After linking to Ron Suskind’s critique of the Bush administration’s faith based decision style, it is only appropriate to mention that Rocco Buttiglione, Silvio Berlusconi’s nominee as Italy’s European commissioner, is causing a similar debate on this side of the pond – one with possibly important cnostitutional repercussions.
Amidst a power-struggle between the enlarged EU institutions, the EU’s increased heterogeneity is showing in a conflict about personal religious beliefs and their public representation. Of course, everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, however bigoted they may be. Here, Mr Buttiglione, who had stated in his Parliamentary confirmation hearing that homosexuality was “a sin”, and that marriage existed for women to have children, is certainly right to quote Voltaire – ‘I deplore the things you say but I will defend with my life your right to say them.'”
But law is also more than reason without passion, and thus Mr Buttiglione’s assurance that as EU commissioner for Justice and Home affairs he would fight for the rights of homosexuals does not sound all too convincing.
However, before the law cometh politics – and with it the current political mixture of post enlargment claim marking and increased ideological heterogeneity. Although Mr Buttiglione’s remarks were explicitly supported by some in the Italian government – Mirko Tremaglia, minister for expatriate Italians first stated something like “Poor Europe, where the faggots have are the majority” before excusing his langauge with his “rural origin” – I think the usually Conservative Italian newspaper “La Stampa” has joined the ranks of conspiracy theorists by alluding that Buttiglione might be part of “an attempt to launch an influential Christian right along American lines” (quote translation thanks to The Guardian). While there are certainly also a lot of “rural people” (no offense to those living in the country) in Europe, there is simply no social base for such an attempt, and even in the proposed Commission, Peter Mandelson would probably challenge Mr Buttiglione views.
Nevertheless, the outcome of the current stand-off will be important and therefore the pre-decision positioning has begun. While Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the Green group in the EP suggested in the left-leaning newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau that the EP reject all proposed commissioners, sitting commissioner G?nther Verheugen supported Buttiglione because of his statement that he would honour EU law despite his personal opinions on the matter, and Elmar Brok, a center-right German MEP and chairman of the EP’s foreign policy committee, stated that a rejection of Commissioners based on religious statements would put structurally more Catholic countries like Poland in a problematic position.
I’m not sure that there is no social base in Europe for an American-style social right. It would doubtless be more Catholic-dominated than in the US, and the major Protestant movements in Europe don’t share much of the history or tendencies of American religious conservatives. But, the Opus Dei isn’t something invented for the Davinci Code. There is a strain of Catholic orthodoxy amenable to just this sort of end, and the state Protestant and Orthodox churches aren’t all that different politically. If they werern’t so resolutely anti-Islamic, they might even find some allies there.
Brussels is the perfect place for a politician to try to build a new political coalition: People hate it and the Commission isn’t independent enough for radical stands to make that much difference.
The American religious right festered for years beneath the surface in the US, not really raising its head as a political force until the Reagan years, by which time it already attracted a large voting population. Who knows what is just beneath the surface in Europe?
It seems to me that the difficulty over this is typical of the problems that face any movement that claims to want to build European unity. France’s militant secularism is at odds even with British and German attitudes; on the other hand, any attempt to create a Catholic base for an American-style right wing movement will alienate large groups in the north (although I think American comparisons here probably aren’t too useful – it’s important but not as important as the European media makes it out to be).
Whilst I do not endorse the views of the Italians mentioned, it is easy for opposition to focus on issues such as this. The popular perception of European politics is that they are unaccountable and run by a specific clique with their own agenda; if hamstrung by political correctness it will continue to perpetuate the image it is an ideologically-based co-ordination group. It would be far more interesting to see a reform of the European institutions based on much more popular selections of those running the institutions, perhaps giving more power to the Parliament, rather than the secondary system of selection through the national government mandate.
Somehow I doubt this will happen. Hmm, I think I’ve gone a long way off topic here, but basically I think the EU can work if it manages to shed its unaccountable image. Stand-offs like this are not easy to reconcile but are, I think, born out of imperfections in the existing structures.
It is perverse to reject Buttiglione as justice minister because he is honest, at least honest enough to tell us what he thinks of homosexuality even though it is detrimental to his cause. By the same logic, the EU could never have a muslim justice minister because he would consider drinking alcohol a sin. Or, a hindu because eating beef is a sin. Or me because I find religious bigotry a ‘sin’ even though it is, unfortunately, legal. We all have our pet peeves. That the guy doesn’t like homosexuality doesn’t automatically mean he condones any form of discrimination or any homophobic action. If the guy accepts that Europe disagrees with his notions and, given that, he feels that he can still do the job impartially then let him try.
