"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Hmmm...

This slogan could soon be found on many London buses.

Interesting, if not unoriginal, argument. The slogan COULD be deemed offensive to believers, and might initially make a firm believer in God cringe. But after a little thought I actually agree with those who have supported the publishing of this slogan for promoting debate about the existence of God.

It is indeed a very good point that religious groups do get to advertise on buses, so atheists should not be exempt from this. I am not one who subscribes to the view that religious believers should attempt to supress any attempts to contradict them, or doctrines which are not coherent with their own faith. It is my belief that if one is strong enough in their faith, they should remain untroubled by opposing views. So, on the whole, my opinion on this issue is that it's given me the excuse for an extra blog entry!

Except for one minor criticism. The opinions of Richard Dawkins in relation to this new campaign include these words: ""Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children." Now, call it paranoia, but why do I get the feeling that Dawkins is using the word "religion" here as a term to disguise the true word he means, "Christianity". Because if he does, he is very much mistaken. The faith no longer has state funding, is heavily mocked in the media, and has long been an acceptable target of criticism (whilst other faiths have the right not to be offended).

Think on, Dawkins. I think you're the one who's been getting the free ride.

I'm a Roman Catholic, so let me in...Just kidding!

BBC London News talked today about the increasing levels of dishonesty and deception involved in getting children into faith schools. Well, there's a surprise.

It does, of course, raise a very ironic issue though, doesn't it? Applying to the school of a faith which forbids lying, by lying! Not only is it considerably wrong in human terms (consider how p...frustrated...you'd be if you were a Christian refused admission to a Christian school, only to find that a hardcore atheist got a place through deception), but it actually creates an interesting spiritual and moral issue, as outlined above.

The obvious example is of Christianity. Breaking the 9th commandment of Christianity for admission to a Christian school DOES seem a little paradoxical.

But this entire topic actually got me interested in what other religions say about lying. Would all religions look so unfavourably upon lying and dishonesty?

Well, let's take Sikhism. I find that many Sikh websites claim that lying is prohibited. The Guru Granth Sahib allegedly tells the Sikh: "Your mouth has not stopped slandering and gossiping about others. Your service is useless and fruitless." Any kind of worthless talk, lying included, is forbidden in Sikhism. And with good reason.

Judaism, of course, follows the commandments with just as much conviction, if not more, as Christians.

Finding information on the Hindu perspective on lying proved rather difficult, but I suspect (and feel free to correct me) that it perceives the concept of truth as a noble one, as part of it's perceptions of Dharma (along with the Sikhs and the Buddhists).

And Islam? Islam, in general, forbids lying. However, I came across a doctrine that, in my ignorance, I had never before stumbled across. And that is the concept of "Al-Takeyyah", described on islamcommentaries.com as "lying for Allah". Initially the prospect of such hypocrisy might make one cringe; however I do actually see the sense of this concept in certain contexts. For instance, lying is permissible to protect one's faith; this could be seen as sensible when faced with persecution. (Although in Christianity believers are encouraged never to lie about such things but to stand firm).

However, this "lying for Allah" is perhaps less noble than it at first seems. And I take as basis for my comment not my own "prejudices" or "misguided conceptions" but the words of the Prophet Muhammed himself (PBUH): “Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie in war, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people” (Ahmad, 6.459. H).

To put this into my own words: Don't lie, it is wrong and against the will of God. Well, except if your wife nags you, it's OK to lie to her - she doesn't deserve the truth. Oh and war is dishonest anyway so you may as well rectify the situation by lying even more. Oh and if people are arguing, it's OK to lie to shut them up".

This piece of doctrine seems less of a noble concept, and rather more the epitome of self-contradiction and hypocrisy. Still, religion will never cease to baffle.

I just hope I'm never the headteacher or admissions tutor of an Islamic school...

Make Me a Christian

This morning in Church the vicar preaching made regular reference to the recent Channel 4 reality show "Make me a Christian". If he will forgive me I will make reference to a few of his own comments about the show and collaborate them with my own ideas.

His immediate response, with which I agree entirely, was to the title: "Make me a Christian". Immediately the antennae of the sceptic will be aroused by this phrase, one which implies that becoming a Christian, or indeed a believer in any faith, involves coercion and passivity rather than making an active, conscious decision entirely of one's own accord. 1-0 to the secularist sceptic.

Next the producers cleverly chose four religious leaders who behaved more like Victorian schoolmasters. So the view of Christianity as being about coercion is thus edified; the Christian life according to the image created by the programme involves a constant monitoring of one's activities (with, yet again, a particular emphasis on sex: does no-one care about lying, hatred or violence any more?). 2-0 to the secularist sceptic.

The show then proceeded to show the Christian attitude towards anyone who questions the faith. In a meeting a particularly vocal sceptic of the faith raised questions about the authenticity of the Bible; a fair, if not age-old, issue. And how did the Christian minister in charge of the meeting respond? By effectively telling him to put his hand down, be quiet and do as he was told. What a fantastic testimony to the Christian faith, because after all, all Christians avoid and refuse to answer questions or engage in healthy debate, don't we? We are all ignorant, arrogant and bigoted. (Note the sarcasm). And, guess what, it's 3-0 to the secularist sceptic.

So it's not looking good so far. The image of the Christian life and faith is one of ignorance, arrogance, harsh rules, non-flexibility, bullying, judgement and a judgemental attitude, and coercion.

