NO-GO AREAS: The Gospel in modern culture

One wonders, post Jerry Springer: The Opera about the effective existence of any blasphemy laws. In terms of language: what constitutes a no-go area? But should we, nonetheless, give a cautious welcome to the new government promise to hold ‘short and sharp’ talks over plans to scrap blasphemy laws? Justice Minister Maria Eagle made the announcement in a Commons debate on the issue on Tuesday. Government whips had instructed Labour MPs to vote against Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris’s pro-scrapping amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. Dr Harris withdrew his amendment after the Government promised to bring forward its own amendments to abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Church spokesmen themselves recognise that the current law only covers Christian and particularly Church of England beliefs and, in practice, it is unlikely to be used. A C of E spokesman said debates on the crime of incitement to religious hatred had raised the need to review blasphemy legislation (BBC online (9/1). Would it not be better to reconsider the concept of blasphemy altogether?

Speaking of which, consider last week’s claim that multiculturalism and growing Islamic extremism have created ‘no-go’ areas in Britain which were rejected by the Prime Minister and questioned by other Christians this week. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, (ABOVE, himself a convert from Islam), said ‘the ideology of Islamic extremism’ has ‘become a mark of acceptability’ to disaffected young Muslims. This has resulted in ‘already separate communities’ becoming hostile to those of a different faith or race. Prime Minister Gordon Brown denied this, saying ‘there are pressures’ but ‘I don’t accept that there are or should be [any] no-go areas’ (Well, he wouldn’t, would he?). The Bishop’s comments were supported by Barnabas Fund founder Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, but other church leaders were wary of undermining increasing inter-faith listening. Birmingham clergy spoke of ‘significant support’ and ‘friendly encouragement’ from Muslim residents and leaders. (Sunday Telegraph (6/1)

The No-Go areas are somewhat more explicitly drawn elsewhere. Kenya’s Christian leaders have spoken of continuing intimidation and the trauma of the country’s post-election violence that has caused many to be living in fear. Shem Okello, general secretary of the Baptist Convention of Kenya, said hundreds of people are still sheltering in police stations. Spurgeons Child Care Kenya reported that 14 of its mostly AIDS orphans had seen their homes torched. ‘Gangs of angry young people are threatening to burn the school’ where Spurgeons is caring for them, it said. While the Opposition Democratic Movement leader Raila Odinga is calling for the President to step down, both the Archbishop of Kenya and the Kenyan-born general secretary of the World Council of Churches, Revd Samuel Kobia, have called for an urgent recount and investigation of the voting dispute.

Again, somewhat similarly, in Nepal: A Nepali parliament vote to abolish the country’s monarchy could reduce prejudice and marginalisation of Christians, the Dean of Nepal believes. Although the December vote must be ratified in April, if confirmed, progression to a secular state would safeguard the rights of the country’s minority faiths. For decades, Nepal’s growing Christian community has not registered its churches to avoid the risk of being turned down. Traditionally, the king was believed to be an incarnation of Vishnu, and Hinduism was the state religion. Under a republic, Dean Norman Beale believes many churches will seek legal recognition although nationalist prejudice against Christians is likely to continue.  (Church of England Newspaper 11/1)

Finally, a curious sideline in the Times (10/1) which begs the question ACCIDENT OR DESIGN?  A Labour backbencher’s motion calling for the Church of England to cease being a state church has been awarded the number of the Beast in Revelation!John Austin’s Early Day Motion was coincidentally (??) listed as number 666 on the House of Commons order paper. Bob Russell, a Liberal Democrat signatory to the motion, said it was ‘incredible’ that a number ‘supposed to be the mark of the Devil’ should have been given by chance. ‘What is even stranger is that this motion was tabled … when MPs were debating blasphemy’. Although the motion is unlikely to be given Parliamentary time, there is growing momentum for disestablishment according to The Times.  About time too, you say?