It’s been a long time. It’s J’accuse speaking, but today and for a few more days to come you can call me Charlie. Excuse me if I don’t follow the protocols you dictated to/inspired the various prophets when it comes to addressing your divine self. It’s just that you have not been too present, have you? Still, I’m not using your name in vain because I needed to speak to you and it’s common usage to address someone using their name.
Anyway. You probably (some would say definitely) know what I am about to say and why I have re-opened this channel of communication. They’ve got hostages now. Yep, this morning. They got up (from what was surely not a comfortable sleep) hijacked a Peugeot and apparently have taken someone hostage. They’ve got kalashnikovs and a rocket-launcher for good measure. I don’t know if you’ve realised (technically you have) but they claim to be doing all this in your name.
Yep yours. And if this is not using your name in vain then I do not know what is. Sure, humankind has been doing things in your name for ages. Gott mit uns! Nobiscum Deus! We never learn. It’s also easier to blame the heavenly landlord especially when he has turned absentee. You see where I am going don’t you? Yes, I’m blaming you God.
According to the books and the prophets it was much simpler in the past. You got angry. You turned up in some burning bush or other manifestation and made sure that people understood how furious you were. Damn right. Pillars of fire, pestilences, storms, etc. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah. Ah those were the days. Patti chiari, amicizia lunga. No patronising intermediaries interpreting and executing. No Siree. It was you in all your glory. You saw, you disliked, you punished with gusto.
Where are those bygone days? Apparently after JC things went sort of awry. Gone was the God of Moses and Abraham and in stepped the intermediaries who “interpreted” your will and your laws. You went silent and your silent was deemed to be acquiescence. Chi tace acconsente. Oh yes we had a multitude of interpreters telling us about self-determination and control of one’s own destiny.
But there would always be the busybodies. In Maltese we say “a hundred men a hundred opinions” and Adonai do we know how bad opinions are when it comes to religion. Also the “men” section of humankind with all their pent up anger and sexual frustration (Freud came too late to explain) really endeavoured to turn all this into a hard time for everyone – especially the weak. Interpretations of your will and the ideas of those speaking in your name became more and more dubious – but you remained silent. Surely that meant they were right?
Even Ridley Scott got the wrong end of the stick when he revisited the story of your interaction with Moses. So little God, so many special effects and scientific explanations for plagues and storms. I promise God, Exodus as interpreted by Hollywood is a complete waste of time. By 2014 you became a cockney speaking little boy having a battle of wits with Batman (sorry, Christian Bale) as to who has the strongest power to sway a pharaohs opinion. See? We have forgotten how mighty your Word was. It’s been such a long time since the beginning. Too much absenteeism and the landlord’s tenants are running amok.
So yes. I blame you when two idiots with the IQ of a vegetable arm themselves to the teeth and wreak havoc in the onzieme arrondissement all the while claiming to do it in your name.
Really God, are Gabriel, Michael and the rest all on Sabbatical too? Wouldn’t one quick missive from the celestial levels -a little cherub – do the trick? Just whisper in their ears that Charb and Co. are really, really funny and that they too perform your will on earth by spreading smiles and keeping the right people on their toes. Because you too have a sense of humour and you like that kind of thing don’t you? How else do you explain the platypus and Maltese politicans?
Instead nada. We have silence. Don’t give me that storms nonsense. You know the type – there are people down here who claim that you send storms and other abominations to punish us for such sins as gay marriage. No cryptic messages. No rainbows or sandstorms. What we need is a good clear voice in the sky that reminds these freaks who are committing all sort of atrocities in your name that they are not on your side.
Mi han detto
che questa mia generazione ormai non crede
in ciò che spesso han mascherato con la fede,
nei miti eterni della patria o dell’ eroe
perchè è venuto ormai il momento di negare
tutto ciò che è falsità, le fedi fatte di abitudine e paura,
una politica che è solo far carriera,
il perbenismo interessato, la dignità fatta di vuoto,
l’ ipocrisia di chi sta sempre con la ragione e mai col torto
e un dio che è morto,
nei campi di sterminio dio è morto,
coi miti della razza dio è morto
con gli odi di partito dio è morto…
After Prime Minister Gonzi’s press conference, the first since the UN Security Council Declaration on the no-fly zone, I think I have figured out the man behind “par idejn sodi”. The position and attitude of Dr Gonzi in the name of, and at the head of, the Maltese nation is worthy of a bishop. Of an archbishop even. The position is not political. It is religious. You could fill the gaps in his press conference. The words to fill the gap are the Maltese “jekk alla jrid” (if God wills).
