2014: Not Our Best Work.....

The purpose of this blog and the accompanying website, book and ‘God Enquiry’ Course is to try to pursue the truth honestly and openly, regardless of where it might lead. Viewed in that spirit, I have to say that 2014 has had its fair share of truth-avoiding, truth-denying and truth-twisting moments.

The horrors perpetrated by the ‘Islamic State’ speak for themselves – except they have not been allowed to do so. Instead their ghastly actions and equally ghastly philosophy have been used by many to justify various degrees of anti-Islamic sentiment.  Mexican drug cartels have killed more people this year than have the Islamic State, they have tortured, raped and beheaded more victims and they pose a further and immediate threat to the lives, health and welfare of thousands of Americans through illicit drugs, prostitution and ‘organised crime’ They rarely hit any of the pages of our newspapers, never mind the front pages. As far as I am aware there is no public outcry against Mexicans, Roman Catholics or Spanish speaking people, and yet the actions of the Islamic State are,  in many quarters, deemed to be symptomatic of ‘the real face’ of Islam. I wonder why.

‘Christian bakers’ and ‘gay cakes’ in Northern Ireland provided the catalyst for Christian moral outrage and cries of victimisation in Northern Ireland, masked in apparently reasonable appeals to human rights provisions.  I am uncomfortable with a society that cannot find a way of embracing a pluralism that is generous and that does not require recourse to the courts in order to settle such disputes, but I am even more uncomfortable with the sight of churches that have failed to be at all generous in their treatment of LGBT individuals now calling ‘foul’ when they think that the tables might have turned. Nice way of sharing God’s love.

Ebola has come and gone – except it hasn’t. We were whipped into a frenzy of concern a few short months ago as images of dying Africans hit our TV screens. The concern, however, was much less for them than it was for ourselves, in case the virus hitched a ride on an airplane and landed in our airspace.  A communal sigh of relief was permitted just in time for Christmas shopping to begin; there is unlikely to be an ongoing crisis after all….except in West Africa, of course.

Oh yes….there was Gaza; so distant in the media memory that it might as well have happened around the same time that Herod was doing his bit of innocents-slaughtering. The shelling seems to have stopped, water and electricity have been turned on again and across in the West Bank the Christmas nativity celebrations were not disrupted.  Well, that’s all right then…..

Anyone holding their breath for 2015?

Should Foetuses have Rights?

A recent UK court decision determined that a child born with foetal alcohol syndrome cannot receive financial compensation. The reason given was that ‘an essential ingredient for a crime to be committed is the infliction of grievous bodily harm on a person - grievous bodily harm on a foetus will not suffice’. The child in question, a seven year old girl, has significant health problems as a result of her mother consuming around twice the recommended weekly alcohol limit for non-pregnant women every day.

That the child is not entitled to any compensation seems harsh, given that victims of thalidomide have, quite rightly, been given compensation. The difference in the cases, however, is important: thalidomide victims resulted from government failure properly to regulate the use of the pregnancy-sickness drug; foetal alcohol syndrome compensation would, it seems, have required an acknowledgment that a pregnant woman had committed a crime by drinking to excess during pregnancy.

While no one has suggested that it is sensible for a pregnant woman to consume other than very modest amounts of alcohol (if any) during pregnancy, many have welcomed the court’s decision as a victory for every woman’s right to use her body as she chooses, whether pregnant or not.

I am torn on this issue. I firmly believe that everyone, female and male alike, ought to have primary rights over the use of their bodies and that such rights ought only to be limited in legally and ethically justifiable circumstances. I baulk at the idea that the State (or anyone else) ought to be able to dictate to a woman whether or not she must continue with a pregnancy while, at the same time I hope that in most circumstances most pregnant women will choose to bestow the amazing gift of childhood on the developing lives within them.

If rights are based on addressing ‘interests’ rather than on enabling personal choice it can be argued that foetuses, like children, adults and animals have interests that ought to be protected by law. This would mean balancing some of the rights of adults with the rights of foetuses. If a woman chose to continue with a pregnancy, that choice would entail accepting certain limitations on her subsequent actions. Similarly, if male violence resulted in a miscarriage, the aggressor would be guilty not only of assaulting a woman, but also of causing the death of her foetus.

It is not my intention to impinge on women’s rights. Many of our freedoms, however, are correctly limited to some extent. It should be possible to ensure that a foetal rights/protection law did not supersede the Abortion Act (that is a different issue) and that harm caused by addiction was not treated as a criminal, but as a civil offence. My suggested solution might not be the correct one, but it cannot be right that one young girl and others like her, both female and male, have fewer protections than are properly afforded to our pets.

Christians Need to Die....and Eat Humble Pie

I am not advocating violence against Christians; I am proposing that Christians do what their (our) Leader commanded: to ‘deny themselves and take up their cross daily’. How strange that a Faith with self-sacrifice at its core could become historically a vehicle for frequent suppression and oppression and currently be represented by many who want either to impose their views on society or who insist on promoting those views in an assertive and combative fashion.

A few weeks ago, I blogged about the ‘gay cake’ controversy in Northern Ireland and argued that a liberal society ought to provide generous space for dissent even if that dissent is unpalatable to most of its members. I continue to believe that such should be the case.

I want to look now at the other side of the coin. If Christianity is modelled on self-sacrifice and altruistic service of others what are the implications of this for the ways in which Christians should relate to the rest of society?

Self-sacrifice does not require denying one’s core beliefs and values, but it must encompass a willingness to accommodate these in a culture of humility and service of others. In most Christian responses to the ‘gay cake’ controversy, I have found such accommodation sadly lacking.

It is entirely right that Christians should be free to state their opinions even if at times, they are misguided. It is also entirely right that, to be genuinely Christian in character, these opinions ought to be promoted in a spirit of service; offered in kindness and for the good of others, without any recourse to sophistry (I have sat through too many sermons where ‘loving your enemy’ has been presented as ‘beat him to a pulp for his own good’).

Paradoxically, in wishing to promote their freedom of expression as Christians, followers of Jesus are under an obligation to restrict that very freedom in ways that they should not require of others. This, of course, is not a matter of law, but of Christian morality, service and witness.

So, what might the ‘Christian bakery’ do to reflect its intrinsic Christian character? One possibility is for it voluntarily to offer a generous apology to the customer in question. I should hope that the case could then be settled out of court. Alternatively, it could voluntarily restrict its services in such a way that all members of society could avail of all of its services. This might cost them a small amount of business, but would that not be part of self-sacrifice?

As for Christians ‘leaders’,  I think that it might be useful for some of them to reflect on the words of Northern Ireland’s First Minister and ask themselves if it is time for them to ‘wind their necks in’ before insisting on exercising their perceived rights, a small sacrifice to make compared to crucifixion.  

Rape and Sport: A Life Sentence?

Ched Evans, a former professional footballer and convicted rapist, after serving half of a five year sentence, was offered the opportunity to train at his old club. This offer has now been withdrawn in the face of criticism from the public, patrons and sponsors.

Mr Evans claims that he is innocent of the crime and his lawyers have brought his case to the Criminal Cases Review Committee, seeking an appeal. It is essential, however, that his treatment is based on his actual legal position, not on a hypothetical future one.

At the heart of the issue is this: is rape such a horrific crime that it requires special licence conditions, conditions that might not be thought to be necessary even for some other serious crimes? 

The answer, I think, is ‘yes’. I would go further and argue that like murder, rape ought to incur a mandatory life sentence (rather than the current maximum life sentence) with a significant minimum ‘tariff’ of years to be served in prison. Licence conditions, therefore, only come into force after a considerable period of time and extend until the end of the perpetrator’s life.

