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’