Inexcusable Prejudice

I had the pleasure this evening, like many others, of watching the repugnant Nick Griffin attempt to justify his unspeakably disgraceful and distasteful views regarding people of ethnic minorities.

I commend those on the programme who shamed him and relentlessly demanded answers to their questions. Particularly moving was a statement early on from an African man who, understandably agitated, expressed how he felt about this disgusting party and their ideology.

I find it particularly laughable that immigration is supposedly the cause of major problems in our society. If you believe the crap that Griffin spouts those from other nations are 'stealing' 'our' jobs. Surely the jobs belong to British citizens (which these people are)? Or do we now have to justify our ancestry, too?

In which case, I ought to leave Oxford, and this country, for I am ethnically half-Indian. In fact, most of the people I know would not be in this country if immigration had been banned over the last few centuries.

Furthermore, immigrants are NOT stealing any jobs. They are available for any applicants. But there are plenty of British people who are far happier to watch Jeremy Kyle, This Morning and Loose Women all day living from the taxpayers' money than actually contributing to the economy - and such people then have the temerity to suggest that immigration is a huge problem. Decent, hard-working people from Asia, Africa and many European countries are actually trying to express their gratitude for being here by contributing to the economy! I would much prefer a citizen of Asian descent working for their living than a 'pure Brit' feeling they don't have an obligation to contribute to our economy.

Of course, I find these things 'laughable' but the reality is they are actually not hugely funny. They reflect something very tragic. I am incredulous at the amount of prejudice there is in our society. I find it disturbing that people vote for the BNP, simply on a whim out of a twisted phrase of Griffin's that sounds right. Even if we do need at some point to tighten immigration (which I suspect is the case) - this is a world apart from the absurd suggestions of this man that we should 'reverse' it. As one decent hard-working Muslim man said to him: "Where will I go?"

Personally, I am rather more saddened that I have known so-called Christians who harbour racist, prejudiced feelings and see no issue with it. I have heard 'Christians' assume that crimes committed, 'must have been done by an Asian', or feel it acceptable to view those from other countries and somehow inferior to themselves.

Reader, these are not the marks of an intelligent society. Nor are they the marks of a compassionate, caring society. Whether you are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist - a basic commitment to caring for other individuals is a fundamental part of society. And no philosophy in this list would justify the treatment of others as inferior. From my perspective, if Jesus walked this earth today, he would be appalled by the BNP and by many so-called 'Christians' who spout such appalling, ignorant nonsense.

Love conquers all?

I was having an interesting discussion recently with a clergyman who talked about his experience with couples coming to get married.

He was saying that, whilst many had been living together and he was therefore often advised not to marry them, he was in disagreement and felt they ought to be married. For in his experience it is couples of this generation who have had time to gain a greater understanding of what marriage is all about, and, whereas 30 years ago it was common to get married as a 'license for sex' or to prevent ill repute because the lady in question was pregnant, nowadays couples tended to approach for marriage because they are ready to make a final, binding commitment: and are indeed aware of how strong a commitment it is to make.

This raises two rather interesting points. The first is that those who claim that the world has 'gone to pot' and that, when they were younger, people had better values about such things, ought to consider a different perspective. Was it better for people to get married for such shallow reasons? And was sex before marriage really virtually non-existent? Or was it that people were simply more secretive for fear of being outcast?

The other interesting point stems from the comment made by the clergyman with whom I was conversing, who said something along the lines of "in my eyes surely it's better that we have two people in a serious, committed relationship...and that is what's important here".

Many conservative Christians, of course, would disagree, and claim that this attitude displays a total irreverence to scripture. But is Scripture the only source of authority about God? Can we not reason out the nature of God (to some extent)? Can our experience of God not count for anything?

For those who are willing to give place to other sources of authority, alongside (not in place of) the Bible, tend to note with more significance the fact that God is love - indeed, the embodiment of love. And they would therefore be likely to see that two people who genuinely love each other is one of the strongest symbols of all, and one of the most powerful indicators that maybe our society isn't a total pit of immorality and unscrupulousness after all.

So, that is the question. Was it better when couples were cast out by their own families and communities for having expressed their love for one another before being married? Or is it better to love and embrace people regardless? And did marriage mean more when there were less divorces (was this purely because people were more committed? or simply out of fear of the attitudes they would have received?) and people got married so that they could have sex? Or is it better that, by and large, a far higher proportion of those who get married, whilst they may have lived together and slept together, are by no means unaware of the gravity of the commitment which they are intending to make?

Overall: does love conquer all?

