I once interviewed a young man who was active within his community both at a civic level, as well on a religious one. Indeed, he was an elected member of a local council and a leading member of the Muslim community in Malta. As he was active in politics it was not far-fetched to assume he could one day be in parliament. With that in mind I asked him if he would ever consider proposing a bill to make Sharia the law of the land.

“Yes I would”, he quickly answered and hastened to add words whose meaning could best be paraphrased in the following way: If God decreed that the sharia law is good, who can say speak to the contrary? It seems that many people forget one fundamental issue: that the sharia law is not a reality invented or created by man. The sharia law is something that is given to us, something which is implanted in every human being. So changing its properties does not bring freedom. Only truth brings freedom. And truth, the sharia truth, does not change.

If “God said so” what could I say? I respected him and said nothing.

In my heart, though, I said: But my God and the Hindu God and the Buddhist God and the Jewish God fortunately hold a different opinion. Are they all mistaken? And if this truth about managing justice is implanted in every human being than how is it possible that all these Gods and all the billions who adore them have not recognised it? Someone must have hidden this implant quite well.”

There is another reason why I do not like the “God said so” argument. God must have said so – whatever the “so” is and if ever God said it - for a reason. Wouldn’t it be more respectful to God and to fellow humans if we try and persuade humans of a particular position by putting forward the reasons that God had rather than simply saying “God said so”?

Massacres because “God said so”

In the wrong kind of hands this argument - “God said so. Period” - can lead to fundamentalist positions. The followers of many religions, also many Christians of all kinds of persuasion and denomination – even the Catholic one – have committed the most horrible obscenities and glaring mistakes in the name of God.

Hindus massacred Muslims in India. They are now killing Christians. Muslims launched jihads and suicide squads because “God said so”. The more one kills the more God will be happy, they falsely think.

What have we Christians of different denominations not done because “God said so”?

In the name of a loving and all merciful God, Christians massacred indigenous people, waged Crusades, holy wars, burnt people at the stake, condemned democracy and freedom of religion, tried to silence scientists, persecuted homosexuals, blessed the subjugation of women to men. Weren’t Mussolini’s fascist armies blessed by churchmen in the name of God before they embarked on the massacre of the people of Abyssinia?

Christians even massacred Christians in the name of God.

In God’s name they showed utter disrespect for the proper distinction between Church and state which is a very important and innovative tenet of Christianity. Even to-day the way some Catholics speak and write betrays the belief that the state should behave as if it was a theocracy. Malta is no exception to such ways of thinking.

The list of the obscenities because “God said so” – the ultimate blasphemy - goes on; but will we let it keep going on?

The clash of the Titans

Fr Zalba was an eminent moral theologian in the pre-Vatican II era. Fr Bernard Haring was one of the most famous moral theologians in the post-Vatican II period.

My theological studies at the University were marked by the books of Bernard Haring. Our moral theology professor, Mgr Prof Carmelo Muscat introduced us to the teaching of this great man.

Haring visited Malta on more than one occasion. I remember him recounting the following anecdote about his and Zalba’s participation in Paul VI’s commission on contraception. Zalba was in favour of keeping Church teaching on the subject as it was. Haring, like the majority of the commission, wanted to change it.

Haring recounted that during a particularly heated discussion Zalba turned towards him and said: Fr Haring do you mean to tell me that we sent all those people (who used contraceptives) to hell for nothing?

Haring answered: But my dear Fr Zalba do you think that God used to send people to hell just because you decreed that they should go to hell?”

True, isn’t it? But some do believe that “we say so” and God than follows their instructions.

Neither “Joe said so”

Within a specific religious community the argument – “God said so” - can and does have validity. Divine revelation, when and if rightly understood and interpreted (no mean task, I hasten to add), is, after all, very important for believers.

But I don’t think that in a pluralistic society this argument will get its users very far. In such a society dialogue has to be managed with people of different faiths, different interpretations of the same faith, no faith at all, people from different academic disciplines etc. Building bridges with those with whom we Catholics do not agree is a very difficult task indeed but nevertheless it is very important. It has to be done with love, patience, tolerance and a rational approach not with the “God said so” approach.

Sounds simple to me but on reading some arguments about divorce, marriage, indissolubility and natural law in local newspapers, blogs etc it seems that some people never learn! It is sad to note that the fundamentalist approach being taken by some secularists is being counteracted by a fundamentalist approach by some members of the Church.

At least so it seems to me. An important caveat as I do not want to be accused of substituting the “God said so” argument with a “Joe said so” one.