Fair play to Jeremy Corbyn, at least the Labour party have made a public statement of their policies relating to racial minorities and faith groups. The Conservative strategy, as evidenced by a manifesto roughly half the size of those of the other main parties, is that the less you say, the less you can be tripped up with.
Labours Race and Faith Manifesto, published yesterday under the shadow of the Chief Rabbi (of which more later), is a creditable attempt to analyse a major area of social injustice, and put policies in place to tackle it. Most of the manifesto is about racial inequality, expressed in pay, poverty, under-representation, policing, policies towards immigrants, right through to climate change and how aid money is spent. There is a series of policies aimed both at correcting outcomes, and at influencing culture. The former includes greater investment in mental health, using monitoring and regulation to increase BAME participation in academia and business leadership. The latter includes changes to the education curriculum and policing culture.
On Faith, there isn't quite so much - an early paragraph commends 'the contribution of faith groups in filling the gaps left by austerity Britain', and nearly all of the policy stuff is about supporting freedom of religious expression at home and abroad, and combating hate crime and anti-religious prejudice. Page 5 includes a commitment to "ensure the views of communities with or without faith are respected and protected across our society". That's a big one, if they really mean it: the liberal social agenda expressed elsewhere in Labours programme won't be one supported by faith groups.
Yesterdays spat with the Chief Rabbi, and the response from the Muslim Council of Britain, throw all of this into sharp relief. There should be no tolerance of anti-Jewish racism or anti-Muslim prejudice. However the notion of Islamophobia itself needs some refining, and both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are sometimes used carelessly - someone who criticises the actions of the state of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, and someone who criticises aspects of Islam is not Islamophobic.
Whilst some of the standard antisemitic formulas centre on an imagined global financial conspiracy, there is real evidence of the influence of hard cash elsewhere. Whilst some Muslim students, among others, don't feel that university is a safe place to be themselves and express their views, academia itself is coming heavily under the influence of oil money from the Middle East. This impacts on the freedom of universities to maintain standards of critical scrutiny of Islam, its sources and its history. This isn't isolated of course - we're seeing universities caving in to China, gender lobbyists, you name it, with 54% actively censoring free speech in some form or another. But intellectual freedom and free speech are not qualities prized by Muslim governments and their billionaire leaders who finance faculties from Exeter to Edinburgh. The same goes for China - is it possible for a Labour government to 'respect and protect' the views of Chinese students who try to shut down protests about Hong Kong on British campuses?
The Muslim Council of Britain, representing 500 mosques, schools and organisations (for comparison, my own Diocese of Bath and Wells represents over 500 churches, plus dozens of schools and other organisations), not so long ago boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day. Ironically, in a move which parallels the Conservatives decision to broaden their Islamophobia investigation, they once called for the day to be expanded to one covering all forms of genocide.
Just as with the gender and sexuality debates, emotive labelling can be used both to shut down uncomfortable criticism, and to identify real examples of the things it refers to. Most people reading a tweet don't have time, or don't bother, to work out which of these is at play.
This is a subspecies of the debate over rhetoric and hate speech, and one of the major challenges of making a multi-cultural society work. It is made even more difficult by the lack of an overarching narrative: our current post-Christian liberal Western democracy has evolved from a mishmash of sources. In a postmodern culture which no longer recognises overarching truth or grand narratives, be they Christian, Marxist, Muslim or The American Dream (itself, like Marxism, a heavily morphed version of the Chosen People/Promised Land motifs of the Old Testament). We are left with competing visions of life, sets of 'rights' which keep colliding with each other, and only Tolerance and Respect to hold ourselves together. It may not be enough.
Labour, at least, are trying to address some of the fallout from this. There is no sign of it in the Conservative manifesto at all. Search the document for 'race' and the only return is the word 'embrace'. 'Racism' occurs once, in the mother and apple pie statement 'we will tackle racism', and the most concrete expression of free speech is the scrapping of the Leveson enquiry, which tells you just a little bit more about the malign influence of money on UK life and politics. In respect of the Conservative policy on race, religion, culture, community cohesion and tolerance, how can you blog about and criticise something that doesn't exist?
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Phobia?
This week Parliament will debating something other than Brexit. I know, hard to believe isn't it. The subject in question is a definition of 'Islamophobia' drawn up by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. Ahead of the debate, the government has already rejected the definition.
Here's the definition
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
Where to start? Well, several other people have, so I won't, much. But a few thoughts
1. It's not a definition, unless you take off the first 8 words
2. Where 1 type of Muslim attacks another type, for being the wrong type, is that Islamophobia? Or is it more niche- Shiaphobia, Sufiphobia etc.? Or does it depend on whether they come from a different racial group?
3. To pick another trending phobia, homophobia is variously defined, but the definitions all cluster around an irrational fear, dislike and aversion towards homosexuals and homosexuality. This overlaps reasonably well with the psychological definition of a phobia as an unreasonable fear of or aversion towards x (where x is clowns, spiders, enclosed spaces etc.) If Islamophobia really is a word, and not a slogan, then why not define it in the same way: "An unreasonable fear, dislike and aversion towards Muslims and Islam." That sort of definition is transferrable to prejudice against Jews, Christians, Buddhists, devotees of the Flying Spaghetti Monster et al.