Rape destroys lives in a uniquely terrible way; the minimal way for society to recognise this is to impose a life-sentence on those who commit the crime. I agree that it ought to be possible for criminals to be released from prison on licence once they have served their tariff and are deemed not to present an ongoing threat to others. Part of attaining that status, however, must be a full recognition that their crime has lasting effects on their victims and that this ought to be reflected in the conditions of their licence. One aspect of those conditions should be that rapists are precluded from certain activities where their victims might have to endure the sight of them being presented as celebrities or public figures. Rapists have denied themselves that privilege and a truly ‘reformed’ rapist ought to accept that such is the case.

A possible downside to this is that, initially, some juries might hesitate before delivering a guilty verdict because of the perceived ‘severity’ of the sentence. This would be based on wrong-thinking; a criminal conviction must always be beyond reasonable doubt: a very high standard of proof is already rightly required before anyone is deemed to be a criminal. Any anomalies would, I think soon be rectified as a ‘new normal’ emerged.

Ought Ched Evans to be allowed to play professional football again? The answer is, not unless he succeeds in having his conviction fully and finally overturned; anything less than this is an insult to all victims of rape and an indictment on us all.

Having our (Gay) Cake and Eating It

The recent decision by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission to sponsor a court case against a bakery run by Christians who refused an order to provide a cake with a pro-gay marriage message has caused much debate throughout Ireland and beyond.

Leaving to one side the likelihood that the case will be dismissed by the courts since it is only legally possible to discriminate against people, not ideas (and there is no suggestion that the bakery refused to serve the prospective customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation), there is still much that is perplexing about this case.

It brings to light the tangled state of laws in the UK that seek to address conflicting rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Freedoms of expression and conscience are often seen to conflict with anti-hate and equality legislation. In truth, it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise.

There are (at least) two key issues involved: where ought we, as a society, to place ourselves on the individual freedom-social obligation spectrum and what provisions do we make for dissent from agreed or perceived social norms?

The resolution of the first of these is something that we continue to fumble towards like blind-folded people in a darkened room. The international human rights standard is that hate speech is something that ‘constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’.  This, however, only helps us so far; various societies place the bar for ‘incitement’ at varying levels. The positive requirement to foster freedom of expression pushes the bar higher; the positive requirement to promote equality pushes the bar lower. It is clear that a refusal to serve a customer because of his perceived sexual orientation might more readily be seen as inciting discrimination than refusing to produce a pro-gay marriage message. Our stance on this depends largely on where we place the bar for incitement.

I am in favour of the provision of gay marriage and consequently of individuals’ rights to celebrate the landmark change in legislation earlier this year in England and Wales. I am also in favour of individuals being free to express dissent with any law of the land or any social, religious or political stance, creed or doctrine.  It is not easy to get the balance right, but I fall on the side of freedom of expression, even if that sometimes is offensive to others.

Not so long ago, anyone dissenting from the conservative moral norms enshrined in legislation in the UK and Ireland faced public censure and possible prosecution; that made for a cramped and, at times, openly repressive society. We have learned nothing from the past if we now do the same to those who dissent from liberal values (values which I espouse and view as being progressive): coercive liberalism is no liberalism at all.

Have Ebola and Kobane Lost Their Entertainment Value?

There is nothing much to laugh at when it comes to the devastating effects of the current Ebola outbreak or the bloody struggle for the Syrian town of Kobane. While, no doubt, some of those living in the shadow of either will laudably engage in gallows humour in an effort to lift their spirits or to alleviate their fears, these are not the stuff of the entertainment industry; or are they?

Little has been said on these topics in the past week or so on mainstream news programmes or daily newspapers in the UK and Ireland. Ebola continues to kill hundreds in West Africa and to provide a threat to international health. Dozens die daily in Kobane and the town retains the same strategic and symbolic significance it did a month ago, but it has all gone a little quiet on the news front.

Those who decide which news we shall hear, and how we shall hear it, turn the taps of information on and off as they choose. In spite of the internet, public interest in a subject remains driven to a large extent by the decisions of a few news-moguls. This gives them enormous power and influence, certainly much more power than the majority of elected politicians or other public representatives.

While, in some cases, the motives behind the choice of news items and the ways in which they are covered by the media can rightly be seen as having something of an Orwellian, sinister element, coverage of events such as the Ebola outbreak and the battle for Kobane, succumb, in part, to a much more mundane analysis: they are deemed not to be interesting enough to keep people watching or buying. As such, they have a short shelf-life; they have lost their entertainment value to shock or to thrill. They will be dusted off every so often, almost apologetically, but the nation is enjoined to let them slip to the back of its communal mind.

Of course, there is a cause and effect circle at play here: the media offer us a juicy bit of news which titillates us and we snap eagerly at it, chew it for a while and return for something new to salivate over; the media recognise that our taste-buds have become satiated and offer us something new on which to masticate.

Even our charitable giving requires more and more extreme entertainment to prise cash from our wallets and funds from our bank cards. Celebrities have to swim seas and lakes or run multi-marathons to make us ‘oooh!’ and ‘aaah!’ long enough to stretch an arm along the sofa and reach for a mobile phone to make a donation. It works: in six hours last year the BBC’s ‘Children in Need’ programme raised over £31m; in two days the UK Ebola fund has raised £4m.

So maybe we get what we deserve; anyone know of an entertaining tragedy that I can view?

Are All Men Potential Rapists?

Rape has been in the news this week, with a female TV presenter suggesting that there are ‘levels’ of rape. Opinion has also been divided as to whether a male professional footballer ought to be permitted to play for a club again now that he has been released from prison on licence, having served a term for rape.

These cases have brought back to mind the assertion that ‘all men are potential rapists’. My reactions to this statement are, initially, what you might expect them to be: offence and denial. I am married with four children, two of whom are now young women and I view rape as being totally and inexcusably abhorrent. There are, to my mind, no ‘levels’ of rape. There might be rape and other accompanying crimes, but rape is rape is rape.

I could also reject the premise that all men are potential rapists on the grounds of the inescapable fact that some men, because of age, infirmity or impairment are incapable of rape. I might also object that even if the remaining men could physically commit the crime of rape that says nothing more than all people, physically capable of the act, could commit murder or theft or any other number of offences. The point is whether or not they are morally and psychologically capable of the act.

That is why, initially, I am offended at the thought that I could be considered capable of being a rapist and that is why I leap to my own defence.

To do so, however, is to miss the real point of what is being said when some people (mostly women) state that all men are potential rapists.

In the first instance, it ignores the appalling history of (mostly) male sexual violence perpetrated (mostly) against women. While I might jump on my moral high horse against the thought that I could be viewed as a potential rapist, why, given that history of male sexual violence, should I think that anyone else ought to give me a dispensation?

More pertinently, perhaps, is the fact that in the not so recent past all men (and women) in our society were told that by virtue of being married, a man had a legal right to have sex with his wife whether or not she consented. Just how many ‘decent’ men, who would never have seen themselves as rapists, in effect, raped their wives? How often, through economic, verbal or physical threat has enforced sex taken place within stable relationships? How many men in war-torn societies have acted ‘out of character’ once the normative laws of ‘civilisation’ were removed?

So, when I hear the assertion, ‘all men are potential rapists’, maybe I ought to be less ready to leap to my own defence….

When All Else Fails, Try Football

People who don’t like football (or any other team sport) just don’t get it. They assume that all that’s at stake is a game.  ‘What’s so special about twenty two grown men (or women) chasing after a ball?’, ‘there’s no need to get so worked up about it’, ‘it’s not a matter of life or death’ are but a few of the deprecating intonations muttered week by week by despisers of the beautiful game. Even the late, great Bill Shankly’s rejoinder that football is not a matter of life and death, ‘It is much, much more important that that’, fails to wash with them.

For those of us who happily admit our addiction, the game with its drama, passion, idiocy and nerve-shredding tension is not an escape from reality; it’s a journey to something that lies close to the very heart of what we are. It is war without the bullets, naked screaming loyalty given to an always willing, accepting and reciprocating icon of passion; it is visceral, tribal identification without the odium of political discrimination and social oppression. It provides an object of external devotion that requires the simplest of beliefs, devoid of philosophical and theological doubt. It is chess on grass, poetry in motion, an endless succession of theatres of dreams.

