PASSION FLOW

Finally, a subject has surfaced that has raised passions to the same extent politics seems to, with about the same level of respect for what is said, as opposed to what was assumed to have been said.

I never said that I was in favour of abortion or in favour of legalising it, all I did was say that I think that amending the Constitution to include what I think is wooly thinking is not right.

Reading some of the comments I got, you'd think I had proposed introducing legislation making it mandatory on every woman to have at least one abortion and on every father to ensure that at least one is procured. That's leaving aside the fact that I was called a moron at least once that I recall.

One of the comments I most enjoyed, though, was when it was pointed out that the more passionate the adherent to the cause was, the less of a command of the language he or she displayed. How true: you can see, buried in the obscure syntax and the loose hold on vocabulary, what they're trying to get at.

You can even see that the individual concerned has his or her heart in the right place, but the struggle to get past the often incoherent ranting, both in expression and in concept, gets the message lost in the fog.

This is not confined to these shores. Through the 'Net, and judicious (and legal) downloading of podcasts from LBC (a London talk station) I listen to quite a bit of phone-in discussion in the car. You can do the same and see what I mean - I suggest you try James O'Brien (you can time-slip since they're podcasts) or, for a good dose of bitching, Steve Allen or Nick Ferrari.

A couple of days ago, the discussion turned to the recent tragic and wholly avoidable death of a woman who was not given a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah's Witness. She left behind a husband and new-born twins.

The people who phoned in to put the sect's point of view were wholly incapable of answering the show's host's perfectly reasonable question and, predictably, they spouted pseudo-religious drivel at every turn. I'm unclear as to why the law ignores the wanton destruction of human life that these people tolerate.

Why should anyone be allowed to die, just because someone has taken an ancient text and decided that it means something patently ridiculous? After all, our so-called Christian society condemns Islamic Fundamentalism (quite rightly) so why shouldn't the same condemnation be directed at pseudo-Christian sects? Or any other ludicrous religion or belief system or "opinion freely held", for that matter?

I doubt any reader of the Watchtower or whatever their bigotry-distribution means is called reads this blog or has the language skills to make a coherent argument (these people prohibit blood transfusions that would save lives, remember) so we're probably not going to get any response to these questions that makes sense. Frankly, I would be wasting cyber-space if I were to confine myself to saying that I think religious fundamentalism, of whatever stripe, is an insult to our collective intelligence.

Or would I be?

Where is the line drawn, between religious fundamentalism and honestly held, reasonable, convictions? What is the difference between stopping doctors from saving the mother of your new-born twins with a simple procedure and stopping doctors from aborting a foetus that is causing the death of its host and, consequently, its own death?

I'm not, to avoid being called a moron by Ruben Farrugia again, advocating abortion, merely pointing out that in very limited circumstances, it's possible to comprehend that abortion is a preferable option to allowing the mother and foetus both to perish.

Fundamentalism - call it strict adherence to your beliefs if you like, I don't care - will lead to the same end: death which could have been avoided.

I read an interview with Marlene Pullicino, the newly-elected Labour MP, last Sunday. She came across as a very reasonable and balanced person. But even this very balanced person gave me pause for thought at one point.

She said that her religious beliefs would preclude her from voting in favour of the introduction of divorce, whatever her party might dictate. I'm all for conscienctious actions and far be it from me - or anyone - to say that Ms Pullicino should bow to Party pressure.

But should personal religious convictions be allowed to interfere in the consideration of legislation that would be entirely secular? Legislating to allow divorce, in a country that, in any event, has it in all but name if you know the ropes and have time (and money) to spare, is not tantamount to making it (divorce) mandatory.

If you are Christian and want to live your life according to what you understand are the tenets of that faith, fine, it's your life and as long as you don't cause harm to anyone else, you're free to do so.

But why should your interpretation of your religious or other beliefs be allowed to affect the lives of others who do not subscribe? As far as I am concerned, if the couple down the road (and that's just an expression, before my neighbours start libel proceedings) want to divorce, marry someone of the same sex, shack-up with multiple partners and generally do their thing, that's fine with me as long as they don't startle the horses.