Morality, Religion & Philosophy: October 2006 Archives

Just about everyone can agree that Australia's top Muslim imam is wrong in comparing women to meat who deserve to be raped for their immodesty, but the right answer is not always so clear-cut.

A Muslim cleric's claim that women who do not wear the veil are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators sparked outrage around Australia yesterday.

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic headdress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats. ...

In a Ramadam sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame.

There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.

Blaming rape victims who don't wear burkhas is clearly ludicrous and evil, but are all those who cry "rape" completely innocent? (The age of consent in Ohio is 16 years old.)

The week before the show, Mango's entertainment director Holly Everson began to lay the groundwork, recruiting local girls to kick-start the action. In an e-mail to the 17-year-old Falls girl, Everson wrote, ``call me if you want to be part of Girls Gone Wild on Weds. @ Mangos... Ill hook you up, all you gotta do is be there at 9 and dance on the bar all night and have fun.'' ...

The recipient of Everson's invitation doesn't talk like a typical teen. She is direct and well-spoken, and clearly intelligent.

Hard to square that kind of acumen with the girl who at 9:15 p.m. on Sept. 13 rolled into Mango's with a female friend to make $50 to dance on top of the bar and ``get things going,'' as she was instructed. They were among four young girls recruited to liven things up.

The Falls girl says it was made clear to her that she and her fellow insiders would be treated to an open bar.

And what did she drink that night? ``I think a better question would be, `What did I not drink?' '' she replies.

The drunker she got, the more she took off. By roughly 11 p.m., she was gyrating on the bar, exposing everything at one time or another, as perhaps 350 customers hooted their approval and three GGW photographers documented the action, two with video cameras and one with still. ...

As closing time neared, she says, she and several other girls were invited out to the bus. She was the first in line and, after she climbed aboard, she says, the others were barred. While she was partially passed out, the cameraman who had been watching her came up from behind and forced himself on her, she says.

There may have been a rape, but could it possibly be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Is the 17-year-old here completely blameless? In my experience, the commenters who will be hardest on this girl will be other women.

Here's a neat little piece that reveals some of the insanity behind pro-abortionists: people complain when aborted babies are thrown in the furnace.

One of the country's leading hospitals is throwing aborted babies into the same incinerator used for rubbish to save only £18.50 each time, it has emerged.

Addenbrooke's Hospital, in Cambridge, said it was no longer able to afford the dignified disposal at a local crematorium of foetuses from unwanted pregnancies.

Instead, they are being burnt in the hospital's main incinerator - which is normally used for rubbish and clinical waste.

Pro-life groups are objecting rather tepidly, asking that murdered children be treated with more dignity.

Dr Anthony Russell, Bishop of Ely, said: "I am sorry to know this is the practice currently being adopted by the hospital. I recognise there is a wide range of responses to this issue, but believe the disposal of foetuses should be undertaken reverently and with dignity."

The Royal College of Nursing apparently doesn't even know that being a "parent" requires having a child, not merely a fetus!

The RCN's guide, Sensitive Disposal of all Foetal Remains, says disposal alongside clinical waste is 'completely unacceptable'.

It adds: 'It is acknowledged that sometimes parents don't recognise their loss at the time, but may return months or even years later to enquire about the disposal arrangements.

'Therefore, it is important to respect the wishes of parents who may not want to be involved, but to ensure also that sensitive and dignified disposal is carried out.'

But the Irony Award goes to this unnamed woman who murdered her unborn baby but then summons up the lunacy to complain about how the corpse of her victim is treated:

One local woman, who asked not to be named, said after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby.

She said: "I am furious and very hurt. Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish."

As James Taranto asks, "Huh? What Baby?".

I was having a discussion with some Christians the other day that touched on belief in evolution vs. literal belief in the Creation stories in Genesis. Of course the decision is not binary, but people often treat it so. Some other possibilities:

1. We're all replicants a la Blade Runner who were created 5 seconds ago with fully formed memories.

2. As suggested in various sci-fi universes, an ancient alient precursor race seeded the galaxy with its DNA and humanity is one of the byproducts.

3. The creation story of some other religion is true.

4. You're all figments of my imagination, or we're all figments of someone else's imagination.

5. We live in a Matrix-like simulation. (Here's how to survive in a simulation, just in case.)

6. The creation stories in Genesis are figuratively true.

Ok, there's more, but the sixth one is what I want to discuss today. (Of the rest, I find number five most compelling.)

First, so I don't get burnt as a heretic, let me say that I do interpret the Bible literally... at least the portions that are intended to be taken so. It's clear to anyone familiar with the Bible that large portions are intended to be figurative, and a "literal" interpretation of those parts would be nonsense. Jesus taught almost exclusively in parables, by wrapping a spiritual message in a worldly envelope so that his students could understand. Furthermore, huge swaths of prophecy in Daniel, Revelation, the Gospels, and elsewhere use vivid imagery that is intended to convey a message to the readers but not necessarily be taken literally. Consider John's vision of Jesus Christ recorded in Revelation 1:12-16.

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

The returning Christ's hair is like wool, his feet are like bronze, and his voice is like the sound of rushing waters. Clearly the language of metaphor. However, no "like" is to be found where John tells us that "out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword"... but will that be literally true? I doubt it. It seems much more likely that the double-edged sword is an illustration of how the returning Christ's words will divide humanity and bring judgement and destruction.

The Bible contains more than prophecy -- it also contains law, history, poetry, biography, personal communications, letters of instruction, and much more. It's important to interpret the Bible as a whole, a single work with one author who wrote it using many hands. No part of the scriptures can be properly interpreted without an understanding of the whole work, and that includes the question of literal and figurative interpretation. Does this make interpretation harder and more error-prone than if one were to simply declare a literal belief in the Bible? Certainly... but who ever said that understanding God's Word would not require wisdom and discernment?

As for the creation stories, here are a few questions.

Does literal or figurative belief in the creation stories impact one's salvation? I'd say certainly not. They give insight into sin and foreshadow redemption, but those principles can be grasped by a figurative reading of the stories as well. All that is required for salvation is a personal realization of sin, confession thereof, and acceptance of Jesus Christ's death as payment.

Does a literal or figurative belief in the creation stories affect how one lives one's daily Christian life? Again, I don't think so.

And so, why the controversy? Many who are quick to denounce the mere suggestion that the creation stories could be intended to be figurative have no problem figuratively interpreting clear instructions that are explicitly literal. (The passage is long, but I have bolded the portions I wish to draw your attention to.)

1 Corinthians 11:3-16

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

I personally believe that the purpose of this passage is to instruct the church in modesty, and that if men and women dress and act modestly and with propriety suitable for their culture then they are in obedience with these instructions. However, the text itself is clearly intended to be taken literally, and the last sentence in particular rebukes any who would discount the instructions.

If clear commands such as those above can be obeyed as principles rather than exact instruction, then who has a basis for disputing the literalness of the history of the creation stories? I think the topic is fascinating to discuss (as I have just done at length), but arguments over the matter are clearly not profitable for the work of Christ.