If God wills the guns will be put down. If God wills the Libyan leader who threatened bloodshed in the Mediterranean basin will suddenly develop a human side and will not proceed with the massacre. If God wills there will be no need of enforcing the no-fly zone because there would be no more fighting. If God wills we will not need to send planes from our island. If God wills we will remain the selective Florence Nightingale of the Mediterranean – the unsung heroes. If God wills the Malta Tourism Authority will remain the only authority reminding the world that all we care about is tourism – and that, hey, we are not a British base we are an independent republic that freed itself of the Brit oppressor (and NATO) in 1979. Jeez… haven’t you guys seen Gensna?
If God wills… Well, in God we trust… thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that for practical and assertive action there’s Britain, France and the USA.
(In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011 (reprise) )
You know you’re growing old when you remember Governor Cuomo Snr. His son, Andrew M. Cuomo is running for Governor of New York on the democrat ticket. In an all-Italian (origin) showdown, Cuomo’s republican opponent is Carl P. Paladino – conservative to the bone and very proud of his Italian and catholic origins. The gubernatorial battle is turning out to be a curious export of the tensions in the old continent as Padalino’s conservatism is pitted against Cuomo’s more liberal (a European description) approach. Padalino is proud of the winks and smiles linked half-jokingly to the implications of having Italian ancestry in this part of the world while Cuomo is wary of the image of political Sopranos.
Back on the campaign trail Padalino’s no holds barred attitude could land him in trouble and yesterday’s speech to a gathering in Brooklyn was of the incendiary kind. Curiously Padalino’s message contained the dilemma that currently has no borders in the western world – from Belgrade, to Valletta to New York, the cohabitation of religious values and liberal rights are suffering the sort of tension that can best be described as dangerous. Here’s the New York Times reporting Paladino’s speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders:
The Republican candidate for governor, Carl P. Paladino, told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year. Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.
“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,” he said, reading from a prepared address, according to a video of the event.
And then, to applause at Congregation Shaarei Chaim, he said: “I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children.” Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino’s prepared text had included the sentence: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” But Mr. Paladino omitted the sentence in his speech.
An hour after the speech, Cuomo’s team denounced the statement as being “stunningly homophobic” and that it was a glaring disregard for basic equality. Paladino’s campaign manager duly responded by denying assertions that Mr. Paladino was antigay, and noted that Paladino employed a gay man on his campaign staff. (Isn’t that charitable of him?)
“Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic,” Mr. Caputo said in a telephone interview. “Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”
I’m beginning to think that the problem is not the catholic church (or God) in whose name these obscenities are regularly perpetrated. It’s ignorance. How, for one minute Paladino could believe that the phrase “dysfunctional homosexual” could be seen as anything but a homophobic statement is beyond my ken. His taking refuge behind the hazy notion of “the Catholic Church” to justify his attempt at fuelling the conservative vote is pitiful and – here’s the word again – medieval. Caputo (Paladino’s campaign manager) worryingly appended the following sentence to his justifications: “the majority of New Yorkers agree with him” while adding that the campaign had done its own polling. That’s ok then is it? I mean this is not San Francisco but hey, waddayaknow?
While Andrew Cuomo polled voters to get an insight on how far the Iti-Mafia-Pizza stereotype is stuck in the New Yorker mentality (and this with the aim of getting rid of it), Paladino was busy checking whether New York really likes its poofs. It’s his Catholic duty (God bless his soul) and he told the Orthodox Jews that he is on their same wavelength (for heaven’s sake) – he’d never march in a gay pride event and he criticised Andrew Cuomo for doing so.
If that’s what a Catholic Heart can contribute to a community then bring on the infidels…..
I read through Mgr Said Pullicino’s fire and brimstone sermon before the assembled judiciary and other representatives of the legal profession with the patience of a Job tried and tested. Earlier in the day I had published my initial reaction on the blog and for the benefit of those who are lucky enough not to yet have the words reverberating in their ears, I shall translate what LorSignor Said Pullicino (Their Sir – definitely not mine) said:
“Before such a clear doctrine of its Teacher (aka Jesus of Nazareth) the Church has nothing to discuss about divorce and the introduction thereof. She (the Church) must limit herself to teaching that whosoever cooperates in any way with the introduction of divorce into the laws of Malta, whosoever applies the law of divorce and whosoever makes recourse to such a law (not being the innocent party), is breaking the Law of God and therefore will be committing a grave sin (ghalhekk ikun qed jidneb b’mod gravi).”