4. In the political and public sphere, us of the '...phobia' label carries more than just the connotation of fear and aversion. It is mainly attached to words and actions, rather than mental states. The label is often used in a similar (but less potentially fatal) way as accusations of blasphemy in Pakistan - someone has said or done something you don't like, and an accusation of 'xphobia' is the easiest and clearest way to label them as an enemy of the people, and someone to hate, ignore and pour invective upon. Whereas a medical diagnosis of a phobia is descriptive, a politically defined phobia is performative, it is public language used to claim or defend territory, to win or shut down discourse, rather than a description of a psychological state.
5. But does that help? In the Islamophobia definition, there is no reference to fear or psychological states at all. It has cut loose from its etymological moorings. It also, oddly, brings in racism: a Christian living in Pakistan may have an irrational fear of Muslims, but it's more likely to be based on Islamic terrorism and mob abuse of the blasphemy laws than on race. In fact, they may have a deep fear and aversion towards Muslims which is entirely rational, if their experience includes repeated examples of anti-Christian violence, church burnings etc. Some Islamophobia may have a racial component, but some doesn't. So if it doesn't, would it qualify for the APPG definition, or is that something else? What if Muslims themselves are irrationally afraid of their fellow Muslims, and their forms of 'Muslimness'? Or rationally afraid of them?
6. At what point does a 'definition of Islamphobia' cease to be a definition of Islamophobia, and simply be a definition of something else, which has been labelled 'Islamophobia' for political and rhetorial reasons? In the film The Princess Bride, antagonist Vizzini keeps declaring that things are 'inconceivable!' eventually sidekick Inigo responds "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means". Repeated use of a word to mean x doesn't entail that x is what the word means. Humpty Dumpty famously declared "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, no more, no less", which results in 'impenetrability'. If the definition of a word is down to the user, rather than a commonly accepted meaning, then we lose the ability to communicate, and with it the ability to reason together.
7. The medical definition of a 'phobia' carries no moral baggage, but the political definition does. With two diverging understandings of what a phobia is, which one will give way first?
8. There is a danger that Islamophobia, and along with it homophobia, transphobia, and all the modern phobic family, will cease to mean anything. That it will just mean 'Booooo!', rather than communicate any clear content. If a word becomes 100% condemnation, 0% content, then another word will be needed to explain the phenomenon behind it, if we are actually serious about tackling it.
9. In order to be fair, we would not just need a working definition of Islamophobia, but a word for every other form of irrational prejudice and antagonism towards other social, racial, religious and demographic groups. At what point does this just get silly?
10. The (hopefully) blindingly obvious point that any definition needs to allow for rigorous analysis, critique and legitimate criticism of Islam, from historic sources right through to contemporary behaviour, without being used to shut this down.
11. And finally, which is more effective, running backwards away from something bad, or running forwards towards its opposite? It's easier to avoid negative behaviour if there is a positive culture of love, respect, hospitality, generosity and altruism. Focus on those positive things, and the negative behaviour withers away. Perhaps our focus on phobias is a symptom of a wider dis-ease, that we no longer have a shared ethos of goodness which we strive towards, and to which we can hold one another to account. Wrapped up in the supremacy of individual personal choice, a culture of rampant individualism is barren ground for a communal ethic. So more and more we find ourselves policing language, attitudes, and behaviour, so that you cannot be a threat to my rights. That's not a way of being society which has much of a future.
Maybe one day a traveller in an ancient land will stumble across a plaque, inscribed with descriptions of all the phobias defined in the early 21st century. And around it, the lone and level sands will stretch far away.
Here's the definition
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
Where to start? Well, several other people have, so I won't, much. But a few thoughts
1. It's not a definition, unless you take off the first 8 words
2. Where 1 type of Muslim attacks another type, for being the wrong type, is that Islamophobia? Or is it more niche- Shiaphobia, Sufiphobia etc.? Or does it depend on whether they come from a different racial group?
3. To pick another trending phobia, homophobia is variously defined, but the definitions all cluster around an irrational fear, dislike and aversion towards homosexuals and homosexuality. This overlaps reasonably well with the psychological definition of a phobia as an unreasonable fear of or aversion towards x (where x is clowns, spiders, enclosed spaces etc.) If Islamophobia really is a word, and not a slogan, then why not define it in the same way: "An unreasonable fear, dislike and aversion towards Muslims and Islam." That sort of definition is transferrable to prejudice against Jews, Christians, Buddhists, devotees of the Flying Spaghetti Monster et al.
4. In the political and public sphere, us of the '...phobia' label carries more than just the connotation of fear and aversion. It is mainly attached to words and actions, rather than mental states. The label is often used in a similar (but less potentially fatal) way as accusations of blasphemy in Pakistan - someone has said or done something you don't like, and an accusation of 'xphobia' is the easiest and clearest way to label them as an enemy of the people, and someone to hate, ignore and pour invective upon. Whereas a medical diagnosis of a phobia is descriptive, a politically defined phobia is performative, it is public language used to claim or defend territory, to win or shut down discourse, rather than a description of a psychological state.
5. But does that help? In the Islamophobia definition, there is no reference to fear or psychological states at all. It has cut loose from its etymological moorings. It also, oddly, brings in racism: a Christian living in Pakistan may have an irrational fear of Muslims, but it's more likely to be based on Islamic terrorism and mob abuse of the blasphemy laws than on race. In fact, they may have a deep fear and aversion towards Muslims which is entirely rational, if their experience includes repeated examples of anti-Christian violence, church burnings etc. Some Islamophobia may have a racial component, but some doesn't. So if it doesn't, would it qualify for the APPG definition, or is that something else? What if Muslims themselves are irrationally afraid of their fellow Muslims, and their forms of 'Muslimness'? Or rationally afraid of them?
