"With God on our side"

The placard set by the Zebbug parish to remind us that God is against divorce and the latest in the migration saga reminded me of a Bob Dylan classic. I've taken the liberty to adopt the lyrics to the Maltese scenario.

James Debono 21 July 2010, 12:00am

2 min read

(John Baez singing Bob Dylan's 'With God on our side' will have to suffice here since I couldn't find the Bob Dylan recording).

Oh my name it is nothin', My age it means less, The country I come from Is a dear sweet land, I's taught and brought up there, The laws to abide, And that land that I live in Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it, They tell it so well, Count Roger charged, The Arabs fell, The cavalries charged, The Christians were set free.

Oh the country was young, With God on its side.

A thousand years later Bonaparte arrived, He freed the slaves, He made us all equal in front of the law, But our heroes rebelled, With guns in their hands. And with God on their side.

A hundred years later A felon called Dimech read the wrong books, And the bishops agreed to send him away, To die in misery in a scorched land, For he did not have God on his side.

When the Second World War, Came to an end, A bishop called Gonzi launched a crusade. The reds were the enemies, So we were told, And even in the interdett, God was on our side.

Fifty years later we joined the EU, But our wise leaders still ban divorce, It might well be 2010 not 1610, But as a placard in Zebbug reminded us all, God is still on our side.

And now the migrants come to invade, Once they even dared to rebel, And the AFM charged, And the migrants fell, For even Ruggier’s plan had God on its side.

Even even old Muammar, the one we hated so much, Now he also has God on his side, For taking the blacks back to his scorched land.

Forget Paul from Tarsus, It was pagans who rescued him on our shores, For they surely did not have God on their side.

James Debono is MaltaToday's chief reporter on environment, planning and land use issues, ...

More from James Debono

•

Nice try, except that I'm not that gullible to fall for your spin. But let me give you the benefit of the doubt and explain further. Just in case you still don't get it: 1. The Church has every right to tell Catholics not to divorce. 2. The Church has no right to interfere (threaten) in secular legislation that Catholics are free not to avail themselves of (such as divorce). So just in case you still don't get it, the Church has every right to "remind adherents to its beliefs that a particular choice (divorce) is wrong according to the moral standards emanating from those beliefs", and yet, it has no right it has "no right to demand (or warn) that Catholic politicians should vote against divorce, since divorce only terminates the civil contract of marriage, and not the religious one." So basically, the Church has no right to demand that legislation is faith-based, but the Church has every right to demand that its followers don't avail themselves of divorce if they are to remain Catholics. And once again, Kenneth answers. Is that so hard?

Chris Tanthi •

Q- "What is extremely hard to understand is where you got the false notion that I believe that an institution with no political power (I assume you have the Church in mind) is imposing its views simply because it reminds adherents to its beliefs that a particular choice is wrong according to the moral standards emanating from those beliefs." A- "Since the Church's authority is only on religious matters, it has no right to demand (or warn) that Catholic politicians should vote against divorce, since divorce only terminates the civil contract of marriage, and not the religious one."

•

What follows from my points 1-7 is: 8. Since the Church's authority is only on religious matters, it has no right to demand (or warn) that Catholic politicians should vote against divorce, since divorce only terminates the civil contract of marriage, and not the religious one. Divorced Catholics, if they are to be meaningfully called Catholics, still may not divorce (unless they renounce their Catholicism) and the state has no right to impose religious faith, or to prevent people from changing or renouncing religious belief. The Catholic Church, of course, has every right to consider divorcees as "no longer Catholic". And the State, if it is to be consistent in being against divorce for non-religious reasons (which would be religious imposition), must equally be against any situation which has precisely the same effect of divorce (if not worse) - namely legal separation and the perfectly legal starting of new extra-marital relationships. For the State to be taken seriously when it claims that it is against divorce for non-religious reasons (otherwise it would be religious imposition), it would have to declare (and legislate to that effect) separation and extra-marital affairs illegal. I seriously don't see that happening any time soon.