My initial reaction was simple: The Church, being a private institution (even though we are press-ganged into its membership at a moment in life when we cannot raise much objections), is within its rights to determine the parameters of what constitute bonus points towards an eternity of roasting in hell in the egregious company of infidels. True. There are no two ways to go about that. This is no democracy – it is a Universal Catholic Top Heavy Illumination claiming that its dogmas and precepts are inspired by the Old Man in the Sky. Since the witch doctors, druids and augurers of the past, this has been an absolute unqualified condition of religious authority and it is not up to mere mortals to contradict that.
I bow my head low (as low as is politely possible) to such authority over their flock of fervent followers as I would bow my head to the authority of whatever religious leader has over his particular flock. When Said Pullicino does his pick’n’mix selection of biblical tracts and papal encyclicals in order to substantiate the conclusion that the Catholic Church reaches in this particular corner of the world, I cannot be bothered to cross-refer him to other similar collective quotations used by other denominations to reach dramatically different conclusions since I already know the retort that lies in such a battleground, and it involves diabolical citation of scriptural writings.
The Books of Our Judges
Sure. We cannot interfere in Said Pullicino’s expounding of Catholic dogma – nor can we question his absolute statement, which rules out any form of discussion with the Catholic Church on divorce. It’s their problem. “Their” being Catholics. The problem is that gathered before Said Pullicino was no ordinary flock but the representatives of our legal community (oops I almost said brotherhood) gearing up for the opening of another Forensic Year. I am told that such gathering is by invitation and does not form part of the official events of the legal fraternity so presence at such a gathering was optional.
Having said that, I do find it jarring that a symbol of the wisdom of the secular state and a group of people representing one of the main institutions that guarantee the balance of power in the land gather so forcefully before a particular confession to the point that the speaker from the pulpit could claim that “The tradition in the Church that at the beginning of the judicial year, the Judges and the Administrators come to the Altar to request the help of God, the Holy Spirit, in order that he can help them in their ministry (his words not mine) of administration of justice began in the Middle Ages”. So that’s it then? They gather for the sake of perpetuating tradition, right?
The eminent LorSignor goes on to expound the principle of illuminated decision implying that secular law is really an expression of Natural Law (the Law of God expressed by man in recognition of His Justice) and that such service as is given by administrators of justice is in order to put into effect this natural law for the COMMON GOOD. What follows is a rambling about no man being an island and then a warning of the dangers of a secular society. The cheek. The absolute gall. He WAS speaking to representatives of the state with a duty to apply the laws of that secular state when sitting at the bench.
LorSignor went on to attack the consequences of certain “secularisation” and lists the offending laws with the usual confusion of evils (divorce, abortion, homosexuals) that benefits those who have already ruled out any discussion on any one of them. Which is why he concludes the first part of the Sermon and the Rant with the unequivocal condemnation of collaborators with an eventual law on divorce to the status of “committers of grave sins”. Speaking to an assembled congregation of servants of the Constitution, he actively urges them to break the law by not performing their duty before the law.
And my reaction to that was simply: resign. Not Said Pullicino, but the judges called upon to refuse to administer the law of the land. Should they decide to do so then their position is untenable. We cannot have “conscientious objectors” sitting on our benches in court. We cannot have servants of the law subjecting their discretion to their moral values. Should a judge decide that Said Pullicino’s brand of Catholicism is also his then he is free to do. What he is not free to do is to usurp the workings of a secular state with the morals of a Church that dwells in Middle Age traditions.
The Satanic Versions
What Said Pullicino fails to notice is that having judges sitting on secular courts but applying religious principles above secular law is equivalent to the final admission that this state of ours has succumbed to the Catholic Version of Sharia Law. Which is worrying. Because what will stop Said Pullicino from reviving Mosaic Law in his next Medieval Traditional Sermon next year? And what will he stop at exactly? Given the propensity to confuse adultery with divorce, and given the willingness to throw divorce, homosexual marriage and abortion in the same basket, what will stop LorSignor reminding next years’ legal beavers listening in to his rant that Leviticus 18:22 was confirmed by Paul the Tourist in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28?
What was that about? I’ll tell you what that was about. Here’s Leviticus: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” And here’s Corinthians: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” What guarantee does Said Pullicino give the secular members of this state that homosexuality will not become his next pet inspiration and anathema? And if it will not? Why not?
strong>To’ebah (abomination)
All is not lost though and it is important to keep matters in perspective. Others have begun to react to this Medieval Speech – Here’s what just-retired Judge Philip Sciberras had to say: “I am a practising Catholic but I believe the state is obliged to regulate such situations by introducing laws. Members of the judiciary should not object to hear divorce cases because of some medieval imposition.” Michael Falzon (of the Constructor’s Association) pointed out the apparent contradictions in Roman Catholic practices in his blog on MaltaToday (“The Tribe that lost its head”, Friday 8 October) and I.M. Beck also had something to say as to the insensitivity of some arguments.
