Coptic Egypt - Post Shenouda III

"the Copts are not a minority, but an integral part of the human cultural mass of the Egyptian people" -  Muhammad H. Haykal

The recent loss of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, Shenouda III, is not only a great tragedy for Copts but also the greater global religious community. His efforts to forward the inter-faith dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims within the greater Middle East region is worthy of considerable praise. One could go so far as to say that the work of Shenouda III is comparable to that of the late Catholic Pope John Paul II with regards to bridging theological divides. However, as in the event of the a great and prosperous secular leader passing, the death of Shenouda leaves a great void within the Coptic Church and clouds its future with great uncertainty.
   These fears are not solely the result of Shenouda's death, but also the events which have blighted Egypt, the seat of the Coptic Pope. The overthrow of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak resulted in a relative power vacuum, now being filled, following an election, by pro-Islam and Islamist politicians such as the Muslim Brotherhood. This has worsened the fears of Coptic Christians as their position may now suffer from a growing persecution at the hands of Muslim opposition. Without a doubt, the future of Coptic Christians in Egypt is at a potential crossroads.

   What choices does a minority religion have in the face of an uncertain future? When such a minority constitutes 10% of the Egyptian population, it is clear that they have a fair representation of the population. Within the nation of Egypt, it is without a doubt true that though politicians may now try to squeeze the Copts out of areas of society, the general populous had a mind of its own. The experiences of the residences of Cairo, Alexandria, or along the Suez Canal will have had very fruitful relationships and friendships with members of the Coptic Church. As is a common approach within the UK, Egyptians should not approach each other as Copt or Muslim, but rather as citizens of the same nation. Those that state they are a member of a 'minority' are ostracising themselves through a potentially debilitating label. Further more, the Arab ethnic group which make up the vast majority of the population can claim ancestry. It may be the case that 95% of Egyptian Muslims come from a family who in the past were members of the Coptic Church. Egypt's people are not just joined by a shared current respect for each other, but also by a proud shared demographic and ecumenical past.

  Now that a vague understanding of internal matters have been considered, a secondary question may be asked: who is going to help the Coptic Church if and when disaster strikes? When one considers the greater  Christian community and denominational representation around the Middle East and East Africa, the support which the Copts can call in is substantial. The Coptic Church is a member of a group collectively termed the Oriental Orthodox Church. This consists in total of the: Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, and Armenian Apostolic churches. This considerable collection of churches from varying regions represents a support base similar to an Orthodox UN. If the Egyptian authorities were to begin bringing pressure down on Coptic civilians, then the greater Orinental Orthodox community could offer both physical and spiritual backing. In a region where the dominant religion (Islam) is known to impose certain restraints on non-Muslims, thus creating a second-class citizen institution, those who experience such a strangle hold on their lives need a capacity to resist. If all this was to take place before a new Pope is elected to replace Shenouda III, then the power of unity with the Oriental Orthodoxy my be invaluable. 


With his death, Pope Shenouda III left behind his both a great legacy and an uncertain future. After 41 years of stability, the Coptic Church must now steer its leadership and laity forward into a post-Mubarak Egypt. Though the temptation is great, they must not fear the days, months and years to come. They are blessed not only with support base within Egypt from Copts and Muslims alike; but also that they can rely upon the bonds between themselves and their Oriental Orthodox brothers. Instead of a bleak and dark future, Copts everywhere must embrace the bright future which is laid out before them. With their Apostolic tradition dating back to St. Mark, and a long history of opposition from Muslim and Christian alike, it is hard to see their disappearance happening any time soon. 

Cardinals and Ceremonies: Marriage For All.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the most senior Catholic figure within the United Kingdom, has this past week made himself out to be as dangerous as Abu Qatada to the socio-religious stability of this country. In his article in Saturday's The Daily Telegraph , O'Brien has outlined his stance, based on his Catholic dogma, that marriage for couples of the same sex would be 'grotesque' and considerably detrimental to the U.K, both internally and on the international stage.

Brought in following the Second World War in 1948, the Declaration of Human Rights, as the Cardinal points out, states that:
  "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." (Article 16)
  The Cardinal is correct that it supports the union of men and women in marriage; however the purpose of this clause is to reaffirm the breaking down of racial and cultural divides. It condemns bigotry and racism in the face of the affairs of the heart. The issue which Keith clearly fails to acknowledge is that the Declaration has not been amended since the forward march of same-sex equality which has spread throughout the world. He, like so many of his theological predecessors, have taken a point of law or precedent, molded it to their own agenda, and abandoned the contextually correct purpose of the literature. The Declaration of Human Rights were brought about to prevent a repeat of the devastation experienced as a result of the Second World War; and not as a means of reaffirming Catholic dogma.

  In his expressing of views with regards to Civil Partnerships, he describes them as "harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well being of those involved"; however it is clear that this is far from the case. The protection which such a ceremonial event endowed those who have endulged in it accommodates perhaps not Article 16, but many other Articles which constitute the Declaration. Property and inheritance laws have been opened up to those in Civil Partnerships, and thus bringing them closer to the rights which individuals such as Cardinal O'Brien takes clearly for granted. Article 25 which states that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family" does not degrade the rights of those who are homosexual.

Marriage, as O'Brien states, predates any "state or government". One may have suspicions that if the Ancient Egyptians or Sumerians were around in the 21st Century, they would perhaps disagree with that suggestion. For the Cardinal to say such demonstrates a degree of ignorance, for as a Catholic, it would by far predate his own religious inclination. In his attempt to convey his opinions of the longevity which marriage has enjoyed throughout history, he has forgotten a crucial factor. This is that throughout human history there have been practises of homosexuality. Within the Greek City State of Sparta it was common for men to engage in what would perhaps now be considered homosexual activities, but to them it was a way of strengthening the bonds between them. The 'ceremonial' activities of swans as they court and mate for life has greater historical precedent that his Catholic ceremonies, riddled with pomp, pageantry and popery.