Lest anyone think that I am exaggerating; let me assure you that I am not. For those of us who are stricken with the glorious illness of being football fans, no cure is either sought or possible. All we ask for is your sympathy and the kindness of the odd cup of tea to calm our nerves.

There are, of course, other ways of getting in touch with the primal urges and emotions that football unleashes; there are other ways of touching the dark, hidden recesses of unsavoury antipathy and blood-curdling rivalry, but I suggest that there are few safer, healthier or less destructive ways of doing so.

What a shame that Hitler hadn’t devoted his energies into being a Bayern Munich fan, that football had not been invented to save Joan of Arc from the flames because rival French and English armies were too busy shouting themselves hoarse at a World Cup encounter between the two nations. What a shame that the flag waving jihadists in Iraq and Syria aren’t waving the flag of the Republik of Mancunia, or Chelski, or (and this is pushing it) leaping to their feet in the kop at Anfield.

At the end of a week when murder, discord, greed and political intrigue have once again dominated the headlines, I suggest that a lot of people could have done worse than to have tried a game of football.

Scotland the Not-So-Brave?

The initial emotions of last week’s Scottish independence referendum have retreated a little even if they still lie close to the surface for many people. It is also clear that both the emotions and the political bargaining that were unleashed in the last few weeks leading up to the vote will take years to work through. Good luck with that, whoever ends up leading the UK after the next General Election.

I know that this is a gross simplification of the debate, but I think that there is some truth in the assertion that for many people (though not all) their hearts said yes to independence while their minds said yes to the Union. Their eventual vote depended on which was stronger: the pull of the heart or the demands of political logic.

I have also been struck by the number of English people that I have spoken to who realised for the first time that they were, in fact, British and not just English. The Union matters to them in a way that they had not understood before its dissolution became a possibility through a process in which they had no say: their country might have been hung, drawn and quartered by four million Scots in belated revenge for the grisly sentence meted out in Westminster Hall to William Wallace some seven hundred years previously.

All of which leads me to ask, what is it that shapes our identity? Regardless of the economic and social arguments, I suspect that most people who voted for independence and some who voted for the Union did do because of a sense of what they were or (for some) of what they were not. Where do such things come from?

Again, I suspect that very many people simply accept that they are what they are without thinking that they can decide which things they want to shape their identity. I cannot alter the place of my birth and upbringing or the history associated with it, but why should that demand my loyalty or shape my present sense of identity? At the very least, ought I not to determine to what extent my ethnicity, nationality and cultural upbringing ought to be relevant to whom and what I consider myself now to be?  Why should such things simply be accepted with much feeling and without much thought?

The heart is too precious a thing to be handed over to an accident of birth and the mind is too powerful an instrument to be allowed to sleepwalk through issues of identity. In the end, I wonder if either hearts or minds were really sufficiently engaged in the referendum debate….

Ian Paisley: an Unexpected Peace-maker?

I did not know Ian Paisley personally so I know nothing about him as a friend or relation. I knew only the public figure: the politician and preacher.

In that context, I did not like him and I did not like either his politics or his religion. He was a demagogue who sneered at other people, denigrating their beliefs, trying to impose his ideologies on others.

There is nothing to suggest that Ian Paisley was directly involved in paramilitary activity; he kept on the right side of the law in spite of occasional sallies up mountains with men waving their fire-arm certificates in not-so-veiled threats at what they might do if ‘Ulster’ was sold down the river by Westminster. At the same time, the Paisley brand of religion and politics helped to stoke passions that others used in the recruitment of young men into paramilitary gangs, resulting in the deaths of many Catholics.

It is difficult, therefore, for me to acknowledge that Ian Paisley played a crucial part in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. Without him, it is certain that ‘the Troubles’ would still have happened, but it is unlikely that they would have been as ‘contained’  as they were or that they would have ended as early as they did.

Ian Paisley acted as an unwitting lightning rod for the bigotry of many people who found that he expressed their fears and feelings and having done so, they were prepared to leave it at that. In the absence of Paisley’s rhetoric, obnoxious as I believe it to have been, more people would have made they way directly into the arms of the paramilitaries. That is one reason why paramilitary leaders were always suspicious and critical of him.

In his eventual decision to talk to Sinn Fein and to enter into partnership government with them, he truly took a courageous step.  He suffered for this departure from his previous path at the hands of both his political and religious peers, but had he not acted as he did we might still be witnessing weekly bloodshed on our streets. In truth, (and I find this very hard to admit) had he tried to effect an agreement earlier than he did, there would have been no chance of it being accepted by those he led.

The unpalatable truth of this is that, in the final analysis, it is not peace-loving people who make peace, but rather those who are fighting and for whatever reason change their minds. I hate to say it, but Ian Paisley was able to make peace because he first was an integral part of the conflict. What that says about the processes involved in peace-making has to be embraced, however offensive it might be to those of us who want to have no part in conflict.

Ebola? Not in my Backyard

Ebola is a very nasty virus. The current outbreak in West Africa has infected and killed more people than all previous outbreaks combined and the death toll is certain to rise further as governments and health services in the affected countries struggle to contain the spread of the disease. After months of warnings from the World Health Organisation there are signs that researchers and pharmaceutical companies in ‘the West’ have begun to stir themselves into action to provide a vaccine or a cure.

The reason for their inaction is clear: historically the virus has been confined to remote rural areas, it has been easily contained and it has caused few deaths. This time, major population centres are involved and there are no immediate signs that the spread of the disease is slowing down.

That, of course, is not the main reason why Western groups are now scrambling for a cure; they have known about the nature of this outbreak for some months. The motivating factor is fear that Ebola will spread via international travel to a major Western city and from there spread throughout the economically developed world. Ebola is a problem worth solving only when it looks like it might be lurking in our backyard.

In truth, Ebola is unlikely to present a huge threat to the populaces of London, New York, Sydney, Berlin or other affluent cities. The less virulent Lassa fever is endemic in West Africa and kills some 5,000 people each year but in thirty years there have been only eight ‘travel associated’ instances of it occurring in the UK, with no onward transmission to the wider population. Fear, however, is a powerful motivator and it is a combination of self-interest and fear that has finally caused us to do something about Ebola.

One of the most annoying things about the international reaction to Ebola is that it looks as if a cure might not be very difficult to find. As this type of virus spreads through the human population it tends to mutate and become less deadly and more susceptible to medical intervention. In the current outbreak the mortality rate is 55%; in some earlier, smaller outbreaks it was as high as 90%. If left to run its course naturally it would probably become like Lassa fever with a 5% mortality rate. Of course, to reach that level, many thousands would first of all have to become infected and die.

The disturbing thought that presses itself on my mind is this: if there was not a fear that it might spread to the West, would we simply have let this happen? My intuition suggests that this is precisely what would have occurred. After all, one European or American life is worth more than a thousand African lives; isn’t it?

A Cold Wind Blowing for Liberals

It’s not an easy time to be a liberal. Wherever I look, I keep coming across a seemingly endless stream of writers, preachers, commentators and pundits who want to impose their particular philosophy, theology, politics or opinion on the rest of the world.  Being of liberal persuasion, of course, I must accept that this is their choice and I do not want to diminish that choice or their freedom to express it in any way, but frankly, it is depressing.

In the midst of them proclaiming their call to others to toe the line, there is often an implicit (or explicit) criticism of anyone who advocates a more open-minded approach.  It is OK to ‘agree to differ’ in principle, but in practice, attempts are made to bludgeon others into submission by appeals to authority, interpretations of sacred texts, tribal identity or fear. As a Christian, for instance, I find it particularly dismaying to find other Christians highlighting the sufferings of our ‘tribe’ to the exclusion or marginalisation of the sufferings of others.