The truth of the matter is that much as we might find it interesting to try to “convince” the Church and its flock of the politically and democratically heretic nature of this latest intervention, we might as well be arguing with a gagged, blindfolded and deaf monkey. Said Pullicino told us that clearly: “the Church has nothing to discuss”. And so be it. In doing so the Church (in the guise of Said Pullicino) is also abdicating its tradition of social contribution that started in the early 1800s.
I count myself among those who argue in favour of a social role of the Church in discussions about family, social cohesion and solidarity. What I refuse to consider is the Church of indulgences, fire and brimstone, mortal sin and whatever other superstition it chooses to revive. By shifting the argument from social participation as a peer with valid experience in society to the field of supernatural abomination and fear, the Church does not only not wish to discuss but it also finds itself in a position when it stops being anybody with whom it is worth discussing. The Church has abused the supernatural before to meddle with the secular – remember the abuse of the Fear of Mortal Sin in the 60s when reading a newspaper could win you a timeshare in hell?
Kill your idols
This is a secular society at the start of the 21st century. We are proud members of a wider community that recognises basic fundamental rights as being the foundation of harmonious living in which society strives towards a common good. These include respect for the dignity of man, the right to life, the right to integrity of the person, the right to private life and to a family and the right to marriage and the founding of a family. This society believes in freedom of thought, conscience and religion and believes that we are all equal before the law, which is why it is founded on the principles of non-discrimination and recognises cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
This society has enshrined such principles as solidarity, equality and justice in its basic tenets and now, thanks to the Charter on Fundamental Rights within the European Union, we have added an extra cushion and guarantee to these rights and principles. The preamble to the Charter states that: “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.” The ultimate aim is a future of peace based on common values.
Given the choice between the comfort of secular law inspired by the common fundamental values of mankind and the volatile superstitions of the Catholic imposition I know where my heart lies. What I do find disappointing is the abdication of responsibilities by the majority of our political leaders. It is evident that they are biding their time – unable to really fathom which way the wind is going to blow in the end. They have been dealt quite a blow by Said Pullicino since any MP voting for the law will surely be branded a “co-operator” and public sinner – so a huge big up (well done) to Pullicino Orlando for continuing his crusade. It is not a sinful crusade. It is a crusade to grant a civil right and possibility to numerous individuals who would love a second, civil chance at marriage. No amount of Taliban-like rhetoric should prevent that right from being enacted at law and applied in the courts of our land.
Pauline Privilege
I had not heard of the Pauline Privilege until the whole ruckus began. Look it up – it is an interesting, exceptional circumstance that relates to ‘pagans’ (who incidentally don’t only live in the African bush). It is an interpretation of another of Paul the Tourist’s letters (1 Corinthians 7:10-15) and is interpreted “as allowing the dissolution of a marriage contracted between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage”. In that case the Church is perfectly happy to recognise the divorce for the sake of greater proselytising.
Pauline Privilege or no Pauline Privilege, we are not meant to be discussing the contradictions of the Church. The issue at stake is the secular laws and their application. There is no doubt that Said Pullicino’s faux pas has not contributed in any good way to the issue of the introduction of divorce. When I say faux pas I repeat that this is not in any way a judgement on the beliefs and interpretations of the religious institution but on its evident intent of holding the servants of the state in a moral blackmail and preventing them from performing their duty.
It is in that sense that we risk being damned as a nation. Condemned to the damnation of the imposition of the beliefs and values of the few over the laws for and by the many. It is, in its own way, another watershed in the defining of this young nation of ours.
www.akkuza.com is recovering from a savage bout of the common cold and flu.
It’s that time of the year when the arrival of the weekend heralds the packing of the overnight bag and a trip to some destination within driving distance of the Grand Duchy. It also means that the quality of the articles submitted to the Indy suffers from a telegraphic transformation as it is well nigh impossible to maintain a steady flow of coherent thought at about the same time as the mind wanders in parallel with what the encyclopaedia of the world has to throw at us.
Put briefly, the normal source of inspiration for the weekly J’accuse fare comes about as a not too summarised précis of the events populating the Internet of the previous week. At this time of the year, when the walking shoes are put on, we also add an extra set of feelers and listen to what the rest of the world is offering beneath its sun-kissed (hopefully) skies. For example, while the TV in some drive-by motel might announce record figures at the Edinburgh Fringe, and thus remind us that Art is more than alive and kicking in the more rational parts of the world, we prefer to sample this first hand by going out and about.