The term 'civil partnership' appears to only be defined as different from marriage in that the initial does not take place within a religious setting such as a church. However, when heterosexual couples have their ceremony within a registry office, without the presence of a clerical representative, it is still considered 'marriage'. It must therefore be possible to say that homosexual partners whose union is in a similar fashion must therefore be married! However, for those of Cardinal O'Brien's thinking, the issue of marriage is that is must take place within a religious building. Without this it cannot be marriage! Yet with the recent openess enjoyed by clergy of different denominations towards there own homosexuality, surely acceptance of homosexuals requesting marriages in their churches is the logical next step?

We must all remember that the power of organised religion can have positive effects on society. However, the words of Cardinal O'Brien are most certainly leaning towards the contrary. His failure to balance the discussion shows the onesidedness of many Christians, not only Catholics. Within a denomination where the cleargy is forbidden to marry and must take a vow of celebacy, how then can they truely understand what marriage means to laypeople. The embracing of social development does not have to result in the sacrifice of doctrinal committments; however it does mean that those who follow such doctrine must be open and willing to support within their own limitations. This growing outcry from Christian leaders in the face of social change is encroaching too heavily on the liberties which politicians represent, and the fundamental ideals of the Declaration of Human Rights. We are all of the same species, and with that comes an awareness of our shared experiences and emotions. Heterosexual and homosexual people can share the same kind of love for not only their partners, but also for a G_d who can transend not only race and culture, but also sexuality.

View from a Jew: Iran and Israel.

A person can get tired of approaching everything from purely academic and scholarly perspectives. So much so that the current developments in the Middle East has invoked a personal response. The events in question are the progressively worsening relations between Israel and Iran, and the global tensions which this contributes to. However, such challenges, as is the case with many global issues, focuses more on the nation state as a sentient form rather than those who reside within. I am not concerned with Iranian opinion as I neither consider myself possessing an awareness sufficient to comment, nor do I know of anyone within the Iranian community from whom I have any first hand accounts. Therefore, as someone who associates himself with the Jewish people both within the UK, as well as a greater global community, I feel I have some understanding of feelings and emotions with regards to the potential crisis.

  I believe that it can be said, with relative confidence, that Iran is not going to attack Israel, either using conventional or nuclear armaments. When a nation such as the Islamic Republic of Iran is as isolated within the Global Community as it finds itself, it would be foolish to engage in any military action. This is made even more politically suicidal when the focus of its enmity, Israel, is considered. With its place as the prodigal child of many of the Western countries, Israel holds a special place within world politics. Any assault would result in near total condemnation, or worse, direct military intervention.

So what do the people of Israel have to worry about? Honestly, very little when it comes to Iran. The worst that Iran DOES is sponsor and support anti-Israel groups such as Hezbollah; but direct action is not something that Iran would be partial to. The concern of countries such as the U.K. and the U.S.A. only goes to encourage hysteria within Israel, and offers Iran a platform to stick its finger up at the world. This latest scenario also detracts away from the required drive to resolve the creation of a Palestinian state which would in turn ease much of the tension in the region. The people of Israel must rally around this endeavour and ignore the Ayatollah's petulant child.

  However, everyone talks as if the Iranians and Israelis are next door neighbours, yet there are two countries trapped in between. The nations of Iraq (another American project) and Saudi Arabia (Arab best friend to much of the West) sit in a rather precarious position. If Iran was to launch its latest medium range missiles towards Israel, it would be taking the risk that it could fail to make its target. In the event that it was a nuclear warhead, then such a technical failure could lead to the devastation of Riyadh, Baghdad, or any major populated area within the two nations. Worse still the projectiles could hit anywhere in the Western Middle East. Though the prospect of an Islamic state causing such catastrophic damage to a fellow Muslim country may seem ludicrous to some, this may be interpreted by Iran as a secondary success. This is simply, to avoid a discussion for another time, that Iran's Shia majority may relish the destruction of its Sunni neighbours. Such a controversial suggestion is not one to be so readily passed over. The crux of the immediate matter here is that Jewry should not forget its neighbours, no matter how contentious it may be at times.

  One final country who has played a supporting role, quite literally, is the Russian Federation. Dmitry   Medvedev and Vladamir Putin supported the supply of materials which have enabled Iran to construct uranium enrichment facilities and the capacity to build nuclear reactions, or weapons. This in itself may be enough to hold Russia accountable for some of the possible damage in an armed engagement between Israel and Iran. Despite this, the Russian Jew, whether they live in the Russian Federation or have resettled in Israel, may feel caught between their past and their future. To be killed by weapons which in part were possible thanks to their former home nation must be a terrifying thought. Yet this may make them the most ardent voices speaking out against Iran, as they would be seen as the puppets of a nation which had, in its past, launched numerous pogroms against the Jewish communities.

  As the sun sets on another day and the Sabbath returns, one can only speculate what emotions and fears are being expressed in Israeli Synagogues. As the daily cycle of prayers engulfs the attention of Iranian Muslims, perhaps their inner concerns are directed at the threat of war. Both peoples share a common love, their G_d who they trust to protect and sustain them. This love should be directed to maintain the uneasy peace which exists between Iran and Israel. As someone of Jewish heritage, I do not feel animosity towards Iran or the Iranian people. I share the chills which fill the dreams of the residents of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa. However it is not the possible destruction of much of the global Jewish population, it is that such an action would represent the third application of a nuclear weapon, when both previous uses were in 1945. Hatred and anger is a waste of energy, while reconciliation would seem to consume too much time for anyone to bother with.