•

Let me put it in simpler terms: 1. The Catholic Church has every right to preach against divorce. 2. Catholics, if they wish to remain Catholics, should not divorce. 3. Non-Catholics have every right to obtain a civil marriage. 4. The Church has no authority on civil marriages. 5. "What God has united..." does not apply to civil marriages. 6. Denial of divorce (in the case of civil marriages) on religious grounds, is nothing less than religious imposition (by the state). 7. Since any "harmful" effects of divorce are no different from the effects of separation and the forming of new relationships, and since the latter is legal, the only argument against divorce would have to be religious, but then, this would be religious imposition.

•

What is extremely hard to understand is where you got the false notion that I believe that an institution with no political power (I assume you have the Church in mind) is imposing its views simply because it reminds adherents to its beliefs that a particular choice is wrong according to the moral standards emanating from those beliefs. What is also extremely hard to understand is where you got the false notion that I believe that the right to express religious views freely is valid only when those same views do not contradict mine.

Chris Tanthi •

What is extremely hard to understand is where you got the notion that an institution with no political power is imposing its views simply because it reminds adherents to its beliefs that a particular choice is wrong according to the moral standards emanating from those beliefs. Or is the "right to express... religious views freely" valid only when those same views do not contradict yours?

•

Dear Manuel Magani, I will fight for your right to express your religious views freely. I will at the same time fight for my right not to have your religious views imposed on me. Is that so hard to understand?

•

Joey, 1. Where in my previous comment have I mentioned God? 2. Which part of "We're not interested in taking away your rights to express yourself in a religious way" did you not understand? 3. The rest of what you wrote is just a straw man, so I'll ignore it.

Chris Tanthi •

How can you maintain that the Church has said nothing about immigrants and racism? Have you not heard what the much-maligned Bishop of Gozo had to say on the subject of what the Christian attitude to immigration should be? Or is it simply a question of distorting reality to fit a well-thumbed anti-Church script? The Church has every right to voice her views about divorce. It's tragically unfunny how the paladins of freedom, who insist on the introduction of divorce on the (entirely gratuitous) grounds that it is a human right, would deny Catholics even the most basic of rights - that of simply expressing an unpopular belief in public, without running the gauntlet of insults, name-calling and what not. Not that those, or whatever weapons the forces of "liberal" repression can dredge up, will ever stop the Church from articulating her positions according to her beliefs.

Alfred Galea •

Kenny, Jimmy and Mikey, first of all God has nothing to do with divorce, leave Him alone. Secondly, members of the church have as much right to state their opinion as everybody else. Just in case you guys don't know, there are numerous catholics who are in favour of divorce, they listen to what the church say and then make up their minds as they see fit. Asa for "hypocrites", there's a couple around here, the ones that are for killing babies and against killing murderers. Now, just discuss divorce without bothering Him.

Albert Zammit •

@ John Vella: You are all hypocrites, that's what you are. You are in the forefront of defending the Church, or so you think, on the issue of divorce. But the problem of divorce disappears into oblivion when compared with the ever-rising problem of xenophobia and racism that are destroying the very soul of our nation. If you had to take a cursory glance at some comments in the commentary of The Times, you would understand what I mean. Disgusting. Shamefulu. I am ashamed of calling myself Maltese. The Maltese society is becoming more troglodyte than ever before. And what does the Church in Malta focus on? Divorce, same-sex marriages, the lot. U halluna, ja qabda sfaccati ipokriti! Dawk li Kristu tant kien jghajjar u sawwathom 'l barra mit-tempju!

Peter Cassar •

actually my target is redneck Malta..those who cling to guns, god and anti immigrant sentiments...those who pass jingoistic comments thinking that Malta has some divine right to be different from the rest of Europe...

But also i dedicate the song to those politicians who like Gonzi are more Catholic than the Pope on divorce but are accomplices of Ghaddafi and Berlusconi in turning back migrants to the Libyan inferno...and those politicians like George Pullicino who stick up for the tuna magnates all the time while preaching against divorce...

So no my target were not the few good Christians who might disagree with divorce but do not try to impose their will on others and who respect all human beings migrants included. It is a pity that there are so few of these Christians around.

•

@ John Vella: We're not interested in taking away your rights to express yourself in a religious way, just as long as you respect our right to express ourselves in a non-religious way.

•

Are you trying to silence God abiding people? Mr Debono you can't take our rights to express ourself in a religous way.