What wars and atrocities have been perpetrated by individuals advocating and embracing a ‘live and let live’ attitude to life?  I can’t think of many, while a queue quickly forms in my mind of the limitless suffering caused by religious, political and nationalist zealots who have insisted that they, or their tribe, must hold sway.

Nothing, it would appear, escapes the vision of those scanning the horizon for areas to control: what jokes we can tell, what understanding of God we can have, what doubts we can harbour, who we can be intimate with. Even the recent fundraising fad of the ‘ice-bucket’ challenge has attracted the ire of those who would like to tell us how, when and for whom we ought to raise charitable funds. As for having a bit of fun along the way….God forbid!

I must, however, shoulder my liberal burden, set my face against the prevailing winds and accept that everyone who tries to tell me how I ought to live has got a right to do so and, with as much courtesy as I can muster, I shall listen to what they have to say. And then, having weighed their words of counsel, I shall make up my own mind and go my own way

What’s that I hear? Ah yes, a rumble of discontent, muttering that I am simply trying to impose my liberal approach on others in the same way as other try to impose their illiberal approach on me. Not so; I am not telling anyone to be or to do anything. I am merely stating what is on my mind. Go ahead, follow in the footsteps of Hitler, Stalin, the Inquisition and the Ku Klux Clan if you want to; just saying……

Christians In Glass Houses Still Throw Stones

Persecution of religious minorities, beheadings, ‘heretics’ being burned alive, repeated incidents of mutilation and torture: not the despicable actions of IS/ISIS but the stock in trade of the Christian Church in its various guises down through the centuries.

Of course the Church has also done many positive things, notably in the fields of health and education. That track-record is besmirched, however, by the existence of too many heartless institutions dominated by callous, even sadistic, individuals.  If the Church were to be given an ‘end of year’ report it might suggest that, historically, it has done quite well in the areas of health and education, inconsistently in the area of social welfare and appallingly in the field of individual liberty.

Those of us who are Christians cannot divorce ourselves from the unsavoury history of Christendom and its ongoing legacy.  There is no ‘statute of limitations’ for the horrors committed, falsely, in the name of Christ. Those who are not Christians are quite right not to let us off the hook, as if an apology or two could wipe out the misery inflicted upon countless people over centuries.

It is true that very few Christians today would wish to see the Church return to its violent and repressive ways, but our ‘enlightened’ approach owes much to the freedoms won through the progress of liberal thinking born out of the eighteenth century movement known as ‘The Enlightenment’. Initially opposed by many Christians and still bemoaned by some, it has been this largely (though not exclusively) secular movement that taught the Church to rediscover some of the attitudes that ought always to have lain at its heart. The truth is that the Church has too frequently opposed social reform, only to accept it hesitantly, eventually, and somewhat paradoxically, becoming a champion of the new status quo. Often a not-so-subtle rewriting of history is required to cover the tracks of this volte-face.

It is, therefore, with some degree of annoyance that I read and listen to statements from Christians, condemning the violent tactics of IS/ISIS, AL Qaeda and the Taliban.

Of course, what these groups have done, and continue to do, is appalling and has no place within any society.  Of course, their influence and development ought to be opposed.  What Christians have no right to do, however, is to leap on their moral high horses, claiming the ethical high ground as if the tactics of IS/ISIS and others are strangers to their own religious history and culture.

We must, by all means, oppose the horrors that are unfolding daily, but it behoves us to do so with an attitude of repentance for our own history. Truly, ‘there, but for the grace of God….’

How Much Reality is Too Much?

In the wake of explicit footage showing atrocities committed by ISIS/The Islamic State, I have been pondering the question: how much reality ought news media broadcast?

Mainstream TV channels seldom, if ever, show individual deaths or extreme personal violence in news reports, even though distant explosions from deadly air-strikes are deemed to be acceptable for broadcasting.  The same channels will also sometimes air extremely graphic images late at night in news-based documentaries. The rationale appears to be that most adults find viewing extreme violence objectionable or harmful and ought not to be exposed to it; those who do not have such objections can search it out either in ‘special’ programmes or on the internet.

There are many concerns involved in broadcasting graphic violence: respect for victims and their families, fear of glorifying violence or desensitising people to it, distaste of giving publicity to violent groups or encouraging voyeurism; none of which ought to be readily dismissed.

At the same time, I have a nagging worry that those of us who live in ‘the West’ are too easily shielded from the harsh realities of life and death that millions of people face every day; we know little of the direct consequences of war and inter-communal conflict. We have had our share of war and barbarism in the past, of course, but for the greater part our current exposure to violence comes from films and TV dramas. Paradoxically, the more graphic the violence is in these media, the less realistic it is likely to be.

One of the most shocking things about real violence is its banality: people are not flung back by the impact of bullets; most often they just slump to the ground, their lives over. People do not often go nobly and defiantly to their deaths at the hands of their executioners; the reality is so much more genuinely pathetic than that.

There are some acts that are so vile that to view them can only be damaging and I accept that identifying such a threshold is, to some extent, a matter for every individual. Nevertheless, wherever we set the threshold, to try to hide from the reality of conflict and war or to shield ourselves from it is a luxury that I think we ought not to afford ourselves.

This does not mean that we ought to chase down every graphic image; it does suggest, however, that we ought to expose ourselves to enough of the reality of violence to enable us to EXPERIENCE its horror. That way, we might be motivated to do more about countering it and alleviating the suffering it causes others, however distant they might seem when viewed on our TV screens.

WW1 + 100: What is There to Commemorate?

I have found almost everything to do with World War One intriguing ever since, as a child, I first saw my grandfather’s campaign medals.  Like many Irish men he fought in the British Army during the First World War, receiving medals that he never wore: on his return home, he promptly fought against men clothed in the very uniform he had been wearing a few months previously.

As a keen amateur historian, I have been looking forward for some time to the various centenaries that will fall between today and 11^th November 2018 in the expectation that there will be many fine new books to read and DVDs to watch. The nature of my interest in the period has changed over the years, however, from schoolboy fascination to adult disquiet, prompting me to ask, what exactly is it that we are commemorating?

Few wars have been romanticised quite like the First World War.  The very things that made the war horrific: trenches, machine guns and poison gas have been turned into literary and cinematic backdrops for tales of valour, despair, loss and glory.  All of this, of course, began even before the first shots were fired and continued throughout the war in the writings of poets and diarists.

Seldom have perception and reality been further apart than during the years leading to the conflict. From poet-officers to colliery-soldiers, war was welcomed as some form of ritual national-cleansing: an opportunity to escape mundane life in order to follow and to achieve greater things. In the end all that was achieved were millions of casualties and an ill-conceived ‘peace’ that laid the foundations for the emergence of totalitarian fascist and communist regimes across Europe culminating in the even greater horrors of the Second World War. Further afield, it set in motion the cynical carving-up of the Middle East, the ramifications of which are being felt today by millions of victims of violence in Palestine, Syria and Iraq.

Ultimately, what we are commemorating today is a terrible historic catastrophe created by a mixture of idealism, nationalism and commercial greed that was every bit as noxious as the gas that poured over no-man’s land. Evocative as thoughts of ‘a lost generation’ might be, there ought not to be any attempt to paint the war as being noble.  It was nasty, wretched and deadly, causing untold misery; just like all wars.

If a lesson is to be learned from 1914 it ought to be that we will never again allow politicians, the media and rampant nationalism to lead us over the brink into war…. yeah, sure! 

No Room for Wishful Thinking in Gaza

The slaughter continues in Gaza as both Israel and Hamas demonstrate that they are prepared to fight all the way to the last drop of innocent blood.  Behind all the rhetoric of concern for civilians hopelessly trapped in a conflict zone from which there can be no escape, they continue to act with reckless and deadly abandon.