Re catholics hi-jacking the European state: no chance! Europeans have long memories. Besides, and more important, there is no focal point to infiltrate like the presidential administration in America. We get an inefficient governmental system our way, but we are more resilient to take-over bids by special interest groups.
It is perverse to reject Buttiglione as justice minister because he is honest, at least honest enough to tell us what he thinks of homosexuality even though it is detrimental to his cause.
Would we even be having this conversation if Buttiglione said that, say, he viewed the condition of being Jewish as a sin? Would we count on Buttiglione to defend the civil rights of, say, African immigrants if he had said that he didn’t like them as a group?
What about a Commissioner whose portfolio includes reducing discrimination against women, and whose considered view is that the primary role of women is ?to have children and be protected by their husbands??
Sorry, Parliament got this one right. Butti is not ready for prime time. There are 58 million Italians; surely another candidate can be found.
Would we count on Buttiglione to defend the civil rights of, say, African immigrants if he had said that he didn’t like them as a group?
Everyone has groups of people that they do not like. Many on the Left dislike Christians far more than Christians dislike gays or any other group of people.
The politically correct social engineering of the EU is actually at fault here. If it were not trying to control every aspect of our lives, the views of commissioners on a myriad of issues would be next to irrelevant.
Many on the Left dislike Christians far more than Christians dislike gays or any other group of people.
Apparently you know different ‘leftists’, and different Christians, than I do.
I’ve seen homophobia up close and ugly. People I called friends are now dead because of it. Homophobia is a crime. I think that the catholic church is very, very wrong to provide a foundation for such hatred, but would that mean I’d discriminate against catholics or the catholic church were I in a position to do so? Does it mean that I should automatically be rejected for any position where I had to protect the civil rights of catholics?
No one, as far as I know, has accused Buttiglione of homophobia, discrimination or any other crime. He has the same rights as I to his views and he lives by the same laws. He thinks women should choose to stay at home and have babies; given previous discussions here, so do many economists. Translating that into he cannot do the job of reducing discrimination against women is falacious and itself discriminatory.
I don’t know anything about Mr B as a person. I’d never heard of him at all before this debacle and so I cannot pass any comment on his suitability for the position. However, the arguments I’ve heard put forward for rejecting him don’t, so far, for me, have any validity.
Michael:
I thought that identifying homosexuality as a sin was homophobia, just as identifying Judaism as undesirable was at least anti-Judaism if not outright anti-Semitism.
Mirko Tremaglia, minister for expatriate Italians
He’s an 80 year old former fascist, emphasis on “fascist”, doubts on “former” – it’s the most shameful nomination in any Italian government, but they had to appease the hardcore base of the nationalist ex-fascist right-wing with a post that had something to do with you know, “national identity”. (I’m getting sick already).
Anyway, on the comment in the Stampa, there’s nothing conspiracy theory about it, Buttiglione is from the right-wing old guard of the Christian Democrats, the closest to the Vatican, and those conservative (reactionary would be a better word) Vatican minions like him have been trying to create a Christian right wing like the American one for years, and what better chances for that than today, with Bush about to be re-elected (sorry, I’m pessimistic), Berlusconi’s government to be around for another couple of years and probably more (ditto), the debate on same sex marriage and “traditional family values” (ugh), the reopening of the debate on abortion, stem cell research, etc. – and most of all, dear ladies and gentlemen, the very convenient Religion War with Islam. The zeitgeist is there, sadly: Christianity under attack! Do not be fooled, Buttiglione is about as coherent to his principles as a mafia boss (actually, let’s not get into the chapter of relations between the mafia and the former Christian Democrats), he’s an opportunist of the worst species, and all he’s done is provoke these reactions on purpose to add more fuel to the ridiculous notion that the real bigots are those who fight bigotry. The line is something like, See, see how intolerant these liberals are, they won’t accept anything less than gay worship – convenient excuse to ignore the actual specifics of this diatribe, ie. the fact that Buttiglione is absolutely out of place for that job, in every possible sense. But a debate on those specifics was never the real intent, the intent was purely tactical, and I’m afraid quite a few have fallen for it, not just in Italy.
So, you’re right in saying on a social level there doesn’t seem to be any basis for the attempt. On the other hand, the keyword is “not yet”. There’s nothing that can’t be manufactured politically from above rather than represented from the ground up. Even in the US, the Christian right is a relative minority, yet see how much power it can wield. Politically, financially, culturally, etc. Of course you’ll never get the exact same phenomenon in Europe, but a local variation artificially inflated by precisely these sort of polemics is, I guess, good enough for those interested in consolidating certain interests and interested relations. These are very petty power struggles, sadly this is what religion is reduced to, nothing new about that, but the means to the end are more powerful than ever.
