I was present some years ago when a senior professor of Christian theology told a Muslim professor that equality between the sexes was a Christian value and not a Muslim one. The Muslim let it pass; I protested. Equality between the sexes has not in general been a Christian value, it has been one most churches have learned, belatedly, from the secular state. In this country women had votes and could stand as MPs decades before most churches accepted women ministers.
The picture shows two women counting ballot papers. On some topics the state is a more reliable arbiter than many religious organisations are. Because some religions feel able to threaten people with eternal damnation, they have felt that killing or injuring people to save their immortal souls was Fair Dos. I'm not arguing that the State is always and everywhere a safe guardian, it clearly is not; but a secular state probably will not take sides in religious conflicts. (The secular state becomes a hazard in another way when it refuses to learn anything about religious concerns, and assumes, as some social workers do, that any religion is a source of the oppression of children.) ....
Neighbourliness, I would argue, is a requirement of citizenship. (See also other post(s) on neighbourliness.) The minimum requirement of citizenship, I would suggest, is that we should be willing and able to be polite to one another on the street. In my personal view, this requires that we should be able to see one another's faces. A face veil is a problem, so are sunglasses (and do think about the banks and post offices that ask motor cyclists to remove their helmets) --but so is religious guidance that a male must not interact at all with a woman who is not of his immediate family. A male who refuses to accept neighbourly help from a fellow citizen simply because she is female infringes citizenship.
If you detect a note of personal exasperation, you are right. I won't name the religion, and in any case it's possible I have it wrong. But several adults and children from what appeared to be one family were standing outside Euston station attempting to flag down a taxi. I tried to explain to the male, who was doing the flagging, that the Euston taxi rank is not on the street but underground. He directed me to the females, who did not speak English. Result: helpfulness turns to fury. In a better person it wd not have been fury, but it would still have been impatience. If the state were to say, Everyone is this country must be willing at least in principle to communicate with every other, I would be pleased.
Neighbourliness, I would argue, is a requirement of citizenship. (See also other post(s) on neighbourliness.) The minimum requirement of citizenship, I would suggest, is that we should be willing and able to be polite to one another on the street. In my personal view, this requires that we should be able to see one another's faces. A face veil is a problem, so are sunglasses (and do think about the banks and post offices that ask motor cyclists to remove their helmets) --but so is religious guidance that a male must not interact at all with a woman who is not of his immediate family. A male who refuses to accept neighbourly help from a fellow citizen simply because she is female infringes citizenship.
If you detect a note of personal exasperation, you are right. I won't name the religion, and in any case it's possible I have it wrong. But several adults and children from what appeared to be one family were standing outside Euston station attempting to flag down a taxi. I tried to explain to the male, who was doing the flagging, that the Euston taxi rank is not on the street but underground. He directed me to the females, who did not speak English. Result: helpfulness turns to fury. In a better person it wd not have been fury, but it would still have been impatience. If the state were to say, Everyone is this country must be willing at least in principle to communicate with every other, I would be pleased.
Comments
Post a Comment