If any solution is ever to be found to this seemingly intractable conflict some unpalatable truths have to be faced.

Like it or not, Israeli strategy will forever be dictated by the Jewish experience of the Holocaust. This means that, ultimately,  Israel will never trust anyone other than itself to protect its citizens and it will do anything it considers necessary to establish what it considers to be defensible borders.  In the final analysis it would prefer nuclear conflagration to defeat. Any attempt to solve the Israel/Palestine problem that ignores these facts is pure fantasy.  

Hamas arose as an Islamist movement, seeking to establish a fundamentalist form of Islam across Gaza, Israel and the West Bank.  Article 7 of its founding Covenant states: ‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’  By anyone’s standards, this is uncompromising stuff.

What hope is there, then for the people of Gaza, understandably driven in large numbers into the arms of Hamas through years of hardship and humiliation at the hands of Israel, abandoned and discarded by Egypt? There is a terrible possibility that there is no hope for them at all; the best that can be expected is a lull in hostilities before the slaughter begins again……and again. Israel will not release its stranglehold and Hamas will not stop its attacks, both remaining ideologically, militarily and politically wedded to their mutually irreconcilable goals.

To abandon the people of Gaza to this fate is, however, unthinkable. Regional and world leaders are well aware of the environment in which any settlement might be brokered and they ought to bend every effort to this effect. In the meantime, ‘ordinary’ people can demonstrate at every opportunity their rejection both of Israeli tactics that result in the slaughter of innocent people and Hamas’ willingness to use Palestinians as little more than pawns in their war on Israel.

Peace-seeking Israeli and Palestinian individuals and groups do exist and can be supported and encouraged with minimal effort by anyone with access to the internet.  This might seem like a drop in the ocean, but surely that is better than abandoning hope and accepting (or even colluding in) a single drop of innocent blood being shed

War and Peace Gaza-Style

The terrible events that have unfolded in Gaza over the past few weeks require serious reflection, not knee-jerk reactions.  Sadly, driven by what seems to be an inherent human compulsion to take sides, people far removed from the realities of broken bodies, shattered homes and wasted lives, have instead defended and attacked their chosen heroes and villains.  This is not the World Cup; something a bit more sophisticated than cheer-leading is called for.

Christian Zionists, appear to be willing to turn a blind eye to almost anything that Israel does. Never mind the dubious thinking that equates the modern State of Israel with ‘the Chosen People’ (something that many orthodox Jews reject), how can it be right to ignore the very many Biblical injunctions to pursue justice, peace and mercy? The fact that Israel originally gave support to the student movement that became Hamas in an effort to destibilise the PLO ought to give pause for thought on the part of even the most ardent Israel supporter.

Equally, Hamas is far from being the liberator of an oppressed people that many pro-Palestinians would like to suggest. If given free rein, Hamas would instigate a rigid, Islamist rule over the Gaza population, imposing a distorted form of Islam that the great majority of Muslims worldwide find unacceptable. The fact that an international marathon run, organised to highlight the plight of Palestinians, had to be switched from Gaza to the West Bank last year because Hamas would not permit women to participate, is a minor example of what lies in store were Hamas to be permanently in charge.

Meanwhile, dozens of entirely innocent men, women and children perish in appalling circumstances. It might be true that if Hamas had the fire-power, it would inflict the same scale of casualties as has Israel, but Israel’s shocking over-reaction and continued targeting of homes, offices and even recreational areas cannot be justified. There is no sign that Jesus’ injunction to ‘turn the other cheek’ is going to be heeded any more now than it was two thousand years ago.

The ‘two-state’ solution has been on the table for many years now and remains the only likely way forward. That, or any other solution that recognises the need for both Israelis and Palestinians to enjoy peace, security and freedom, cannot be established by military means.

The greater goal of securing peace and offering hope for current and future generations means that it is necessary for enemies to sit and talk with one another face to face, however unpalatable that might be.  While not perfect, the settlements in South Africa, in Northern Ireland and in Rwanda all share one thing: peace begins, continues and ends with talk; war ends in death.  In only the most extreme circumstances can war ever become a means of achieving justice and peace. To partially quote an old slogan from the sixties: ‘Fighting for peace is like ******* for virginity’.

Dying to Die

Assisted Suicide is currently a hot topic in the UK. An important Supreme Court judgment was published at the end of June, current and former Archbishops of Canterbury have clashed publicly on the issue and a significant debate on the subject is scheduled to take place at the end of this week in the House of Lords.

Many arguments have been presented in favour of changing the current ban on assisted suicide; just as many have been presented opposing change.  These have covered ethics, philosophy, law, and a host of social theories and attitudes, all of which are important to take into account when trying to decide whether or not assisted suicide ought legally to be permitted.

When all is said and done, however, the Supreme Court has highlighted what is likely to be the crucial, deciding factor in the debate: ‘The question requires a judgment about the relative importance of the right to commit suicide and the right of the vulnerable, especially the old and sick, to be protected from direct or indirect pressure to do so. It is unlikely that the risk of such pressure can ever be wholly eliminated. Therefore the real question is how much risk to the vulnerable is acceptable in order to facilitate suicide by others who are free of such pressure or more resistant to it’. This, it seems, is where the rubber hits the road.

In attempting to influence opinion, both sides in the debate have highlighted compassion as being central to the issue. ‘If we are compassionate, how can we refuse to help someone who is suffering to end his or her own life?’ say proponents of change. ‘If we are compassionate, how can we abandon vulnerable people to pressure from others or from acting out of a sense of guilt, to “stop being a burden?” ’ say advocates of the current law.

Those pushing for change often take a hopelessly optimistic view of human nature; history and current affairs tell us that some people truly are malevolent and that their misdeeds are not easily prevented (for example, over 500,000 elderly people suffer abuse in the UK each year).  Equally, opponents of change often appeal too readily to a Utopian view of palliative care that simply is not reflected in reality.

The impasse can only be resolved by someone making a sacrifice. I balk at the thought of asking vulnerable, isolated individuals to do so. Individuals who freely wish to control the time and means of their own deaths are surely better placed to make such a sacrifice for the good of others.  Perhaps one day, truly effective safeguards against abuse can be found, but, to date, all proposals fall well short of that mark. Self-denial is not frequently promoted or valued in our society, but this is one case where it could helpfully occupy centre-stage.

Stuck Up a Yewtree

The on-going investigation into celebrity-based sex offences in the UK (Operation Yewtree) has once more been in the News with the conviction of the former ‘National Treasure’ Rolf Harris.

The investigative process into cases of ‘historic abuse’ asks three basic questions:

Question One: Did the alleged behaviour constitute a criminal offence?
Question Two: Is there sufficient evidence to make a conviction a realistic possibility?
Question Three: Would prosecution be in the public interest?

The Crown Prosecution Service has had little difficulty in deciding that all such cases are in the public interest, but answering the first two questions is not quite as straight-forward.

Question One: A particular alleged action might be intrinsically offensive but not constitute a criminal offence. Even though there has been both a perpetrator and a victim no crime has been committed.  Alternatively, another alleged action might not be intrinsically offensive, never mind criminal, even though someone genuinely took offence at it. In neither case would a prosecution ensue.  

Question Two: Insufficient evidence might reflect difficulties in making the truth ‘stick’, in which case a guilty individual goes free. Alternatively, insufficient evidence might reflect false or mistaken accusations in which case an innocent individual has been spared the ordeal of prosecution, Mud, however, is still likely to stick.

Even when a case has been brought to trial, all is not, necessarily, clear. A defendant might be found not guilty because the jury is not convinced that a crime has been proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, a high threshold of proof. Only in those cases where a criminal offence has occurred and there has been enough evidence to bring the case to court and a jury has found the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is there an absolutely clear-cut outcome.