Thinking Day

Today has been a day of me thinking. This has been for two primary reasons.


The first is that I celebrated my birthday. Birthdays do often have that habit of inducing thought and reflection upon one's soul. And as I pondered I thought of the miracle of childbirth, and the greater miracle of what such tiny babies can one day become...to think of all those who were once tiny babies - Einstein, Newton, Churchill, Thatcher, Kant, Picasso - and so many more.


And of course - Jesus. To think that the saviour of the world began life as a helpless, crying baby.


And then I thought of the last years of my life - some of the experiences with which I have been blessed, or indeed cursed. And I pondered whether the positives outweighed the negatives, and, of course, deep down -they do.


The other reason I was in a "pondering" sort of mood was that today was in fact that the 70th anniversary of Britain and France's declaring of war on Germany. This news would have been terrifying and frightening to thousands of children and adults, men and women, soldiers and civilians alike - but at the same time was felt necessary to undertake in order to ensure the freedom of Poland, and indeed later on, many more countries, including our own beloved nation.


As I was watching the ITV1 programme 'Outbreak' - a superb documentary chronologically accounting, hour by hour, this day in 1939, I found myself attempting to imagine what it must have been like - for the soldiers, for the evacuees, for the women losing their children and their partners - and those men, and of course women, who served faithfully not knowing whether they would live to see the next day. I felt, and indeed feel, such admiration.


And so the combination of the anniversary of the outbreak of the war - combined with the comparatively trivial anniversary of my birth! - led me to conclude that, as always, God is very much 'in the picture'. He sees through time and time again the miracle of childbirth, and nurtures his creation. He inspires, motivates and touches the lives of thousands upon thousands, and in a time of war when people seemed devoid of hope, he was present.


I am eternally grateful, too, that I am fortunate enough to (currently) live a life of comparative luxury in relation to the lives of those during WW2. And I therefore thank God that we, at least, can know 'Peace in our time'.

An unreasonable command

Sorry, Jesus. You may have loved us enough to die for us, but we feel You're asking too much of us to simply love each other in our daily lives.

You see, we are a bit too busy. I'd love to help my neighbour in need, but I am far too preoccupied. I can't even help my friend, so I feel it's unreasonable to expect me to help my acquaintance.

And we are kind of a bit more 'out for ourselves' now, Jesus, you see. We "look after number 1" - who else will, after all?

So we go for what we want. It doesn't matter if two people love one another; if we fancy one of the two partners we will do our best to get to them. To hell with the feelings of the other person.

If I want to make money, I'll do it. Sorry, but money is important! It makes the world go round. I can't afford to sacrifice a single penny in a recession, even if it means hurting other people in the process. They won't help me, you see. But money will!

And if my friend irritates me sufficiently, I feel I have the right to at least smack him in the mouth. In fact, if he really gets to me, I have the right to beat him up - and set my 'mates' on him. He deserves it, after all.

And if my 'gang' gets 'dissed' by this other gang - we have the right to make sure we stab that gang's leader or another member to death. They deserve it, after all. Sorry, but it doesn't matter that that person will have parents and siblings and relatives and friends who love him. He wound us up, and that's all that matters.

And what about all those people suffering who need rest? Well I would like to give them peace, but if I'm angry, I have the right to shout. Even if it does disturb the terminally ill patient's rest. Sorry, but you seem to have forgotten - I look after number 1.

Charity? Well, I can't afford to donate a thing. It's a recession, as I've already said. Yes, I know that people don't stop dying in a recession. I know that those in the 2/3 world who suffer severe poverty are the worst hit at times like this - but hello? Remember? I need to make sure I'm all right here!

So the bottom line is, Lord, I know you want us to love one another - but this is not realistic in today's society. We are too busy with other things to take 5 minutes to help a friend or neighbour out. The fact is that sometimes, also, we just can't be bothered! Is it such a crime if I can't be bothered to pop round and visit the old lonely housebound lady? And we know what's important - looking after number one. We have unwritten permission to do whatever it takes to make sure we're all right.

As for everyone else? Well, they just don't matter, I'm afraid.

Books by their cover, etc..

Presently the whole world is discussing the situation of a female athlete, Caster Semenya, an 18 year old South African who ran the 800m this summer.

The issue is that she apparently looks like a man. She was therefore forced to submit to gender verification tests to prove that she was in fact the gender she claimed she was.

Of course, this in itself is humiliating enough for someone to endure when all they desire is to succeed in an event they love. But the International Associations of Athletics Federations (IAAF) didn't feel that this was sufficient. They felt that it was necessary for the world to know that such suspicions were felt and that tests were carried out.