6. At what point does a 'definition of Islamphobia' cease to be a definition of Islamophobia, and simply be a definition of something else, which has been labelled 'Islamophobia' for political and rhetorial reasons? In the film The Princess Bride, antagonist Vizzini keeps declaring that things are 'inconceivable!' eventually sidekick Inigo responds "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means". Repeated use of a word to mean x doesn't entail that x is what the word means. Humpty Dumpty famously declared "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, no more, no less", which results in 'impenetrability'. If the definition of a word is down to the user, rather than a commonly accepted meaning, then we lose the ability to communicate, and with it the ability to reason together.
7. The medical definition of a 'phobia' carries no moral baggage, but the political definition does. With two diverging understandings of what a phobia is, which one will give way first?
8. There is a danger that Islamophobia, and along with it homophobia, transphobia, and all the modern phobic family, will cease to mean anything. That it will just mean 'Booooo!', rather than communicate any clear content. If a word becomes 100% condemnation, 0% content, then another word will be needed to explain the phenomenon behind it, if we are actually serious about tackling it.
9. In order to be fair, we would not just need a working definition of Islamophobia, but a word for every other form of irrational prejudice and antagonism towards other social, racial, religious and demographic groups. At what point does this just get silly?
10. The (hopefully) blindingly obvious point that any definition needs to allow for rigorous analysis, critique and legitimate criticism of Islam, from historic sources right through to contemporary behaviour, without being used to shut this down.
11. And finally, which is more effective, running backwards away from something bad, or running forwards towards its opposite? It's easier to avoid negative behaviour if there is a positive culture of love, respect, hospitality, generosity and altruism. Focus on those positive things, and the negative behaviour withers away. Perhaps our focus on phobias is a symptom of a wider dis-ease, that we no longer have a shared ethos of goodness which we strive towards, and to which we can hold one another to account. Wrapped up in the supremacy of individual personal choice, a culture of rampant individualism is barren ground for a communal ethic. So more and more we find ourselves policing language, attitudes, and behaviour, so that you cannot be a threat to my rights. That's not a way of being society which has much of a future.
Maybe one day a traveller in an ancient land will stumble across a plaque, inscribed with descriptions of all the phobias defined in the early 21st century. And around it, the lone and level sands will stretch far away.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
What to Boycott - Cut Out and Keep List for Celebrities
Brunei is late to the party, Saudi Arabia has had the death penalty for homosexuality, along with conversion from Islam to any other religion (Brunei just did that too but nobody noticed because it's not about sex), for as long as anyone can remember. Brunei has simply caught up with what a raft of hardline Islamic regimes have been doing for years.
I obviously don't need to point out the irony of Elton John using Twitter to promote a boycott of hotels owned by Brunei, when Twitter itself is part-owned by Saudi money.
So just to help Elton, George Clooney, and the couple of dozen other people who can afford to boycott the Dorchester hotel chain, here are some of the institutions supported by Saudi money in the UK, just to help you avoid them:
universities
Oxford University
Cambridge University
Durham University
Newcastle University
Exeter University
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
Edinburgh University
Dundee University
Bristol University
University College London
London School of Economics
Media and PR
The Independent
The Evening Standard
Vice
Freuds
Snapchat
Deezer
Virgin
Twitter
Snapcat
and several others
Industry and Commerce
BAE systems
Jersey Financial Services
HSBC
Uber
General Motors
Standard Chartered
The Savoy
It's also worth checking the money trail behind whichever Premier League football club you support. The UAE also has the death penalty for homosexuality, and 'apostasy' (conversion from Islam). Arsenal play at the Emirates stadium. Nobody has mentioned that. Strange.
I obviously don't need to point out the irony of Elton John using Twitter to promote a boycott of hotels owned by Brunei, when Twitter itself is part-owned by Saudi money.
So just to help Elton, George Clooney, and the couple of dozen other people who can afford to boycott the Dorchester hotel chain, here are some of the institutions supported by Saudi money in the UK, just to help you avoid them:
universities
Oxford University
Cambridge University
Durham University
Newcastle University
Exeter University
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
Edinburgh University
Dundee University
Bristol University
University College London
London School of Economics
Media and PR
The Independent
The Evening Standard
Vice
Freuds
Snapchat
Deezer
Virgin
Snapcat
and several others
Industry and Commerce
BAE systems
Jersey Financial Services
HSBC
Uber
General Motors
Standard Chartered
The Savoy
It's also worth checking the money trail behind whichever Premier League football club you support. The UAE also has the death penalty for homosexuality, and 'apostasy' (conversion from Islam). Arsenal play at the Emirates stadium. Nobody has mentioned that. Strange.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Time to Rethink that Holiday in Dubai
A British citizen has just been sentenced to life imprisonment in the UAE after a 4 minute trial in a language he doesn't speak. He was drugged and kept in solitary confinement during his 6 months imprisonment before the 'trial'. Pakistan kills people for 'blasphemy' (65 since 1990) and there are riots whenever mercy is shown, the Saudis chop people up and pretend to be innocent, the UAE tortures people and denies them a fair trial. Then there's Syria, Iran, and the majority of this lot.
Are Muslim majority states just having a bad run of publicity or is there something more fundamental going on? Or is this just absolute power corrupting absolutely (cf China, Putin's hit squads, N Korea)?