Walk through the cathedrals of illumination that are the bookstores in Blighty and you only stop for a minute to question whether that feeling of weirdness ever existed before getting your hands on a compendium of erotic literature that spans the centuries (The Collected Erotica – 2000 years of erotic literature available online at Waterstones) and pay for it at the check-out counter without feeling like you have violated a myriad laws of the state. “Life is easy abroad,” they will tell us Luxembourgers and Bruxellars with a wry smile. “You have no business reminding us how sad and oppressed the people of Malta are” they will say as they admonish us with much pointing of fingers and many a jealous gaze.
Intransigence
Funny how summer tends to bring out a regular parade of individuals intent on negating the attachment to Malta of their fellow countrymen simply because we do not have Malta as our one place of fixed abode at the moment. Apparently, we are no longer to be called expats but transfrontaliers or something of the sort. The phenomenon is not new on the continent; a Frenchman who commutes to Luxembourg for work will always consider himself to be a Frenchman rather than anything else and will be more worried about the advances (or otherwise) of Brother Sarkozy than in the intrigues of Juncker’s Luxembourg.
We are, however, the brigade that exists outremer (overseas) and that regularly pours articles of concerned disdain about the mishandling and mismanagement of our country. Our unbiased judgement (by national standards) is more often than not mistaken as some form of intellectual snobbishness since we can afford to stand aloof – far enough that we do not even need to peg our noses to avoid the stink. Woe betide mollycuddled (sorry Raphael, I like this version more – another jaccusism) expatriate tax-avoiders should they type even one word to criticise the goings on in the land of Milk and Honey.
Tired of the PLPN rant, I resolved to use the eighth month of the year for mental regeneneration in the hope that new ideas replace the mantra of old. No more Fear and Loathing in Valletta for us. In the meantime we notice, without any trace of humility, that the blog “e-volution” has been a partial catalyst to some form of mediatic development that was previously untraceable. Paul Borg Olivier will choose his boat trips more carefully next time around and he will do so because – notwithstanding all cynicism and conspiracy theories – such trips no longer go unnoticed.
Emancipation
Last week I criticised the Front Against Censorship for its choice of medium for protesting against the current state of the freedom of expression. The reaction to my criticism has prompted much of this article this week. I stand by my original statement – not with any intention of discouraging the young lads (ah, how I yearn for the folly of youth) from their task, but rather to urge them into more proactive action. Bring the Fringe to the streets of Malta. Fill space with ideas and darkness with light. The protest is not just a means in itself, it could become the very expression that the Front are rightly reclaiming.
The Internet is a wonderful medium of empowerment and expression. It is still, I believe, an unknown factor in Maltese social life and politics. We have still to see what the numbers are behind the equations – what is a “popular website”? , “What can we consider to be the maximum threshold for a Maltese website in terms of hits?” “how net literate are we?”. New battle lines are being drawn on the ether as Google controversially toys with the concept of “internet neutrality”. After its bumpy honeymoon with the Chinese giant, Google still seems to be hungry for power that ill befits its slogan of “Do no evil”.
Books
No overnight bag would be complete without a book to accompany you on the journey. I still have not got used to the e-book reader thanks to the hundreds of snags afforded by proprietary rights so I still depend on the printed word. I’m stocking up on a mixture of classics this summer – books I should have read long ago. From On the Road (Kerouac) to Kafka’s Castle through to a gigantic compendium on the history of Christianity. The best catch of the week has to be Thucydides’ History – an illustrated bumper hardback that is a veritable time machine into the days of our forefathers.
When I tire of the books, I switch to photography and editing – a new, very amateurish hobby of mine. Books and cameras will accompany me on any journey. During that journey I will sample the goods and delicacies of the lands I visit – like the memorable Winston Churchill burger I once washed down in Chaucer’s Canterbury. It was a home-made burger with all the right spices coated in sweet onions and a lovely capping of melted Stilton. As rudely pleasant as the Wife of Bath (God bade us for to ‘wexe’ and ‘multiplye’).
Art cannot die because if art dies then mankind is dead. It accompanies us to the depths of the earth. This expression business has really stuck in my head more than any other issue that has been in the headlines in Malta recently. It is a sad situation at the moment because it is a sad reflection on a country with so much potential that can only be wasted thanks to our trend for internecine warfare and jealous ideals. Frankly, I’m switching off the thinking cap for the next few weeks as I absorb, absorb, absorb.
For the world has so much to offer. If we’re prepared to listen that is.
www.akkuza.com is sort of packing its bags every weekend this summer. Join us in the interim and check out our views. As we type, publisher Chris Gruppetta has guest posted about what he thinks is the next big step in the freedom of expression saga. Gesundheit.
Dear God,