Meanwhile, this poor...I shall have to say person, I suppose...has had to go through all this, and has done so gracefully. For this alone she deserves a medal.

This situation is utterly ridiculous. Here we are in the 21st century - the era of 'human rights' - and we feel it is justified to poke fun globally at a talented athlete simply because she doesn't fit our desired appearance. She looks slightly masculine, so she must be a man. My cat growls like a dog from time to time, so, by this ingenious logic, she is, of course, a dog.

I am disgusted that people feel it is justifiable to make such accusations and to publicise to all and sundry with absolutely no regard for Semenya's feelings. Competitors have outrightly claimed "She's a man". Do we not care about being sensitive to people any more?

Evidently as a society we are more interested in a cheap laugh than in allowing someone their dignity. Speculation and suspicion mean more to us than respect. And we are perfectly content to trample on someone's emotions because there might be an interesting 'scandal' story for us parasites of the human race to feed on.

I am personally fairly confident that she's just an unfortunate woman. And not unfortunate because of how she looks, but because her fellow human beings consider it an issue.

Clearly the phrase 'don't judge a book by its cover' means nothing to the IAAF. Or to the rest of us, for that matter.

The Splendour of God

I had the pleasure of a visit to St. Paul's Cathedral, London today.

I could not express in words how overwhelming the awesomeness of such a magnificent building truly is. And in such a building, whilst one is indeed in awe of Sir Christopher Wren, and the many other important figures involved in its design, building and development, one must not forget the entire purpose of such a building.

For St. Paul's Cathedral, indeed all cathedrals, were built with one primary purpose at the forefront of the designers' minds: to glorify the most high, God Himself - and to bring people closer to him whilst witnessing the majesty of his creation.

I myself was throughout my entire visit in that marvellous place conscious of the One without whom there would be no cathedrals, and indeed, no people to create them.

It is sad that many hundreds of people pass through such places, admiring the artwork, the architecture, the history - and yet somehow manage to overlook the centre of their entire being.

I hope and pray that as each and every person enters St. Paul's, or indeed any cathedral, they appreciate the One who inspired the craftwork and the architecure, and who blessed each designer and labourer with the skill and knowledge to be able to collectively produce such amazing buildings.

Because for me, it is impossible to view such a magnificent landmark and still claim that God does not exist.

To emphasise the beauty of God's creation I finish with the words of William Blake in the first verse of his poem "Auguries of Innocence":

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

An Interesting Day

What an interesting day of headlines. Two major news stories have been reported with regards to the relationship between the Church and the homosexual community.

Firstly, I was delighted to read that the Catholic Church has, at long last, praised the work of the late and truly great Oscar Wilde. One of the true literary geniuses, and indeed prominent characters in all of time, Wilde has long been 'taboo' for the Catholic Church - for he was, as most will know, also a notorious homosexual. Being gay even now is a rather dodgy issue for many - but in the nineteenth century it was literally criminal.

The Catholic Church have applied reason and have clearly agreed that maybe praising a man's genius isn't condoning his lifestyle after all. Irrespective of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, the man contributed much to the world and actually converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. Had Shakespeare been gay, would the Catholic Church have harboured the same attitude towards him?

And the second item of news is, rather surprisingly, that at the Episcopal convention of Bishops in Anaheim, California, the US bishops' vote was an astonishing 104-30 in favour of the proposition to "collect and develop theological resources and liturgies" for blessing same-gender relationships, to be considered at the next convention in 2012. This will inevitably widen the gap between conservative Christians and liberal Christians. Will it inevitably lead to schism?

To me, we are already dividing ourselves by insisting on calling ourselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'. Why can't we find a middle ground? Why do conservatives have to be Bible-bashing anti-rationalists who interpret the entire Bible literally, and liberals be wishy-washy intellectuals who believe the entire thing is a metaphor? Can it not be that the Bible, being a complex library of 66 books crafted by numerous different authors across hundreds of years, is in fact an intricate combination of literal doctrine, cultural laws, allegory and historical accounts?

It is such a shame that we cannot simply agree as a Church that our centre is Jesus Christ, and that interpretations of other matters will inevitably differ - that is a fact of life. It is a shame also that we cannot focus on more pressing issues. The Bible is far more vocal in its commands to love others and feed the poor than it is on whether two people of the same gender can love one another. Jesus himself seems to be silent on the matter of homosexuality, and yet talks repeatedly about loving and serving others. If as a Church we began to focus more on such issues and less on comparatively insignificant matters, there might in fact be little to divide us after all.

