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.

"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...