All of which brings me to my point. While knowing virtually nothing about the circumstances, I have found myself hoping for certain outcomes in various trials. Even if I sometimes have to face down a visceral and indefensible bias towards members of my own sex in some of these cases, I have had to recognise other influences at play. I have hoped that individuals like Rolf Harris, with whom I felt an affinity, would be innocent; other personalities that I found unattractive, I rather hoped would be guilty. I have also speculated along similar lines with regard to those celebrities who were charged, but not prosecuted. This is, of course, an untenable position: my personal preferences do not determine the truth neither are they indicators of right and wrong.

I suspect, however, that I might not be alone in reacting in this way. There are deep-seated, stubbornly tenacious reasons why we react as we do and we need to be uncompromisingly and uncomfortably honest about exposing them if we are to put the truth before prejudice. Yewtree extends its reach beyond its immediate participants; when we follow these cases, I suggest that more than the defendants are on trial.

Beyond the Grave.....

My mind has turned recently, in an entirely non-morbid way, to one of the biggest topics of all: life and death.

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of pow'r,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave
Awaits alike th'inevitable hour.
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

So wrote Thomas Gray over 260 years ago in his ‘Elegy Written in a County Churchyard’.

He was entirely right. Regardless of how we live our lives they end in the same way: all paths alike lead to the grave. Much ink has been spilled and many words have been spoken, reflecting on what might lie beyond. With various degrees of certainty heaven, hell, bliss or oblivion have been promoted by preachers, philosophers and magazine columnists. Martyrs have endured the flames, suicide bombers have strapped on their vests of destiny and quieter souls have bowed their heads in prayer, each in the hope of a greater life after death.

What lies beyond the final closing of our eyes none can know for certain. Faith promises a gateway to eternal life, scepticism suggests an end of the road. Either way, there is nothing I can do about the reality of it. No amount of faith will alter my final demise if all that I am comes to and end at death; no amount of scepticism will obliterate God if the presence of God awaits me. How strange it is then that I should ever allow myself to treat the question of life after death as if it were a fantastically difficult version of a Rubik’s Cube that I ought to be able to solve if only I were to think long enough and hard enough about it.

All of this suggests that I ought to concentrate on something that I can do something about: life before death.

‘God is love’ wrote St John; ‘love is all you need’ wrote John Lennon.  If St John is right so too is John Lennon. What this means for me is that I can spend considerably less time thinking about the other side of the grave and considerably more time determining how I will live this side of the grave.

As Thomas Gray observed centuries before the advent of our empty celebrity culture, nothing of substance will remain of our fame, riches or ambition. What might remain on earth, if we are truly blessed, will be lasting memories in a few hearts of love that we gave and love that we shared.  To hell with the rest……

The Great Bible Fraud

This week, I came across a group of people offering passers-by a free booklet entitled. ‘What the Bible Really Teaches’.  I was hit with a mixture of anger, sorrow and irritation.  The individuals looked perfectly pleasant and, as far as I could tell, had no idea that they were engaging in spiritual fraud. Harsh words, I know, but I believe justified.

In claiming that the Bible teaches anything and that they were able to discern what that teaching is, the group of evangelists were unjustifiably crediting both themselves and the Bible with accomplishments and qualities that do not exist.

In the first instance, it ought to be blatantly obvious that there are myriads of interpretations of the Bible; for any group to believe that they have got it entirely right is stunningly arrogant and narrow-minded. Of course, everyone is entitled to argue the rightness of their interpretation and the wrongness of everyone else’s, but can we really take seriously such a grandiose claim?  It would be merely ridiculous if not for the fact that many vulnerable people constantly fall prey to such absolute claims and end up in bondage to others, afraid to question whatever orthodoxy is being peddled in case they fall foul of whatever version of God is being promoted.

Even more pernicious than a group claiming to have all the truth is the idea that the Bible teaches anything.  The Bible is not a person.  If we say that the Bible ‘teaches’ we enter the realms of idolatry (or for those who don’t believe in God, the realms of fanciful fundamentalism).  If God exists, as I believe God does, and if God has revealed God-self in and through some of the experiences of the ancient Israelites, culminating in the great self-revelation in Jesus, it is God who teaches us, not the Bible.

This is not simply splitting hairs.  It seems to be part of human nature to want both to take short-cuts to achieving what we most desire while, if at all possible, wielding as much power and influence over others as we can.  I believe that the Bible contains invaluable truths and that we can learn invaluable lessons from God as we read it, but it is not something out of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings; it has no ‘magic’ or ‘power’ in itself. With genuine respect to my atheist and agnostic friends, I believe that all truth is God’s truth and that God desires us to seek and to discover the truth; it does not come pre-packed on a plate or in a tome and it is certainly not restricted to the pages of a booklet (or the utterances of preachers) claiming to know ‘What the Bible Really Teaches’

Is Islam 'Spawned in Hell'?

Controversy has surrounded a Belfast preacher’s comments that Islam ‘is a doctrine spawned in hell’.  Northern Ireland’s First Minister appeared to support him, then apologised to Northern Ireland’s Muslim community for ‘any offence caused’. Moral outrage has been bounced around like a beach-ball by social commentators, politicians, church leaders and the press. The preacher is under hate-crime investigation by the police.

While I disagree both with the comments expressed and their proclamation during a service of worship, it is crucially important that we think through our reaction to this incident. In the United Kingdom and most of the rest of Europe the right to criticise or to disparage any system of thought is upheld.  The relevant piece of legislation states:

‘Nothing….. prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system’.

What is not permissible in law is to attack people who adhere to a particular religious, political or philosophical viewpoint.  Again, the relevant laws state:

‘A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress’.

‘A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby’.

The balance is carefully set and ought to be maintained with equal care: people are protected; religions and philosophies are not.

The Belfast preacher, also spoke in unacceptable terms of Muslims not being trustworthy and of there being Muslim ‘cells’ (similar to IRA cells) throughout Great Britain, equating Muslims with extreme Islamists. For these comments he is, rightly, under police investigation.

Is Islam ‘spawned in hell? I do not believe so, but preachers are entitled to say so if that is what they think. Are Muslims untrustworthy? No more and no less than any other group of people. Are they terrorists?  This is a preposterous and dangerous thing to say and to encourage people to embrace this thought deserves censure.  Paradoxically, however, some of those censuring the Belfast preacher have come dangerously close to engaging in hate-speech themselves; genuine tolerance, it seems, doesn’t come easily…..

The Thought-Police are Alive and Well

Two well-publicised incidents of private conversations-made public have caught my attention: the Chief Executive of the Premier League’s sexist emails and the Prince of Wales’ comments likening Putin to Hitler. I oppose sexism and I dislike lazy historical parallels, but it is an underlying issue that is exercising my mind: the public policing of personal opinion.

Leaving to one side the motivation behind those who ‘expose’ personal comments and the sanctimonious manner in which the media deals with such exposures, is it right to judge a person’s ability to do his or her job on the basis of which opinions they might hold or express in private?  This is a thorny issue and it affects more than public figures; there are many cases of co-workers embroiled in disciplinary procedures because of perceived offence.

There is no doubt that if we discover that individuals hold opinions that are odious to us, it will affect how we think of them.  We might be offended, outraged or angry and we might choose to have as little to do with them as possible.  This is, however, very different from saying that if people hold odious opinions they cannot, or ought not to be allowed, to do their jobs.

I hate discrimination and I am more than happy to challenge it either in private or in public and I have no time for the ‘nod and wink’ culture that suggests that as long as we are ‘all mates together’ we can engage in racist, sexist or any-other-ist talk. If I have any backbone, I will challenge opinions that I find offensive.

I am, however, deeply concerned by the attitude that suggests that offensive opinions ought to be punished.  I accept that some opinions equate to ‘hate-speech’ and are illegal or they equate to harassment or bullying and are rightly matters for disciplinary procedures, but most offensive statements fall short of that mark.  There is no ‘right not to be offended’ even though we do have a right not to be treated in a deliberately offensive manner.  Too often that distinction is not recognised. 