Are Muslim majority states just having a bad run of publicity or is there something more fundamental going on? Or is this just absolute power corrupting absolutely (cf China, Putin's hit squads, N Korea)?
Monday, July 18, 2016
"I was a stranger and you welcomed me": the Kingdom of God sighted in Stoke on Trent
Abbas Massih from Iran is dressed in a smart pinstripe shirt, a large metal cross hanging from his neck. Massih closes his eyes as Smith makes a cross with the oil of the catechumens across his head. Massih, from Tehran, has been in the UK for six months. He says he wanted to be a Christian for a number of years and had only been a Muslim because he was born into the Islamic faith. He talks of secret Bible study meetings at his home and his pregnant wife being beaten and losing her baby after authorities in the hardline Muslim country became aware of his Christian leanings.
Speaking in Farsi via an interpreter, Massih, who is now estranged from his family due to his conversion, becomes very animated when discussing his faith. The 27-year-old, who lives in accommodation provided by the church, says: “They welcomed me with an open heart at this church. It was not so much about the material help but about the emotional help that I received and it has made me feel connected to Jesus. This religion is so much more accepting. In Christianity I feel peace.”
read the rest here, the inspiring story of one church in Stoke opening its doors to refugees. Wonderful picture of the Kingdom of God.
Monday, December 15, 2014
If I think x is wrong, does that make me x-phobic?
Odd piece by Giles Fraser in the Guardian a couple of days back, writing about Operation Christmas Child:
this literature promotes an exclusivist version of Christianity in the form of innocuous-looking comic book with the sinister message slipped in: “There is only one way to be friends with God.” In many places these boxes are distributed, this is thinly disguised code for: Islam is wrong.
I have two problems with this:
1. To say that something is wrong doesn't make you a phobic. This is a trick that goes all the way back to Freud, and probably long before: 'Disagreeing with me is nothing to do with my bad logic, it is an emotional flaw in you that is the problem'. Some things are right/true/correct and some things are wrong/mistaken/incorrect. Pointing out that something belongs in the later category, whether it's a system of thought or an answer in to a maths question, isn't a psychological condition.
2. Last time I looked Giles Fraser was a CofE vicar, a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, the Messiah, God in human form who dies for our salvation and rises again so that we might rise with him. (plus some small print). Jesus is both the fullest revelation of God on earth, and the God-given path to a restored relationship with God now an in eternity. That's what Jesus said he was, and that's what Christians believe. The leaflet simply paraphrases this: does that make Jesus himself sinister?
So someone else then turns up a few hundred years later, be they Mohammed or Joseph Smith, and claims to have a better idea than Jesus about who God is, how he is at work, and how to live in response to this. No Christian can logically go 'oh well, that's fair enough, you're just as likely to be right as Jesus'. There are flat contradictions between the Koran and the Bible. Jesus and Mohammed cannot both be right about themselves and about God. God isn't going to turn up in person to save the world, and then a few hundreds years later go 'oh that didn't work, I'll just go back to using prophets'.
I believe Islam is wrong because I believe Jesus is who he says he is. (To put this in perspective, I also believe there are certain traditions of thought within Christianity that are wrong, along with capitalism, communism, buying t-shirts made in sweatshops, texting during a conversation, and using Facebook as a form of therapy. I'm a mass of phobias) But lets have an adult, reasoned discussion about it, rather than chucking abusive labels at people who don't see things the way we do, closing down the debate before its even begun.
this literature promotes an exclusivist version of Christianity in the form of innocuous-looking comic book with the sinister message slipped in: “There is only one way to be friends with God.” In many places these boxes are distributed, this is thinly disguised code for: Islam is wrong.
I have two problems with this:
1. To say that something is wrong doesn't make you a phobic. This is a trick that goes all the way back to Freud, and probably long before: 'Disagreeing with me is nothing to do with my bad logic, it is an emotional flaw in you that is the problem'. Some things are right/true/correct and some things are wrong/mistaken/incorrect. Pointing out that something belongs in the later category, whether it's a system of thought or an answer in to a maths question, isn't a psychological condition.
2. Last time I looked Giles Fraser was a CofE vicar, a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, the Messiah, God in human form who dies for our salvation and rises again so that we might rise with him. (plus some small print). Jesus is both the fullest revelation of God on earth, and the God-given path to a restored relationship with God now an in eternity. That's what Jesus said he was, and that's what Christians believe. The leaflet simply paraphrases this: does that make Jesus himself sinister?
So someone else then turns up a few hundred years later, be they Mohammed or Joseph Smith, and claims to have a better idea than Jesus about who God is, how he is at work, and how to live in response to this. No Christian can logically go 'oh well, that's fair enough, you're just as likely to be right as Jesus'. There are flat contradictions between the Koran and the Bible. Jesus and Mohammed cannot both be right about themselves and about God. God isn't going to turn up in person to save the world, and then a few hundreds years later go 'oh that didn't work, I'll just go back to using prophets'.
I believe Islam is wrong because I believe Jesus is who he says he is. (To put this in perspective, I also believe there are certain traditions of thought within Christianity that are wrong, along with capitalism, communism, buying t-shirts made in sweatshops, texting during a conversation, and using Facebook as a form of therapy. I'm a mass of phobias) But lets have an adult, reasoned discussion about it, rather than chucking abusive labels at people who don't see things the way we do, closing down the debate before its even begun.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Welby: The theological challenge of ISIL
"We must face the fact that for some young Muslims the attractions of jihadism outweigh the materialism of a consumer society.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice implied, if we struggle against a call to eternal values, however twisted and perverted they may be, without a better story, we will fail in the long term."