Not worthy of funding

A report endorsed by Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York and co-written by the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, has accused the government of an unjustified prejudice against Christianity when considering funding applications.

I'm glad that, finally, someone has spoken out.

The prejudice here is not just a financial issue - it represents a far deeper issue. The issue that Christianity, being a majority, is left to struggle on its own with no defence, whilst the government bends over backwards to support and defend 'minorities', is an issue which has been present for decades.

It is the issue of a lack of equality among faiths. A century ago Christianity would have been considered more important than other faiths. This, of course, is wrong.

However, what the powers that be seem infinitely incapable of comprehending is that the way to gain equality isn't by making the former majority subordinate. All one achieves then is shifting the balance - so that the majority becomes the least important, whilst, conversely, the minority becomes the priority when giving support and protection.

Prejudice of all kinds is wrong. But it does not become resolved when the former advocates of such prejudice become the victims. Christianity has the right to be treated equally with other religions: not with favour, nor with disregard. Similarly, all races should be treated equally: the horrors of apartheid were not resolved by treating white citizens as inferior but by treating all citizens as equal. Genders ought to be equal; feminists cannot resolve decades of female subordination by turning the tables and making men subordinate, but by ensuring society accepts total equality. And the LGBT community must not aim to make such people take priority over heterosexual people, but instead to aim for the equal rights of people of all sexual orientations.

However, the government prefer instead to pussyfoot around with political correctness. It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent people with superb educations end up in the cabinet, and yet end up behaving like buffoons.

Maybe one day they'll get it.

Freedom of Speech is fast wearing thin

I love how The Times headed this newspaper article: "BBC offers apology to Muslim Council of Britain over guest's remarks".

They conveniently forget one tiny, insignificant fact. The Muslim Council of Britain not only received a verbal apology - but a financial one, to the tune of £30,000 (all license-fee payers' money, of course).

Whilst I have few objections to an apology being made to a bunch of people for whom the truth hurts, I don't think I'm unjustified in objecting to my money being part of a tremendous sum in the middle of a recession just to appease this group of people.

So, to whose heinous remarks do we owe this rather loving token of generosity? One Charles Moore (former editor of the Daily Telegraph), claiming on Question Time that he had asked the MCB several times if they would condemn the kidnapping and killing of British soldiers in Iraq, but won't.

GASPS

The awful man telling the truth on television! What does he think this is, a democracy? Anyone would think he was on a programme of political debate...

I have two points to make on this. The first is that Moore further claimed that this attitude is in compliance with Muslim doctrine - which is true. "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." (Qu'ran 4:74).

Naughty me, telling the truth about Islam. Tut tut. Better put my hand in my wallet.

The second is that, seeing as controversial opinions are now not allowed in debates - I must hold my hands up and admit my guilt. I once claimed in a debate that undergoing an abortion is tantamount to murder (with only a few exceptional cases). Will £5,000 suffice for the pro-abortionists? And I am strongly opposed to vivisection - is £10,000 sufficient to appease the organisation VARE (Victims of Animal Rights extremism)? And I am very much in support of the smoking ban in public places, as I have suggested in debates. Perhaps £20,000 is a reasonable sum to substantiate my apology, to be distributed amongst smokers worldwide?

It seems that one cannot escape the ongoing ludicrous escapades of the government and larger organisations on a railroad whose destination is the total cessation of liberty of speech, action - even thought, eventually.

It's actually quite disturbing...

Church of Scotland moves forward

The Church of Scotland has made a mark in history by backing the Rev Scott Rennie, an openly homosexual minister. He is said to feel "humbled" by the Church's acceptance of him, in a vote of 326 to 267.

Reading this man's response in an article in the Daily Telegraph, I perceive a genuine, decent man who did as so many others have done, in hearing God's calling to the ministry, and most importantly, answering it.

Of course, this will doubtless breed outrage. But let us not assume that he who shouts loudest must necessarily be in the right. To me, if a man has a genuine faith in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ, and can honestly say he feels called by God to serve Him, then who is anyone to claim that he is wrong? How can anyone be so arrogant as to truly profess to know what God is doing in someone's heart and life?

Well, two ministers in the Church of Scotland are indeed doing that. In their statement, they claimed that the decision "brought great shame on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church by publicly proclaiming as holy what God, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity all down the ages, and all over the world, unambiguously call sin."

