Quite recently I came across an episode of HARDTalk in which the interviewee was Professor Richard Dawkins: biologist, atheist and author, as well as professional pain in the backside of all the world’s major religions… including the One and Only Roman, Catholic & Apostolic Country Club, into which so many of us were unwittingly born for life.
For the uninitiated, HARDTalk is one of those “new journalism” programmes on BBC World, fronted by a certain Stephen Sackur: the kind of journalist who seems to think that aggression is some kind of professional virtue in its own right.
As indeed it is, if your chosen career happens to be professional heavyweight boxing, or shadowing Nationalist Ministers for One TV. However, Sackur is an interviewer who stepped into the shoes of Tim Sebastian… and no offence or anything, but being tall and blond is hardly a substitute for being astute, intelligent, insistent, well-prepared and – above all – polite.
In any case, it should by now be obvious where my sympathies in this particular interview lay… but this is beside the point. The point is that Dawkins, a man who has earned a reputation for outspokenness even among the most wolfish of self-avowed atheists, raised a question in the course of the interview that I have often pondered myself, without ever coming to a satisfactory answer.
Why is it that world religions – or more specifically the individual human beings associated therewith – automatically expect to be accorded such overwhelming respect from the general public? And why it is considered perfectly acceptable to insult a person’s political persuasion – anything from “Mintoffjan jinten” to “Nazzjonalist ippatentjat” – but at the same time, any offence directed at the same person’s religious beliefs is deemed immoral and somehow socially unacceptable… to the extent there are even laws against insulting religion in most European countries, including Malta?
I was forcefully reminded of this inconsistency after reading a remarkable story in the local papers this very week.
Last Sunday, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech delivered a homily at the Ta’ Pinu sanctuary in Gharb, in which he argued that science is “deceptive” in its claims that condoms offer protection against disease.
Please note that, unlike other prominent Church officials such as Cardinal Joseph Panzer Ratzinger, Bishop Mario Grech did not limit himself to discouraging the use of the condom on moral grounds. No, he took one, giant pole-vaulting step further, and suggested that there are “scientific arguments” against the effectiveness of that well-worn prophylactic device fondly known (or was that knowingly fondled?) as a Rubber Johnny... or “Love Glove”, in Australian.
In Grech’s own words: “It’s a fact that the Church’s proposal is interesting a lot of people, because the argument in favour of the condom is riddled with deception, and this can be proved with scientific arguments, not just ethical ones.”
Needless to add, no elaboration on these “scientific arguments” was forthcoming in the rest of the homily. I wonder why...
I feel I have to stress that the astonishing claim outlined above was made on 2 December: the day after World AIDS Day. And just to add insult to sheer irresponsibility, it was uttered in a country which now places number nine out of 28 in the European league table of new AIDS cases for 2007.
I suppose I could quite easily counterbalance Grech’s pseudo-science by pointing out what should be common knowledge to all in this day and age: that condoms do provide protection against disease, with an estimated efficacy rate of between 88 and 98% (Source: Health Promotion Department).
Not only that: but condoms are actually the only form of contraception to afford such protection, as unlike other methods they work by limiting direct physical contact – the main cause of STDs in the first place.
(And yes, granted, “abstinence” is certainly a more effective way to avoid contagion; but abstinence does not qualify as a form of “contraception” to begin with, for a very simple reason: no sex = no possibility of conception = nothing to actually avoid, etc.).
Now, if I know this, and you know this, and the Health Department knows this, and schoolchildren aged 12 know this, I find it inconceivable that the Bishop of Gozo does not. My guess, therefore, is that Mario Grech was perfectly aware of the dishonesty of his own claim; but at the same time he probably felt he could get away with it scot-free, for the simple reason that the institution he represents is held in such extraordinarily high esteem, and its automatic right to “respect” so deeply entrenched in the national psyche, that no one in his right mind would dare question his solemn authority in the matter for fear of being labelled “arrogant”.
And guess what? He may well have a point.
Just as I was incensed at the Gozo Bishop’s homily last Sunday, I was also relieved to observe immediate reactions by a couple of well-placed public figures. One of these was Ranier Fsadni, who wrote an excellent article on the subject in last Thursday’s The Times. Fsadni effectively exploded Mario Grech’s entire argument, while at the same time putting to the Bishop what is to my mind the most cogent question: where, exactly, is the “deception” to which he alludes?
A similar point was made, in more anguished tones, by Dr Philip Carabott of the Genito-Urinary Clinic at Sir Paul Boffa Hospital… who had every reason to be upset, being one the very scientists whom Grech had just roundly accused of deception on a national scale.
Significantly, however, both Fsadni and Carabott – being eminently polite people – chose to couch their criticism of the Gozo Bishop in the most cautiously respectful terms imaginable. Naturally they are more than entitled to adopt this approach if they feel that way – but I can’t help but think: would a politician be generally treated with such respect, if he stood on a podium and spouted the same sort of unscientific (and unsubstantiated) nonsense as Bishop Grech did last Sunday?
I’m not so sure. After all, politicians today cannot even break wind without some annoying journalist like myself demanding to know the precise chemical composition of the resulting gas.
For instance: on Tuesday Alfred Sant addressed a press conference under the Manwel Dimech bridge in St Julian’s, where he strongly hinted that the entire project stank of corruption. The immediate DOI response was to challenge Dr Sant to substantiate these allegations, and to accuse him of hypocrisy, dishonesty and any number of analogous defects to boot.
But I didn’t notice any particular “respect” in the wording of the press release. Quite the contrary.
Likewise, Lawrence Gonzi was recently a “guest” (or was that “victim”?) on One TV, where he was meted such remarkably disrespectful treatment that even I – not exactly an embodiment of deference, I must admit – was appalled. Again, however, I quite simply can’t imagine Bishop Grech or Caruana being treated the same way on TV. Neither can I explain why it is that religious figures are automatically accorded a respect which is routinely denied to everybody else.
Coming back to the Dawkins interview on HARDTalk, and I couldn’t help but note: would Stephen Sackur have been quite so pugnacious, had his guest been the Dalai Lama instead of Richard Dawkins? Or Bishop Desmond Tutu? Or Pope Benedict XVI?
I somehow doubt it.... just as I doubt that His Grace the Bishop of Gozo will ever grace us with the “scientific arguments” in support of his great condom deception claims.
One other thing
On the subject of unsubstantiated allegations and people who feel they are entitled to respect for no apparent reason, Dr Michael Asciak, scientist and MP, wrote in today’s paper in reply to my article two weeks ago (see page 30).
Gee. It seems the article in question was so replete with inaccuracies, so riddled with errors, so bursting with bloopers and chock-full of flaws, that he can’t seem to mention a single, solitary one.
Well, let me do the honours for him instead. There was indeed a blatant inaccuracy in my article: I misspelt his name – “Axiak” instead of “Asciak” – throughout.
This was clearly a mistake on my part, and a rather stupid one at that, considering that the name appears so regularly in all the world’s top scientific journals.
So what can I say? I sincerely apologise to Dr Michael Asciak, and promise it won’t happen again. (PG Tips, please note).