Full text of Justin Welbys speech to the Lords here.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Thursday, September 04, 2014
Evil in Nigeria
The savagery of Muslim terrorists in Iraq is being matched by their equivalents in Nigeria. Boko Haram as just as evil as Islamic State, and share the same ideology. Whilst NATO and the West contemplate military action in Iraq, they face the tough decision about where to draw the line. How many people can the West defend against fundamentalist Islam? Nigeria? Mali? Somalia? Less oil, and less atoning to do, in West Africa (though once you factor in the slave trade, perhaps not...).
Targetting Christians and wiping them out is clearly top of the agenda for both groups. Having preached on Moses last week, I can identify with his response to the Egyptian slave driver, it's hard not to simply be consumed with anger and hatred. But then they really will have won.
Targetting Christians and wiping them out is clearly top of the agenda for both groups. Having preached on Moses last week, I can identify with his response to the Egyptian slave driver, it's hard not to simply be consumed with anger and hatred. But then they really will have won.
Monday, June 09, 2014
Islam: Presentation or Content?
With the 'Trojan Horse' reports due out today (update: now published, very serious stuff), Charles Moore puts his finger on something that's been bothering me for a while now:
The question for the rest of us lies in the issue itself. How big is the problem with Islamist extremism, and why is dealing with it so contentious that it splits all the parties?
Stand back and think of some news stories in the past fortnight or so. The search for the 300 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram; the Sudanese government’s death sentence for apostasy on a pregnant mother; murders in the Jewish Museum in Brussels; the exchange of Taliban prisoners for their dubious American captive soldier Bo Bergdahl; alleged election-rigging in Tower Hamlets; the revelation that some jihadists in Syria are British citizens; and finally, the row about the Birmingham schools.
All these stories are about a religion in ferment. I do not agree with the growing numbers in the West who see Islam itself as inherently violent. All great religions contain so much of the human story that nasty bits can always be extracted by nasty people. (There was a time, remember, when many Christian adherents were more bloodthirsty than the Muslims, let alone the Jews, whom they persecuted.) What is happening, rather, is that the “ownership” of Islam is in contention.
The loudest voices in this struggle, unfortunately, are of those who turn their faith against the free, Western world. In their story, an amazing Muslim civilisation has been trashed by Christians, Jews, white men in general. No blame for misgovernment and economic failure attaches to Muslim countries themselves, except to those leaders (“hypocrites”) who sell out to the West.
You can add to Moores list the stoning to death of a pregnant woman in Pakistan, and the longer-term reality for Christians in just about any country you care to name with a Muslim majority. For example, when Saudi Arabia makes it illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity, and brutally treats anyone who helps people to do this, is that an aberration from what Islam is really about, or standard practice?
Maybe it is simply that the concentration of power, whether in a state, a London borough, or a school network, warps the hearts and minds of those who have it, as historically it has also done with the church. Even so, Islam still has a problem, because it is set up (via Sharia law etc.) as a system of government as well as a spiritual path. Jesus consciously resisted political power, or anyone seeking to set it up (e.g. Acts 1), insisting that God's kingdom was of a different nature. Christianity doesn't have a system of state government and law built into it in the way that Islam does.
Maybe, along with the BBC, I'm just hoovering up a narrative that only bears a partial relationship to the truth. And asking questions of Islam will mean asking questions of the church too. But here's my question: are the headlines of the last few weeks mainly a presentation problem - that there are just as many good news stories but they aren't told because they don't fit the media narrative, and don't, in Charles Moore's words, involve the loudest voices? Or does this sorry catalogue actually express something more closely at the heart of 'true Islam'? If there is another side of the story, I'd like to hear it.
(and why do I feel so wary in blogging these questions?)
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Muslim Christmas Card
Well done to the Muslim Council of Britain for this Christmas card. I would love for tolerance of Christian festivals and practice to spread to Muslims in other parts of the world, but this is a start. It's also a perfect retort to the usual stories, which actually turn out to be local councillors banning Christian stuff on the pretext that it might offend someone.
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Violence against Christians: 2 sides
Following on from the piece the other day, about Christians being the most persecuted religious body on the planet:
Egypt: The Archbishop of Canterbury has welcomed a new Amnesty International report calling on Egypt to prevent ‘deeply disturbing’ attacks on Christians in the country.
Egypt: The Archbishop of Canterbury has welcomed a new Amnesty International report calling on Egypt to prevent ‘deeply disturbing’ attacks on Christians in the country.
The report describes an ‘unprecedented level' of attacks
against Coptic Christians following the dispersal of two pro-Morsi sit-ins in
Cairo on 14 August.
More than 200 Christian-owned properties were attacked and
43 churches seriously damaged in 'deeply sectarian attacks' against Coptic and
other Christian denominations, the report says.
Pakistan: The Muslim and Christian communities came together during Sunday mass in a show of solidarity in Lahore.
Hand in hand as many as 200-300 people formed a human chain outside the St Anthony’s Church adjacent to the District Police Lines at the Empress Road, in a show of solidarity with the victims of the Peshawar church attack two weeks back, which resulted in over a 100 deaths. The twin suicide attack on All Saints church occurred after Sunday mass ended and is believed to be the country’s deadliest attack on Christians.