Call me a heretic, offensive, and evil if you wish, but as a Christian I personally feel that such extreme homophobia ultimately brings more shame on the name of Christ and the Church. How many non-Christians do you know who have a very negative opinion of the Church when they show love and acceptance? Rather, attitudes of intolerance and prejudice are what bring the Church into disrepute, pouring upon us shame and embarrassment.

I will keep my ears open to hear the uproar created in the Church of Scotland - but this is a necessary process. If the same did not happen in the nineteenth century, perhaps slavery would still be deemed totally justifiable by the church and the world today.

Status Update: Theological Blogger...is writing a blog entry

I have decided to steer in a new direction a little aside from theology and religion for a moment. (Indulge me a little, if you will). I am doing so in order to placate an anti-Facebook friend of mine.

I recently read a superb article about Facebook which claims that the author has chosen real life in favour of status updates. What a brilliant statement.

I myself am a Facebook user. I talk to people on it, send messages, play the odd game when I'm quite bored, and have a little chuckle at some goofy photographs of friends.

But Facebook can, if one is not careful, become a breeding ground for insecurity, conflict and invasion of privacy. The reality of Facebook is presented rather humorously by a superb sketch portraying "Facebook in real life", which can be found here.

Humorous though it may be, it does present some harsh facts. A simple minute action such as accepting someone as a friend is actually doing far more; it is opening up one's entire world in exposure for all to see: every embarrassing photo, every little secret that may accidentally come out when somebody posts on your wall (a bizarre concept, when all is considered - rather like having a phone conversation then publishing the transcript online), etc.

And of course, the objector will argue that one "enters at their own risk" when they sign up for the site. But if one innocently joins a site for social networking purposes, it may take them a while to become familiar enough to realise that unless they specifically choose a privacy option, every Facebook user across the globe can access their information. And once one has joined, are people aware that even though the "profile" may be closed, Facebook takes the liberty of holding on to the user's information. For what purpose, one is entitled to ask?

And two of the worst consequences of a site like Facebook are the opportunity for the two bs: bullying and boosting of ego. Now of course with any technology there is the possibility of bullying - but with text messaging and email what is presented is simply a contact link. Facebook on the other hand, invites public messages, commenting on photographs, and even the creation of groups about people. Of course, one can complain to the Facebook admin team, but they rarely seem to feel that groups designed to bully people are severe enough to be removed. One wonders what is, in which case.

And of course, the old chestnut of ego-boosting. Status Update: X has...just got 50 A*s in my GCSES!!!!!!!! Wall-post: Hey man, was really great last night. Can't believe I pulled! Or the even bigger opportunities presented by applications such as "Going to Uni", on which you chart every stage of your UCAS application - with no evidence required. Not only must this be heartwrenching for someone who has just been rejected from their ideal university, but it opens up the opportunity for complete morons to record their "successful offers" from the "University of Cambridge" - and the naive souls who've just added them on Facebook, having only met them once or having last seen them when they were about 10, congratulating them on their "place".

There are many more things I could say about Facebook. I speak, naturally, as a Facebook user. Pot-kettle? Perhaps. But I am not trying to say that no-one should join the site, neither am I suggesting that current users should depart. What I am saying, however, is that Facebook is a social networking site which ought to be used for that purpose: contacting long-lost friends, speaking to those whom one hasn't had the chance to catch up with for a while, and, yes, posting photos for your friendship group to have a look at. But the day one begins to validate themselves with egotistical status updates, fallacious information and deceptive wall posts, or trying to lower the self-esteem of others through similar means, they have in my opinion abused the facilities of Facebook and contributed to the continuous besmirching of its reputation.

Challenge to Beliefs? - God Forbid!

In my random wanderings of the delightful destroyer of privacy and "permission to nose" granter, Facebook, I discovered a group which asks that its members "Plz condemn" a new book which has been discovered that, in the words of the group's title: "CHALLENGES" a particular religion's holy book. (I shan't say which because the point I'm making could be applied to any religion.)

Oh dear. Note how it does not say "mocks" a god, "insults massively" a belief system, or is "abusive" to believers of a particular faith. No, it says "challenges".

Are we really at the stage now where people are so insecure about their faith that any challenge to it is a humongous threat sent from the pits of hell which must be destroyed as fast as possible?

To amuse (or perhaps irritate) myself further I browsed through the discussion board in this particular group. I was indeed irritated, though not at all surprised, to see that one member had merely suggested that others might want to obtain and read this book, to discover for themselves the extent of the "damage" to their faith, and had, as a result, sparked outrage. This is perhaps even more disturbing - it is the role of a believer to not only condemn any challenge to their faith vehemently, but to do so without even examining or looking into the item in question.

