Beyond Legitimate Boundaries

It’s about control, control, control! Why won’t they leave us alone?

It seems that almost everywhere you look religious authorities are trying to impose their conclusions about how they think people should behave, what they should say, how they should dress, what they should or should not do with their sexual desires on people who either do not wish to subscribe to their faith, or believers who do not subscribe to their strictures.

Let me give you two examples from the past few days.

Prince Fahd bin Badr, governor of the northern al-Jof region in Saudi Arabia, ordered police to punish men who flirt with women in public places by cutting their hair. The prince told a gathering at his palace in the northern town of Skaka on Sunday he has instructed police to apply the punishment to all youths guilty of flirting, including “the sons of senior military and civil officials”.

In Canberra, Australia’s Catholic church has taken a swipe at British chef Gordon Ramsay and demanded his reality television shows be either taken off air or shown at a later time because of his swearing and abusive language. (The programs went out at 20:30 and 21:30.)

Of course, religious authorities have a right to hold their own views and to express concerns about behaviour that they would disapprove of. And the authorities have a right to respond to complaints and intervene to protect women from being harassed or from children being exposed to material that their parents to guard them from. However, it is arguable that in both these cases they went beyond the boundaries of legitimacy by demanding the enforcement of their views on others. A religious authority (in the guise of a state authority) decided that flirting was wrong and should be punished in a very demeaning way. Another one decided that a particular form of entertainment should be taken off the air.

If I subscribe to a particular faith and to a particular set of rules I am acknowledging that leaders of that faith have some right to make pronouncements about my behaviour, and hopefully I am free to evaluate those judgements and make a decision about whether I accept them or not and whether I stay in the faith or not. But if I am outside of the faith, I really do object to being told what I can or cannot do or see by others who presume to know what is best for me.

There are alternative ways of responding to what you may dislike or disapprove of other than trying to get a blanket ban. If I disapprove of flirting in public places (and just for the record, I don’t ) I hope I would walk away, possibly tut-tutting, go home, and bemoan the behaviour of young people today. I wouldn’t want to argue that they have to make compulsory visits to the barbers. And if I seriously disapproved of Gordon Ramsay’s language or wanted any young children in my household to avoid it (just for the record, I don’t and wouldn’t ), I am free to turn off the set or change to any one of the other hundreds of channels available. I wouldn’t presume to want him banned.

The thought police are entitled to think whatever they want, but they have no legitimacy when it comes to enforcing a particular behaviour on people who have not signed up to their club.

(Sources: Reuters, The Root)