See also his later “retractions” and pathetic attempts at reducing the impact of his words, it’s a typical tactic of Italian politics, say something outrageous, get exactly the reactions you wanted, then pretend you didn’t really say anything that outrageous, so those in your camp will see it like you’ve exposed your opponents as intolerant and cast yourself as the victim of *unmotivated* hate and bias and oh, intolerance. Berlusconi has used this trick to get to power. In different forms, you see it in action in the US electoral campaign too. Underestimate its effects at your own peril.
When you get the Vatican behind you, coherence, decency and actual real ethics are all a secondary concern. Also keep in mind Buttiglione belongs to a group of politicians who are very very close to the Opus Dei, which already says a lot, given the history and tactics of that organisation.
I thought that identifying homosexuality as a sin was homophobia, just as identifying Judaism as undesirable was at least anti-Judaism if not outright anti-Semitism.
As I said, I feel that many catholics are taught, and believe, ideas that are very wrong. If I thought in those terms, I might say: I believe it is a ‘sin’ to believe as they do. Yet, I am not anti-catholic in any way, shape or form. I have similar beliefs about specific teachings of all religions that I know enough about, and as for the specific beliefs of some atheists I know, they are even worse.
I guess a lot revolves around the word ‘sin’. I live in a very strong catholic community where great emphasis is put on having fun – when not in church, that is. There are lots of sins to avoid here, from adultery to swearing. The attitude is: one tries ones best, but we all succumb, its between you and the creator. (I will also add that as a non-christian and foreigner to boot, I am pleasantly surprised at how accepted I am as a member of this community.)
Its easy to get hung up on words, particularly those, like the word ‘sin’, which tend to imply different things to different people.
It looks like Mr B is at best incompetent and also likely corrupt. His actions now disqualify him.
Its easy to get hung up on words, particularly those, like the word ?sin?, which tend to imply different things to different people.
By definition, sins are bad things that shouldn’t be repeated, no?
By definition, sins are bad things that shouldn’t be repeated, no?
My understanding is that ‘sins’ are bad things that just shouldn’t be, but if they are then they shouldn’t be repeated, but if they are… Point scores are evaluated at the pearly gates.
As my neighbours say towards the end of every village party: abusing alcohol is a sin, so the next mas (litre of local brew) is the last… Like tomorrow, the next/last one never seems to come. (Not that I remember.)
Recently, a discussion centered around laws that never left the statute books. To me, sins are simply laws created some thousands of years ago that some people choose to keep in their rule book. The difficult questions are: What is considered the penalty for sinning? And, how much does someone try to force their idea of sin on others?
On penalties, I think that the great thing the new testament introduced into the biblical equation was that sins were forgivable and an eye-for-an-eye was considered rather backward. Adulterers could breathe more easily, though their spouses might not forgive so readily. Even today, the subject is still heatily debated: consider the arguments over the death penalty.
Debates over forcing one set of ideas on others are even more heated. Apart from the whole subject of islamic terrorism, consider the current outcries over Kerry on abortion (who some say is ‘bad’ because he won’t try to enforce his ideas) and Bush on gay marriage (who some say is ‘bad’ because he does try to enforce his ideas.)
So someone says that he believes homosexuality is a sin. What on earth does it mean unless you know much more about that person’s value system?
Revisiting, briefly and for a reason, the topic of sin, particularly within the catholic church, I came across this article. Apparently, enjoying sex isn’t sinful, just the opposite (as long as it is with your spouse and contraception is not used) according to a new Vatican-sanctioned pamphlet:
The pages of It’s A Sin Not To Do It, however, feature a frank interview with Cardinal Ersilio Tonini in which he emphasises that “the Church is not an enemy of the flesh”. He argues that Vatican doctrine has always defended the “nobility of sexuality”, which is regarded by the Church as a “treasure” of humanity.
Apart from my obvious relief, another thought struck me while I was reading this. Could bringing the doctine of the church more up-to-date, illustrated by this pamphlet, be related to strong believers being increasingly excluded from the political power centers, as illustrated by the case of Mr B?
Sin is defined by God, the Absolute, the First Cause. The ten commandments are not suggestions; break down the word, if you can. Secular humanism, communism, and all man-made systems are abysmal failures; history should teach you this but you are most likely, barely literate.
Put your hope in the New World Order and see where it leads you.
Lookee there. Drive-by fire and brimstone. What a strange person.