Most religious believers are, of course, guilty of this at some point or another. But it is such ignorance and foolishness that creates unnecessary conflict. A religious belief or doctrine system is, by nature, opinion - it is faith, and not, therefore, fact. As a result, it will inevitably face challenege. To suggest that any challenge ought to be condemned is simply preposterous.

However, I will let such groups and such opinions speak for themselves. After all, if believers of a certain faith react with panic and outrage to a mere questioning of their beliefs, does that send positive signals about their security?

Start "rethinking", says Blair

The reader will doubtless be aware of the former PM Tony Blair's comments regarding the Pope's stance on homosexuality, and his belief that the Catholic Church ought to start "rethinking" the issue, and become more liberal-minded.

Imagine my ambivalence towards this man and this incident as a partly but not entirely liberal Christian and Anglican, with views on homosexuality, Catholicism, and the place of politics in religion...and vice versa.

On the one hand, I agree, in the most part, with what Blair has said. I don't see it as being unfair to suggest that the Catholic Church might want to rethink its stance on an issue which it has held for centuries, irrespective of the distinctions between contextual and universal truths, or literal vs allegorical truths, or alternative perspectives of approach to particular Biblical passages. Furthermore, such strong anti-homosexual views as those expressed by Pope Benedict last December isolate ca. 10% of the population, and almost by default exclude them from the organisation - and for that reason, also, Blair's point is reasonably valid.

Hmmmm...

But on the other hand I do feel a little uncomfortable about Blair telling the Pope what to do. For a number of reasons.

1. He isn't PM any more. He's...actually, what is he now?
   
2. Even if he was, politics is somewhat "poking its nose" into the affairs of religion, which therefore begs the question, ought religion/the Church be entitled to have a greater influence in politics?
   
3. The word 'hypocrite' springs to mind (as do a number of other terms). It is interesting that now all of a sudden Blair has the boldness to take the moral high ground on an issue, when his views on potentially even more important affairs (abortion, for instance, is a biggie - a biggie for which Blair, I might add, expresses full support) are perhaps not as widely accepted as morally stable.

So, in summary: valid opinion, but expressed by an unsuitable spokesman!

The Gift of Love

Anyone who has ever experienced love: be it in the form of philia (love of friends/things); eros (love of a sexual nature); agape (unconditional, sacrifical, selfless love) or storge (familial love): would surely agree that it was one of the greatest gifts ever given to humankind.

In fact, the Bible professes it to be greater than hope, and even greater than faith:

"So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13:13)

And yet it seems to me that, as human beings, we try to put sanctions and restrictions on it.

Take, for example, the Muslim doctor Humayra Abedin, held captive for over four months by her own family, and then forced to marry a total stranger whilst heavily sedated, all because her family disapproved (perhaps an understatement) of her relationship with a Hindu man whilst she was living in London.

What struck me, apart from the fact that anyone could treat another human being in this way, let alone a member of their own family, and the horrors of being forced to give one's life to someone they have never even met, who could be a rapist, paedophile or murderer for all they know; is that it seems to me that this family reacted in such a way in order to exert control over whom this poor woman could love.

Dr Abedin is an NHS doctor in the UK. She does a job which involves a tremendous amount of willpower, strength and determination. It is a job which literally involves saving lives, and helping one's fellow human beings day after day. Can anyone begrudge this poor woman some happiness with the man she loves?

This may be an extreme case, but as a society we are all guilty of trying to dictate who can and cannot be in love. We have strong issues if there is a significant age gap between two people: yet if they are genuinely in love, why should we want so much to end their happiness? And we simply cannot abide two people of the same sex having feelings for each other: we feel it is our duty to make it clear that such behaviour is unnatural and immoral.

And who are we? Who are we to dictate what is natural or unnatural? Who are we to say what is right or wrong? And who are we to say that any two people do not have the right to love one another?

As long as a relationship is between two consenting people who are perfectly aware of their feelings (that is to say, I am not trying to justify paedophilia or bestiality, for instance), and are not doing anyone any harm, then perhaps we ought to leave them be: as we ourselves would not like anyone to begrudge us the joys of true love.

After all, every human being is created by God, and are all equally entitled to know the joys of true love, irrespective of gender, religion or sexual orientation. After all, the gifts of God ought to be available for anyone to experience.

Dangerous Ground

We are, as a society, living dangerously. Believers of many world faiths, particularly Christians, have been saying this for a long time.

But we have to face the reality that this has hit a new level. As a society, we are slowly but surely attempting to silence God - particularly Yahweh. This is a bad step.

