Sheik al-Hilaly has again made comments about Australians and their way of life. We're dishonest, unjust, and there is no freedom or democracy here.
Oddly, this is something he is entitled to say in Australia. Let him try to make comments about Saudi Arabs in that country, or attack Egyptian political institutions in Egypt, where he made these remarks.
But you know what? I don't care. He can be as nasty as he likes, so long as he does not incite any illegal acts. I don't care. Religious clerics of all religions have made equally nasty comments about Australians. Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish. All have, at one time or another, had a spray on Australians to mark out their territory, at least in the minds of their followers.
Censoring such stupidity is not a mark of a democracy. A mark of democracy, in fact the mark of democracy, is that he is allowed to say stupid shit, and so are the fundamentalists, the religious right-to-lifers, the anti-Semitic neo-Nazis. What they are not allowed to do in a democracy is enforce their opinions, by violence or any other means, on the rest of us who live in a more tolerant world than they do.
And this is what motivates such stupid comments. They want to control others who are not in their faith community by choice. If our government is fair dinkum about an open and tolerant society, they will criticise, and move on. Muslims will eventually get used to an open society, but attacking them, and preventing the construction of their mosques, will not speed that process up; in fact, it will inevitably retard it. And to do so is fundamentally undemocratic.
We should, however, treat Hilaly as the rabid joke he has become, and no longer include him personally in any official activities under the government's aegis, and I would suggest that other religions who have learned to play nice with infidels might start to ignore him too. By all means engage with Muslims - they are a permanent part of the Australian population - but not him, or anyone who acts like him.
- Log in to post comments
Hmmm. Let me just mention that it is not just religious clerics who say nasty, racist, stupid things in order to stir up their followers. (Can anyone say Pauline Hanson? John Howard?)
Lindsay Cullen (Rev)
P.S. I do agree with the thrust of your comment vis-a-vis the Sheik.
Lindsay, some of my best friends are clerics (no, really) and they are not demagogues, and of course demagoguery is not confined to religious clerics. But they have a history, because a constant role of religion is to define the in-groups and the out-groups. And Hanson and Howard use religion to that purpose too.
Religions civilise with the rest of society, though, and most, not all, religions in Australia have grown up past that stage, but it's a very fragile sort of maturity. It won't take much before Christians start to act the old way, and behave like al-Hilaly. My hope is that the churches and better mosques behave like democrats in a secular society rather than react by going back to Rev. Paisley style exclusionism.
Hilaly seems to have almost become comical, in the sense that he seems so out of touch, that you can't help but laughing or feeling sorry for the guy. The real victims of his stupidity are the progressive parts of the Australian Muslim community, who are made to look wrongfully ignorant and almost medieval each time he decides to open his mouth. Hilaly should seriously consider touring the country with his act, as he would be guaranteed laughs on each and every stop.
As one of your pols put it, al-Hilali is "several sandwiches short of a picnic". You Aussies have many wonderful sayings like that -- must have originated in some sort of Convicts' Cant;-).
John, I certainly agree with you that historically speaking religions have functioned to define in-groups and out-groups (as have many other institutions and structures within human societies). I also agree as a matter of fact, that it wouldn't take too much for some Christians (as well as those of other religions) to behave like al-Hilaly or Paisley.
The irony is that Christianity of all religions *ought* to be immune to this, since its founder spent most of his time breaking down exclusionary practices by word and deed. And some of his disciples think that all the world would benefit from following him in that.
Peace
Lindsay