Public Equality vs Personal Conscience

Ever since the implementation of the bill making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, numerous debates have ensued. Inevitably the same questions have been banded around: what about the rights of the religious believer? Whose rights matter more? Do people's consciences not matter? And, on the other side of the discussion - how can we ever attain equality? How far is discrimination acceptable?

I have decided, albeit hesitantly, to at least explore this issue. My stimulus is the news that Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, stated that, in his view: "if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home".

When he puts it like that, it seems reasonable. However - the fact is, these people have chosen to operate a business in their home. As a corollary, their home, as the premises of the business, must surely be treated as the premises of any other business? Grayling himself claims that it would not be reasonable to allow a hotel to discriminate on who they allowed to stay in the 21st century. Why is a B&B different simply because it is run from the couple's home? If they know they are going to find it difficult to admit up to 10% of potential guests, is it really wise to set up such a business in the first place?

As Christ himself said: "‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s" (Matt 20:21). In an age where equality is the goal, it cannot be acceptable for any business owner to pick and choose to whom they provide a service. Otherwise we must ask where the cut-off point is. Are Christian shopkeepers allowed to choose not to serve divorcees? (Incidentally, Jesus had a lot more to say about divorce than he did about homosexuality). Or perhaps atheist B&B owners who find Christian beliefs offensive should be allowed to ban them as guests? Maybe homophobic pub owners should be allowed to refrain from selling alcohol to homosexuals?

Some Christians interpret the Bible to mean that God doesn't like gay people. They therefore find homosexuals offensive. But our society, which aims for people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, political and religious views to be able to live in harmony with one another, finds such discrimination offensive.

For Christians who would struggle as the B&B owners to admit gay couples, or Muslims, or atheists, or anyone else whose beliefs/lifestyles offend them, perhaps they ought to consider that (1) setting up a business in an egalitarian society isn't the best idea; (2) If their convictions really are correct, will Jesus really condemn them for simply allowing them to stay in their B&B? They're not exactly joining in(!)

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.