Standing in the small courtyard of St Anthony’s Church, as Mufti Mohammad Farooq delivered a sermon quoting a few verses of the Holy Quran that preached tolerance and respect for other beliefs, Father Nasir Gulfam stepped right next to him after having conducted a two hour long Sunday service inside the church. The two men stood should to shoulder, hand in hand as part of the human chain that was formed outside the church not just as a show of solidarity but also to send out a message, ‘One Nation, One Blood’.
more here
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Sherborne Abbey 'Insight' Lectures on Christianity & Islam
some fascinating and timely talks coming up just up the road:
Insight Lecture - Living with Islam
Wednesday 25th Sept 2013 7.30 p.m. Dr Patrick Sookhdeo,
Director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity and
International Director of the Barnabas Fund.
Insight Lecture - Crusade or Jihad?
Wednesday 23rd October 2013 7.30 p.m. Canon Edward Probert
looks at the effect of Jihad and Crusade on the Holy Land and asks what lessons
we can learn from these conflicts.
Insight Lecture - Just War in the 21st Century
Wednesday 30th October 2013 7.30 p.m. Dr David Whetham
explores the concept of Just War in modern times and whether it has a place in
the 21st century.
Insight Lecture - Living with Christianity
Wednesday 27th Nov 2013 7.30 p.m. Imam Mohammad
Ovaisi discusses the problems faced by Muslims living in a Christian culture. each in the Digby Hall, Sherborne, booking details here
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Persecution of Christians in Syria
Open Doors have launched an appeal to help persecuted Christians in Syria, with reports of Muslim extremists turning on Christians, many being forced from their homes, tortured, kidnapped, or worse.
More details of what's going on, why, and what can be done about it, at God and Politics.
Here's another recent report:
Nearly 100,000 Christians so far have fled from Homs and other cities being targeted by government forces, but it is no longer just to escape the crossfire. Now, more reports are revealing that a new wave of persecution is deliberate and growing. As a result, Virginia-based Christian Aid Mission is sending additional aid to help the growing numbers of refugees which have fled to Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.
"It is over; we can't get back what we lost," said one discouraged Christian refugee here in Jordan. "It will never be the same anymore for me or my family. We've lost hope." He said he had to flee with his family at night, because anti-Christian persecution in Syria is becoming a steadily growing reality.
"I had my own business. I ran a supermarket, and we were financially stable. Unfortunately, that's not the case anymore. Our dreams vanished when a group of terrorists threatened to kill my family, burn our house, and set fire to the supermarket if I didn't pay them $7,000.
"I paid the amount, hoping that they would leave us alone, but they did not. Instead, they kidnapped me for a whole week. They only let me go on one condition: that each month I would pay them the same amount.
"What do you think I could do? I fled. I packed our stuff, taking only the basics. I took my family and came to Jordan. My son, Omar, has one year left to finish his bachelor's degree, but now his dreams have vanished as well. I used to be a business owner...but now I am a laborer who can hardly provide the day-to-day basics for my family."
Saturday, January 21, 2012
50 worst countries to live as a Christian
Open Doors has published its updated 'World Watch List' of the 50 countries which have the worst record on persecution of Christians.
God and Politics in the UK looks at the £1.5bn in UK government aid given to several of these countries, and asks whether we're doing enough to put pressure on them to change.
Cranmer notes that all bar 1 of the top 10 are Islamic countries: While His Grace doesn’t wish to cause offence, he’d very much like to know what is to be made of the appalling statistic that 76 per cent of the world’s fiercest oppressors and persecutors of Christians are culturally, politically and religiously Islamic? Have they all misunderstood the Religion of Peace? Are they torturing and murdering their cousins – the People of the Book – in error and in contravention of quranic precepts? How could so many be so wrong in their interpretation of the sharia? Or misapplication of sharias? What does Allah think of it? Would Mohammed approve of the systematic persecution, imprisonment, torture and slaughter of those who follow the prophet Isa?
And must we remain silent about this? Must we take tea with the Taliban and sell arms to the Wahhabi kingdom of Saudi Arabia out of tolerance and respect? While we happily take their oil money and permit them to build mosques and open their free schools, they murder our brothers and sisters in Christ – reserving the most appalling torture and suffering for those who have rejected Islam and accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
Here's the list
1. North Korea
2. Afghanistan
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Somalia
5. Iran
6. Maldives
7. Uzbekistan
8. Yemen
9. Iraq
10. Pakistan
11. Eritrea
12. Laos
13. Northern Nigeria
14. Mauritania
15. Egypt
16. Sudan
17. Bhutan
18. Turkmenistan
19. Vietnam
20. Chechnya
21. China
22. Qatar
23. Algeria
24. Comoros
25. Azerbaijan
26. Libya
27. Oman
28. Brunei
29. Morocco
30. Kuwait
31. Turkey
32. India
33. Burma (Myanmar)
34. Tajikistan
35. Tunisia
36. Syria
37. United Arab Emirates
38. Ethiopia
39. Djibouti
40. Jordan
41. Cuba
42. Belarus
43. Indonesia
44. Palestinian Territories
45. Kazakhstan
46. Bahrain
47. Colombia
48. Kyrgyzstan
49. Bangladesh
50. Malaysia
God and Politics in the UK looks at the £1.5bn in UK government aid given to several of these countries, and asks whether we're doing enough to put pressure on them to change.