Once we go down the road of punishing people for their opinions (however offensive they might be) instead of opposing them by counter-argument we head down the road of censorship and heresy trials.  Centuries ago people were burnt at the stake because they held theological opinions that outraged their contemporaries but which are barely understood by most people today.  We need to be extremely careful that we don’t simply replace one type of inquisition by another.

We Can't Hide Behind the 'N-Word'

The ‘N-word’ has been in the News over the past week or so with two BBC presenters being called to account; one for muttering it under his breath and another for playing an old version of ‘The Sun Has Got His Hat On’.  The famous TV personality got his knuckles rapped; the little-known local radio presenter got sacked (although the BBC later offered to reinstate him once it realised that he had not known that the offensive word was part of the original lyrics).

The word is now deemed to be so offensive that it cannot be uttered or written and must be substituted in conversation by ‘the N-word’.  Is this an over-reaction or a necessary guard against incipient racism?

I general, I am in favour of free-speech and take a dim view of people taking offence at robust language, but I do believe that certain lines ought to be drawn and not crossed.  Some words have a history that makes their social use equivalent to assault and ‘nigger’ is one of them.  Their use ought not to be permitted any more than a slap to the face ought to be dismissed as a mere ‘domestic tiff’.

The term, when used by any white person cannot be divorced from the appalling legacy of slavery, humiliation, discrimination and oppression that black people suffered for generations.  It does not matter if, had the tables been turned, black people might have treated white people in a similar way; the facts are that history happened the way it did.  In our culture, it is essential that the history of black-white relationships is not glossed over.

The truth is that only a few decades ago it was acceptable for ‘back and white minstrels’ to appear in prime-time TV shows, for the word ‘nigger’ to guarantee a laugh when slipped into a flagging sit-com script and for children to be treated to a ‘white-washed’ version of slavery in Disney’s ‘Song of the South’.  Gibbering and cowering black men were ‘humorously’ contrasted with courageous whites in comedy horror movies and it was thought to be hilarious to throw bananas at black footballers (the banana throwing continues, but no one pretends that it’s funny).

I sympathise with the hapless local radio DJ who did not preview a song that he was going to play, but careless (never mind intentionally offensive) social use of the term is dangerous.  Even deliberately satirical use of the term ought to be handled with care.  Racism lurks at every white person’s door; just think of why (if you are white) you might want to put ‘the other side of the argument’ to this article.  I do have a problem, however, with the use of ‘the N-word’; ‘nigger’ is an ugly, destructive word and its use ought not to be sanitised…..ever.

Turning a Blind Eye: The Politics of Policing

‘Political interference’ in policing is in the News once more following the arrest and questioning of Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams with regard to the 1972 IRA murder of Jean McConville.  On the face of it, this is a simple matter: if Mr Adams was criminally involved in her horrific death he ought to be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced; if not, he ought to be released from custody and given an apology. 

This analysis, however, depends on strict adherence to the principle that justice must be blind to every factor other than the guilt or innocence of individuals who, rightly or wrongly, have been implicated in a crime. The police ought to investigate all suspected crimes with vigour and the courts ought to apply the law without fear or favour.  Straightforward as it sounds (and much as I should like to endorse it), there are problems with this approach.

In the first instance, what about crimes that ought not to be classified as such?  In the UK it used to be a crime for consenting adults to engage in ‘homosexual acts’.  Was it just for the police and the courts blindly to pursue the application of this law?  Similarly, ought police to be banging on the doors of countless adolescents’ bedrooms (not to mention those of their parents) at the first whiff of cannabis-laden smoke when police resources are stretched and there is little evidence that such a pursuit would have any positive effect?

Even in cases of murder, criminal proceedings are not always the best way forward.  In the aftermath of the appalling Rwandan genocide the only way to heal a traumatised society was to exchange criminal proceedings for reconciliation procedures that blended guilt with forgiveness rather than conviction with punishment.  There is also little doubt that the Northern Ireland Peace Process would have foundered had a blind eye not been turned to some criminal paramilitary activity while negotiations were ongoing. 

It is clearly unacceptable for police and the judiciary to be simple extensions of political parties or governments. In such cases all hopes of impartial policing disappear as can be seen, for example, in the recent history of Egypt.  The criminal justice system, however, cannot fail to be a reflection of the society in which it is imbedded.  That means that ‘political’ decisions have to be made all the time with regard to which crimes to pursue.  At times, in order to effect personal, communal and social cohesion or healing, a blind eye might have to be turned or an alternative approach taken, although such policies ought to be rigorously justified in every single instance. That this should be so is an unsavoury admission of human failure and impotence, but to pretend otherwise does justice to no one.

Amsterdam's Red Light District: Freedom or Bondage?

My wife and I were in Amsterdam this week and one evening we made our way to what we were told was the best Tibetan restaurant in the city.  En route, we passed through part of ‘De Wallen’, the famed/infamous Red Light District.

I understand that the majority of sex workers are coerced into ‘the industry’; something that is entirely reprehensible.  In this blog, however, I want to reflect on those sex workers in Amsterdam’s Red Light district who state that their involvement is a genuinely free, commercial choice.  For the purposes of this article, I will not dispute their claim.

I am not remotely prudish, I respect individuals’ freedom to engage in the consensual sexual activities of their choice, I acknowledge that some people might choose to become sex workers, that there are many reasons why people choose to engage their services and, in general, I prefer regulation to prohibition in the arena of ‘public morality’.  I was, nonetheless, disturbed by my fleeting experience of De Wallen.  

In truth, I was initially a little slow on the uptake; we entered the area in daylight so red lights were at a minimum.  I mistook the first young woman I saw for a lingerie manikin until she waved; in my defence her window was beside a clothes shop.

There might well be racier windows in the area, but in the ones we passed on our way to the restaurant, greater ‘exposure’ could be encountered on hundreds of Mediterranean beaches.  The poses were not provocative; indeed listlessness pervaded.  What I found disturbing was the fact that it was happening at all.

I felt a kind of hollow sadness and despair that anyone, male or female, might choose to put themselves on display so that others could ‘rent’ their bodies for a few minutes of non-relational sex.  That anyone should consider ‘renting’, I found chilling.  The whole thing smacked of those disgraceful accounts of slave auctions from the past.  For bodies to be reduced to commodities and for sex to be reduced to manipulating bits and pieces of anatomy, I found profoundly dehumanising.  Perhaps in pornography, some half-hearted pretence might be made that desire, passion or mutual lust is involved; in DeWallen no pretence at all was evident.

There was no respect to be discerned anywhere.  I gained no impression that the women were being treated with respect by anyone and I could see absolutely no reason why, at most, the women ought to treat their clients with anything other than disdain.  It was an untrammeled exercise in personal liberty, devoid of personal relationship.  To quote one of the great commentators on human nature, Leonard Cohen, ‘It looks like freedom, but it feels like death’

Easter: Does it Add Up?

I recently saw the following post on facebook:

‘Add the Numbers:

Nineteen minus five + 4 – 3 x 2 + 7

Solve this….’

Most people make the mistake of ignoring the initial instruction to ADD the numbers; instead they perform the calculation.  The host website states that the right answer is 16 (adding together 4, 3, 2 and 7). This, however, is open to challenge: have the hosts confused the word ‘numbers’ with the words ‘figures’ or ‘digits?  ‘Nineteen’ and ‘five’ are still numbers even if they are written as words rather than expressed as figures.  The correct answer might, therefore, be 40 (or forty).

