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.