If you happen to be one of the estimated 84% of the world who believe in a deity of some form and identify with a religion, you will hopefully be of the opinion that God is not somebody to be silenced. He is somebody to be embraced, worshipped, adored, and to some extent feared. He is, after all, the most powerful being in existence.

And yet cretins who seem to think that they are above this: be they mindless bureaucrats or simply irate parents complaining to schools about united assemblies.

And I, for one, fear for them. They irritate me, they make me sad, they make me laugh in pity, and they make me want them to open their eyes! But above this, they make me scared for them.

Because if, as I and billions of others believe (a third of the world believe), Yahweh is God - or even, more simply, that there is a powerful God in existence - then they are going to rue the day they ever started a battle with the Almighty One.

For He will, whenever and however, win that battle.

One step closer to Orwell's 1984

Everyone will have heard by now how the Dutch foreign minister Geert Wilders has been banned from the UK, following his intention to give a speech expressing his controversial opinions about Islam as a political ideology.

Of course, what gets me is that Wilders' comments are completely unjustifiable. His information is entirely inaccurate.

Let us take a few examples:

"Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever...and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word ... And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims."

The man's got it wrong! The Quran is open to interpretation however Muslims see fit, and Muhammad is not in any way a role model for how Muslims should live. It's not as if they believe Muhammad was God's messenger and had a special relationship with him!

What else did he spout? "Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about its goal." Oh, what claptrap! Since when did Islam mean submission? It means peace, doesn't it? (even if it does originate from the root s-l-m, or derived from the Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit.")

He also claimed absurdities about the activities of Muslims today! He tried, for instance, to claim that a teacher punished two boys who refused to pray to Allah! And that a primary school cancelled its Christmas nativity play - disappointing children and parents and breaking a much loved and treasured tradition - because it interfered with an Islamic festival!

Don't be silly - Muslims don't have such power and influence in this Western secular democracy...

The sharper (!) of you will have detected just the slightest hint of sarcasm is this article so far. I am, to be quite frank, outraged. Thoroughly pissed off. One man expresses anti-Islamic opinions and he's BANNED from the country? Over-reaction to statements which dare to suggest that Islam can be criticised...now where have I heard that one before? Oh yes, that's right...the Pope at Regensburg in 2006, of course. Muslims cleverly responded to the Pope's referral to a 14th century theologian's suggestions that Islam might be a violent religion by burning effigies, sabotaging churches and stabbing nuns. Cleverly done.

To conclude, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is, after all, one thing in Wilders' speech which really is bollocks:

"For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. "

And I'm sure he feels the same. He spoke too soon, there.

Dictating the Political Opinions of the Clergy

It may not be as 'hot' a topic as the head 'forced to resign' over the banning of assemblies for Muslims, but I have chosen instead to focus on the Church of England's decision to ban its clergy from joining the BNP.

I myself am someone who is highly amused by the BNP, for a number of reasons; to me they are an odd little political group, with a certain naivete about how to soar in politics, a blatant bigotry, and a group of people for whom taking an issue to the extreme is not uncommon.

And yet, scarily, this bizarre group is growing. The Conservative Party has a basic philosophy, adapted for modern times, that is, or perhaps should be, fundamental to all of the decisions it makes. The same is true of Labour and the Lib Dems. Their policies lie in the perceptions of human nature and the rights of human beings, whether these be equality or basic freedom. Their philosophies can be applied to all sorts of issues, whether they be about abortion, gay marriage, discrimination laws or road laws.

The BNP's philosophy, on the other hand, would appear to be something along the lines of: anyone who is not British is bad news. They may dress this up by claiming that they are only doing what is fair and logical for the defence of native Britons...but anyone can see that the underlying belief is in the supremacy of ethnic Britons in Britain. This would then translate, presumably to these other areas by giving native Brits a greater freedom to act as they please than those who are not. Where does this end? Do we return to the situation which Martin Luther King and other greats fought to overcome, to the point of death?

Anyway, enough rambling. Suffice to say, I have expressed my views (albeit in a nutshell) on the BNP.

I therefore, I hope it is clear, take no issue with people being opposed to the BNP.

However...I do wonder if banning clergy from joining it is a step too far. The claim is that there is no place in Christianity for 'extreme right wing' political parties. Whilst I might (and do) agree that there is no place for the policies of the BNP in the heart of someone who claims to love and serve Jesus Christ, and by default to therefore love their neighbour, I am pondering on the road in which we are now heading.