What has this to do with Easter?  I have spent a lot of time recently discussing with individuals and groups whether the resurrection of Jesus ought to be understood ’physically’, ‘spiritually’ or ‘symbolically’.  The answer to this depends largely on how we read the source material of the New Testament.  For example, ought we to read the Gospels as history understood in essentially modern terms, as history understood primarily in ancient terms, as examples of ancient writings known as ‘lives’ (a type of ‘dramatised’ biography or docudrama) or as documents that primarily contain material designed to portray the significance of Jesus even though some biographical details might also be present?

Enough books to fill a good-sized library have been written in attempts to ‘prove’ each of the above positions (and others).  Such arguments are important; seeking the truth is always to be commended especially when the truth is hotly disputed. 

What is missing, however, in much of what is written about the resurrection is attention being given to the equivalent of the initial instruction in the teaser above.  The point of the resurrection narratives, according to John’s Gospel, is to encourage people to believe in Jesus so that their own lives might also be transformed.  In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter so much how the resurrection happened; what matters is that Jesus continues to live in a transformed manner.  The nature of that transformation is a matter of debate and long may the debate continue; the point of the transformation is that we might find someone worthy of following, someone ‘we can believe in’.

The form of that belief and the ways in which we might follow Jesus will also vary from person to person.  My conviction is that once we get to the point of believing that Jesus is truly worth following we are in for a life-time of exploration, development and challenge.  At a personal level, Easter is not so much about theories and doctrines as it is about a particularly striking person and the continuing impact he can have in my life.  If the resurrection doesn’t make a difference in me what does it really matter to me?

Blood Moons and the End of the World

The night of April 14/15th sees the first of four ‘blood moons’ (a ‘tetrad’ of total full-moon eclipses) to occur over the next eighteen months.  Two of these will fall on the feast of Passover and two on the feast of Tabernacles: cue televangelists with predictions of ‘significant events’.  One such, John Hagee, has written a best-selling book on the topic, citing Joel 2: 31 ‘The sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes’, glibly ignoring the fact that even if this is to be understood in astronomical terms, it speaks primarily of a solar eclipse.

Hagee’s thesis is that every time a series of blood moons coincides with either Passover or Tabernacles, it is God’s way of letting the world know that something momentous is going to happen with regard to the Jewish people/Israel.  In evidence he quotes 1492 when Jews were expelled from Spain, 1948 when the State of Israel came into existence and 1967 when Israel won the six-day war against its Arab neighbours. Impressive stuff, some might think, but sadly for those who like to think that God habitually uses the solar system to send coded messages to those ‘in the know’, a little examination brings the entire thesis crashing down.

The first two events outlined above happened before their associated blood moon sequences occurred, rendering them pretty ineffectual as prophetic warnings; the ‘coincidence’ was out by a year or so; not the sort of accuracy one might expect from God.  There have also been blood moon sequences falling on Jewish festivals (which conveniently occur only on full moons) that coincided with…absolutely nothing.  It is also a little ironic that, at most, only the final ‘blood moon’ will be observable from Israel, the land of the original prophecy; all four, of course, will be visible from the USA.

What all of this underlines is that there is a willingness, even a desperation, among many people to find proof of some sort of divine control over human affairs.  The world is going to hell on a hand-cart, they believe, so God needs to show up somehow to reassure believers that all is not lost.

I don’t disagree with their analysis of the state of the world; war, poverty, hunger, abuse, discrimination, slavery and downright badness are rampant.  Thus it has always been.  God’s presence, however, is not to be looked for in the stars (seriously, one star of Bethlehem story and we’re fixated), but in the words and actions of people who are determined to swim against the tide of evil that threatens to over-run societies; people who (whether they realise it or not) are sufficiently infused by the spirit of God to stand up and make a difference.  We don’t need to look to the heavens; just at ourselves.     

Genocide and Kate's Skirt

This week marks the 20^th anniversary of the beginning of one hundred days of insanity that resulted in more than 800,000 people being killed in the Rwandan genocide. 

The details of the murders are horrific: shootings, mutilations and mass burnings were common place; often victims were specifically sought out and ‘executed’ by those known personally to them.  Age, sex or infirmity offered no protection from the bloody carnage.

The atrocities were made all the more horrific in that many murders took place in or near churches, where terrified people huddled together seeking protection.  Not only did hate-fuelled groups ignore any suggestion that they were ‘on holy ground’, incredibly in many cases the murderers were regular worshippers in church, sometimes even clergy.

Of course, not all Christians acted in this way; there are many accounts of clergy and others hiding potential victims, sometimes risking their lives to do so.  I have to ask, however, was that anything more than ought to have been expected of anyone who made a claim to be a follower of Jesus?

One story that has emerged over the past few days has stood out particularly for me.  It is of a woman whose baby was killed by a machete-wielding church choir member who then slashed her in the head, severed her right hand and left her for dead.  Some years later, the man met with her, knelt before her and asked for forgiveness.  Almost unbelievably, she forgave him and they now both work together for a charity that seeks to provide ongoing help to victims of the genocide.

His account of how easy it was for him to turn from his Christian principles, to be seduced by ethnic hatred, is chilling to the core.  After the first few murders, he explained, he just stopped thinking about it, choosing to believe that he was ridding his country of vermin.  It all sounds so familiar.  The depth of humanity, spirituality and love that enabled his victim to forgive him is beyond my ability to comment on.  He now feels intensely for his victims and experiences ongoing remorse for his actions; something that might well not have happened had his victim not forgiven him. 

Of course, we all know that for the tabloid media, the death of one white British child is more newsworthy than the death of a hundred or more black Africans.  A plane crash in ‘the developed world’ will blot our genocide in Africa.  There was something particularly crass, however, in one of the UK tabloid’s coverage yesterday.  Its commentary on the Rwandan genocide was placed alongside snickering comment about the Duchess of Cambridge’s skirt billowing in the wind.  Hundreds of thousands of Africans killed, injured or traumatised; oh well, at least they didn’t suffer a wardrobe malfunction….

It's April Fools Day all Year Round

Yesterday, my older daughter and I exchanged April Fools texts.  She informed me that she was going to miss her flight home at the same time as I texted her saying that her flight had been cancelled; the annual ritual had been duly observed. While some may be dismissive of such puerile pursuits, I think that it’s a good thing to be reminded not to take ourselves too seriously or to believe that we are immune from gullibility.

A famous April Fools hoax was conducted in 1976, by the BBC presenter and astronomer Patrick Moore.  He informed people, on air, that at 9.47 am precisely the ‘Jovian-Plutonian Gravitational Effect’ would cause a momentary negation of the Earth’s gravity.  If people jumped at precisely the right moment, they would experience a strange floating sensation before returning to the ground.  Subsequently, the BBC’s switchboard was flooded with callers eager to attest that they had experienced the effect.

It was, of course, nonsense, but many people still believed that they had experienced it.  Moore, however, had more than an April Fools trick on his mind.  He had devised the hoax to draw attention to a book called ‘the Jupiter Effect’.  The authors argued that a certain type of planetary alignment, due to take place in 1982, would cause all manner of terrible natural disasters to take place.   In spite of the fact that this alignment occurs every 179 years and no discernible pattern of natural disasters could be found to correlate with it, the book became a best-seller, questions were asked in government and even NASA became involved.  Moore and others protested in vain that the book was nonsense from start to finish; even when 1982 came and went without anything unusual to report, the authors stuck to their guns, revised their theories and published a follow-up.  Only in 1999 did one of the authors admit that it was all rubbish, writing ‘I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.’  It has not been reported whether or not he donated his royalties to charity.

From ‘the Jupiter Effect’ through ‘the Millennium bug’, to countless conspiracy theories, religious beliefs, health fads, political and social theories and our individual quirks and superstitions, time and again we believe what we want to believe simply because we want to believe it.  Some of our beliefs might be true, some of them might be false, but seldom do we adhere to beliefs because we have rigorously pursued the truth.  More often than not we have simply looked for ‘evidence’ to support our existing presuppositions and preferences.  Rarely, are these presuppositions and preferences put to the test…..foolish or what