Cranmer notes that all bar 1 of the top 10 are Islamic countries: While His Grace doesn’t wish to cause offence, he’d very much like to know what is to be made of the appalling statistic that 76 per cent of the world’s fiercest oppressors and persecutors of Christians are culturally, politically and religiously Islamic? Have they all misunderstood the Religion of Peace? Are they torturing and murdering their cousins – the People of the Book – in error and in contravention of quranic precepts? How could so many be so wrong in their interpretation of the sharia? Or misapplication of sharias? What does Allah think of it? Would Mohammed approve of the systematic persecution, imprisonment, torture and slaughter of those who follow the prophet Isa?
And must we remain silent about this? Must we take tea with the Taliban and sell arms to the Wahhabi kingdom of Saudi Arabia out of tolerance and respect? While we happily take their oil money and permit them to build mosques and open their free schools, they murder our brothers and sisters in Christ – reserving the most appalling torture and suffering for those who have rejected Islam and accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
Here's the list
1. North Korea
2. Afghanistan
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Somalia
5. Iran
6. Maldives
7. Uzbekistan
8. Yemen
9. Iraq
10. Pakistan
11. Eritrea
12. Laos
13. Northern Nigeria
14. Mauritania
15. Egypt
16. Sudan
17. Bhutan
18. Turkmenistan
19. Vietnam
20. Chechnya
21. China
22. Qatar
23. Algeria
24. Comoros
25. Azerbaijan
26. Libya
27. Oman
28. Brunei
29. Morocco
30. Kuwait
31. Turkey
32. India
33. Burma (Myanmar)
34. Tajikistan
35. Tunisia
36. Syria
37. United Arab Emirates
38. Ethiopia
39. Djibouti
40. Jordan
41. Cuba
42. Belarus
43. Indonesia
44. Palestinian Territories
45. Kazakhstan
46. Bahrain
47. Colombia
48. Kyrgyzstan
49. Bangladesh
50. Malaysia
Friday, January 06, 2012
Christians: The Arab Winter
Last week Tim Montgomery challenged the UK government to do more to stick up for Christians persecuted by Muslims, and listed just a few of the atrocities recently perpetrated to the glory of Allah
Islamic persecution of Christians is a massive global issue. It has grown with instability across the Middle East. The Middle East Forum's record of violence and intolerance in November alone includes:
I'm currently reading Tony Blairs 'A Journey', very much with my spin detectors on. He writes at length about Iraq, and argues that much of the violence and death there post-Saddam has been the result of outside elements who don't want to see a stable, prosperous democracy emerge in the Arab world, as it will demonstrate what is possible when you oust a dictator and edge 'West'. He particularly fingers Iran and al Quaeda, and the argument makes a lot of sense, espeically if you look at what's happening in Nigeria at the moment. I don't know enough about what's happening in North Africa to know if the same groups are using the uprisings as cover for anti-Christian violence, or whether the removal of represseive state control is merely allowing 'normal' prejudice and hatred to come to the surface. Either way, there's a lot to pray about, and a lot more our government could do in word and deed to nudge this issue up the agenda.
Islamic persecution of Christians is a massive global issue. It has grown with instability across the Middle East. The Middle East Forum's record of violence and intolerance in November alone includes:
- In Nigeria, "Islamic militants shouting "Allahu Akbar" carried out coordinated attacks on churches and police stations, including opening fire on a congregation of "mostly women and children," killing dozens";
- Also in Nigeria, "the Muslim militant group, Boko Haram, executed two children of an ex-terrorist and "murderer" because he converted to Christianity";
- In Ethiopia more than 500 Muslim students assisted by Muslim police burned down a church, while screaming "Allahu Akbar";
- In Algeria five Christians were jailed for "worshiping in an unregistered location";
- In Kashmir "Muslim police arrested and beat seven converts from Islam in an attempt to obtain a confession against the priest who baptized them";
- In Kenya, "suspected Islamic extremists, apparently angered at the use of wine during communion—Islam forbids alcohol—threw a grenade near a church compound killing two, including an 8-year-old girl, and critically wounding three others"...
It follows a piece by Fraser Nelson just before Christmas on the same topic. It's good to see a few of the UK commentariat weighing in on this one, something which Christian commentators have been noting for years (or, in the case of Andrew White in Baghdad, experiencing at first hand).
There are some exceptions - the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has announced it will protect Christians as they celebrate Christmas this weekend (the Coptic calendar has Christmas on 7th Jan). It would be fantastic if the Arab spring yielded something better than the sickening violence repeatedly seen against Christians in Pakistan, Kenya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia etc. But how likely?
There is a chance, with the Arab spring, for Muslim majority states to do something different. It would be a grim indictment of the new governments if history showed that Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak had a better record on religious tolerance than their successors. At the moment it could go either way.I'm currently reading Tony Blairs 'A Journey', very much with my spin detectors on. He writes at length about Iraq, and argues that much of the violence and death there post-Saddam has been the result of outside elements who don't want to see a stable, prosperous democracy emerge in the Arab world, as it will demonstrate what is possible when you oust a dictator and edge 'West'. He particularly fingers Iran and al Quaeda, and the argument makes a lot of sense, espeically if you look at what's happening in Nigeria at the moment. I don't know enough about what's happening in North Africa to know if the same groups are using the uprisings as cover for anti-Christian violence, or whether the removal of represseive state control is merely allowing 'normal' prejudice and hatred to come to the surface. Either way, there's a lot to pray about, and a lot more our government could do in word and deed to nudge this issue up the agenda.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Light Reading for Christmas Eve
Whilst you're waiting for the clock to tick round to 11pm for 'midnight' mass, or even just to pub opening time, a few bits and bobs:
Rick Warren on helping people to beat materialism at Christmas time.