I may as well give up now...

But HOLD ON A MINUTE...there is a glimmer of hope. This glimmer came in a clip that lasted literally about 2 minutes, but that 2 minutes reflected for me what the entire series should have been like, and summarised for me what Christianity truly is. It was a moment when the otherwise bullying vicar questioned one of the female contestants about her life. And as he began to refer to the words Jesus spoke over 2000 years ago, there was a poignant moment in which the viewers could clearly see the change as the girl gradually become more and more tearful, and the messages and the issues addressed really hit home, and hit personal troubles, experiences and issues in this girl's life.

And THAT is what Christianity, indeed any faith, is about. It's not about rule-making or enforcing, or passing judgement, or coercion. It's about taking a person who is vulnerable (and, let's face it, we're all vulnerable at times), and showing them that the issues in their life can be addressed in a way that surpasses all Earthly methods.

For these methods call upon a force than which nothing greater exists: almighty God.

The Importance of Inner Beauty

Wonders will never cease. Flicking through The Times today I discovered that a priest has organised a beauty contest...for nuns. The claim is largely that it is about spirituality...a contest of inner beauty rather than outer beauty.

But as the priest is 1) a human being and 2) a male, one can be forgiven for suspecting that, in reality, it is really about the physique. And it appears one is after all right to do so, as one reads on to discover Father Antonio Rungi's observations that nuns from Africa and Latin America were "really very, very pretty. The Brazilian girls, above all".

In other words, here is a contest disguised as a contest of spirituality, but that is, in reality, about the one thing that all beauty contests are about: rating the physique of women.

Despite this, it raised the philosopher in me, and got me thinking about the difference between outer and inner beauty. It is inevitable that human beings become captivated by physical beauty, whether it is the girl at the other end of the class, or that guy walking down the street. There is something overwhelming about it, isn't there?

So the question is, why is it inner beauty rarely has the same effect on us? Why is it that we merely remark over inner beauty, and yet we slip into a trance over outer beauty? Why is it we fall head over heels when it comes to the physical, but merely comment in passing on the inner?

Well, as is ever the case, Biblical authors were way ahead of me on this one. This verse from the first book of Samuel summarises my observations rather well:

"The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." [1 Sam 16]

However, all it does, of course, is observe. What I could really do with is a verse which tells us what we should be doing about it. Cue 1 Peter:

"Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight." [3:3-4]

In light of this verse the idea of nuns having inner beauty has a ring of truth...the "gentle and quiet spirit". And it certainly makes sense...a beautiful face may have aesthetic appeal, arouse one's eros for a short while, and such; but the inner beauty of a gentle spirit can bring peace, comfort and serenity.

So what am I saying? That we should train ourselves to stop noticing and being captivated by physical beauty, change our focus, etc.? Well, no, that would be sheer hypocrisy...but I am saying that maybe, once in a while, we might make more of an attempt to note, ponder and even bask in the inner beauty of those around us. I am positive that the rewards of such thinking are far longer-term, far greater, and far more widespread.

A man divided

I read the front page of The Times on Thursday August 7th with great interest. It was entitled: "Archbishop believes gay sex is good as marriage". When I reached the end of the article, my first conclusion was that immediately even the Times was guilty of creating a false impression with its title. Dr Williams' views are not by any means simply that any gay sex is as good as marriage. And it is such inaccuracy that is largely responsible for the bitter exchange of views and a church which stands divided, potentially on the verge of schism.

The essence of the article itself was that, in letters written to a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian who had challenged him at the turn of the decade regarding his views on the issue of homosexuality, Williams suggested that he had 'definitely come to the conclusion' that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between two people who happened to be gay, but rather the engaging in homosexual activity of people who were actually heterosexual.

He gave other justifications, but this was the crux of his viewpoint. No doubt this view will anger and irritate thousands of Christians, but that is not what I wish to focus on here. I could write at length about my views on this topic, and would probably still not reach a definite conclusion.

But the point for me, here, lies in the article which is written in the same issue of the Times. This article talks about Williams as a man who is "publicly conservative, privately liberal". This very situation is one which disappoints and saddens me. Williams is a man who does not reach conclusions lightly, or ponder things superficially (in fact, he claims that the aforementioned view on homosexuality is one he reached after "20 years of study and prayer").

Williams, in fact, has degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, and has lectured at both of these universities, as well as other colleges. So there is no doubt about the fact that, when dealing with our Archbishop of Canterbury, we are dealing with a man of great intelligence, which, it has to be said, is far superior to most of ours.

And yet as a Church we seem to think that our incessant recitation of the same verse from Leviticus (a book which, incidentally, also contains warnings against sea creatures and the skin of pigs), or the verses from the Bible which did not even contain the word "homosexual" until 1946, is of far superior status to Williams' 20 years of study and prayer.

I am inclined to view this man with great respect and admiration...both as a Christian and an academic. And at present I also view him with sympathy. Here stands a man who has put great dedication into seeking the truth of Almighty God and is now unable to express or act in accordance with that truth, because he is at the head of an organisation which, frankly, deems its own prejudices superior to enlightened research, prayer, tolerance, and the love of the Son of the God which should be at the heart of all it says and does.

Suffice to say, I do not envy Williams at present.