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.