation, the stats that the writer quotes don’t actually bear out his statements. I hate when people use stats to prove something they don’t prove.
I'm not saying that there are no educated people who consider themselves Christian. I am just saying that there is a negative co-relation between education and religious affiliation. From the Gallup International Millenium Survey:
My statements on female promiscuity should make you angry, but not for the reasons you suggest. Informed consent isn’t the issue; it’s the after-effects of the promiscuous sexual behaviour that’s the problem. If you can seriously tell me that a huge increase in sexually transmitted diseases is somehow good, I’d be surprised. But STDs are definitely an enormous problem, and it’s because people are being so casual about their sexual behaviour. It’s as if they don’t really give a damn.
I think in part what the Bishop is saying is that since the 1960s sexual behaviour has lost its moral ground; people no longer care about having casual sex and the consequences of casual sex. The result is increased abortion, increased STDs, increased divorce, increased unmarried couples, increased separations, increased child abuse and much more. If you’re prepared to live with all these, that’s fine. But the Bishop isn’t – and neither am I. (Notice I don’t blame it on women, but on people in general.)