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?