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.