Which political parties are to be banned next? What about those conservative Christians who feel that socialist policy is not compatible with Christian faith, and vice versa? Will clergy eventually only be permitted to support one political party? And will that party change depending on the policies released by that party?

To me, the decision is not so much a bad step...as an unnecessary one. There is currently only one CofE vicar who is a member of the BNP, and he is not a practicising clergyman. Furthermore, if, in the unlikely event that some buffoon slipped through the net into the clergy who was a member of the party, surely s/he would be removed anyway? Why start placing sanctions on who people can or cannot believe in politically?

Before closing I should just like to reiterate that I do not in any way support the BNP or its policies!

Hatred

This Tuesday, January 27th, was the official Holocaust Memorial Day. 44 years on, the world is still traumatised and horrified by the atrocities that Hitler's evil regime brought. And rightly so.

The sad thing is, that the Holocaust lives on, in more ways than one. It may not be in the form of a short hypocritical fascist with no awareness of conscience, but in the face of many others...in the form of genocide.

But, moreover, it lives on in another very prevalent way. And it is no longer in Adolf Hitler or his counterparts, but in Joe Bloggs, and in John Smith, and in yourself, and in myself.

It lives on every time, decades after the eras of apartheid and of Martin Luther King, a soul utters a scathing or derogatory remark against a person of another race.

And it lives on every time you or I complain about immigrants "taking over our jobs and houses" (when unemployment and homelessness are worst among immigrants...)

And it breathes on every time that one accuses homosexuals of bringing down society, being unnatural, and "not right".

And its heart beats every time a young person is assumed to be a violent, immoral, inconsiderate thug.

And it goes on, still, with every dismissive remark about people who are overweight, and every assumption that they must all be over-eating, lazy pigs.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people can be reminded of the atrocities of the Holocaust, and feel trauma, horror and deep sorrow, even shed a tear or two, and yet still completely miss the point. The point being that the reason the Holocaust happened was ultimately the deep-rooted unjustifiable twisted prejudices of one man.

I hope and pray that we as a society can wake up and finally appreciate the deadly consequences of true prejudice.

Fickle Society: Make up your mind!

I can't help but feel slightly irate at just how fickle society can be. It's taken me long enough to realise this, I know, but allow me to explain why.

I have just read with great frustration and irritation an article published on Cranmer's blog about a right wing author being banned from chairing a debate at the London School of Economics & Political Science entitled: ‘Islam or Liberalism: Which is the Way Forward?’. Supposedly, as a result of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, there is no debate to be had.

I suspect that students and staff fear that mere rational discussion of the issue would be deemed as "offensive" and "prejudiced against Muslims".

What complete and utter crap.

For decades, Christianity has long been the subject of endless mockery, criticism and scorn. I am aware that Christianity is not without flaws, as a result of what I believe is human error, and am not saying that people have no right to criticise. What I am saying is that Christianity is no less a faith or religion than Islam, or Sikhism, or Hinduism, or the Jedi Knight faith. Quite the opposite: it remains, contrary to popular belief, the world's most popular faith. Of course that probably means that it has every right to be subjected to criticism: it is not a minority and therefore does not need to be protected. In other words, society would rather see billions offended than millions, or even a few thousand...not exactly utilitarianism at its best, is it?

Anyway, stop rambling man...get to the point. Which is how fickle society is. In light of the recent attacks on Gaza, the topic of Islam, unless being heralded and praised, is frankly taboo. PLEASE NOTE I am not defending Israel...far from it, the violence is sickening and unjustifiable. But what I am saying is, suddenly when Muslims are the victims of attacks, we are obliged at all times to defend their faith.

Now cast your mind back seven and a quarter years. We are in September of 2001 and have just witnessed Islamic terrorists crash planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocents. Security is heightened massively, people are distraught, and the world is on tenterhooks, scared to travel on aeroplanes. And what was the attitude towards Muslims then? Was the world defending Islam? I think not. If my memory serves me correctly people could not criticise the faith quickly enough.

Similar instances occurred once again in July 2005.

NOTE here again that I am not justifying hatred of or prejudice against Muslims. What I am doing is criticising the fact that society changes its mind faster than you can say "terrorism". What resides in society is one humongous bandwagon upon which people, Muslim or Sikh, Hindu or Christian, black or white, man or woman, cannot wait to jump.

That is why I at least am proud to say that I know what I think. That is not to say I am closed-minded or unopen to change. Far from it: bring it on. But if anything will persuade me to change my opinions, it will be rational minded discourse, not irrational emotional reflex reactions to current events.