Paul Walton, quoting a Faith Central piece about being a Muslim at Christmas
For Christians, Christmas is about celebrating the birthday of a sacred person: the embodiment of nobility, generosity, compassion and justice. These characteristics can be emulated by anyone from any religious background. Amid the media hype building up towards Christmas there is little focus on the great characteristics of Jesus and what we can learn from his life.
Even though I do not celebrate Christmas in the real sense – as a university student, for instance I would often work long shifts as a medical operator on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day enabling my non Muslim colleagues to celebrate the birth of Jesus, I do actually celebrate and cherish his birth and his life on this earth by truly loving him and trying to exemplify his noble characteristics in my own life.
Ruth Gledhill on John Sentamus seasonal message to the Ugandan government, and the UK immigration authorities.
A seasonal message from the Beaker secularists.
A New Labour carol service from Dungeekin
Away in a manger, no crib for a bed,
The little Lord Jesus lay down his sweet head,
And then Social Services saw where he lay,
And they claimed child neglect and they took him away.
Rick Warren on helping people to beat materialism at Christmas time.
Paul Walton, quoting a Faith Central piece about being a Muslim at Christmas
For Christians, Christmas is about celebrating the birthday of a sacred person: the embodiment of nobility, generosity, compassion and justice. These characteristics can be emulated by anyone from any religious background. Amid the media hype building up towards Christmas there is little focus on the great characteristics of Jesus and what we can learn from his life.
Even though I do not celebrate Christmas in the real sense – as a university student, for instance I would often work long shifts as a medical operator on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day enabling my non Muslim colleagues to celebrate the birth of Jesus, I do actually celebrate and cherish his birth and his life on this earth by truly loving him and trying to exemplify his noble characteristics in my own life.
Ruth Gledhill on John Sentamus seasonal message to the Ugandan government, and the UK immigration authorities.
A seasonal message from the Beaker secularists.
A New Labour carol service from Dungeekin
Away in a manger, no crib for a bed,
The little Lord Jesus lay down his sweet head,
And then Social Services saw where he lay,
And they claimed child neglect and they took him away.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
A 'Christian Country?' BNP rhetoric and reality.
According to the BNP themselves, 3,000 people have registered to be signed up as members following Question Time. Unsurprisingly, their site is getting way more hits than those of any other political party at the moment – Alexa rankings are proudly displayed at the bottom of it. A poll carried out since the programme found that 22% of those surveyed would ’seriously consider’ voting for the BNP.
Some of that may be Brits siding with the underdog, as we traditionally do, but there’s nothing to be gained by simply dismissing these figures. As the BBC report puts it “more than half of those polled said they agreed or thought the party had a point in speaking up for the interests of indigenous, white British people.” Baroness Warsi made the point during the debate that there was more to the BNP vote than disillusionment over expenses: “there are people who feel the pace of change is too fast.”
A Christian Country?
Nick Griffin referred to the UK as a ‘Christian country’ several times during the debate. Do a search for ‘Christian’ on the BNP site, and most of it is articles against Islam and political correctness where that impinges on the church. It’s a defensive statement of cultural identity (’we don’t want Islam’) mre than a positive one of religious identity. ‘Christian country’ is a piece of branding, the language of resistance, looking back to where Britain has come from, and trying to hold on to it. Christian groups have made it clear that Griffin speaks only for the BNP when he seeks to portray them as defenders of the faith.
Britain is in a transition phase: post-Christian without being non-Christian. We still have many of the institutions, but culture and personal ethics have slipped their Christian moorings for the open sea. ‘Life of Brian’ would scarcely raise a murmer now – witness recent attempts to create ‘outrage’ stories over religious imagery which, 40 years ago, wouldn’t have needed any media help in causing a storm.
But it’s not a clean break: recently two councils added 3 other religious holidays to the normal closures for Christmas and Easter. Despite relatively small numbers of Sikhs in Newham and Waltham Forest, Guru Nanaks birthday joins Eid and Diwali on the holiday list. The ensuing lively debate has caused a review of the policy.
The stated aim is, you guessed it, ‘community cohesion’. The result is often the opposite: there will no doubt be another row over ‘Winterval’ some time in the next 2 months, as Christmas is rebranded, and ‘we don’t want to offend people of other faiths’ is cited as the rationale. Result: people of other faiths are blamed for the decision. Winners: nobody. Except perhaps the BNP.
Given the use the BNP makes of ‘Christian Britain’ language, Jonathan Bartley questions whether the church should give up the ghost on trying to preserve the remnants and rhetoric of Christian identity in the UK, but I’m not sure the church should give the BNP the right of veto over the terms of debate. If the opposition starts to colonise our language, do we abandon it, or try to redeem it?
Aside from a reference to freedom of worship, there is no statement about religion or Christianity in the BNP Constitution. However a BNP leaflet from May/June this year, calls for a ‘Day of Prayer’ and attacks the Church of England for selling out. It’s since been taken offline, but points the finger at ‘Judas Archbishops’, who in the next breath, bizarrely, it calls for dialogue with. It doesn’t take much digging to find BNP members with religious views which range from the bizarre to the scandalous. But is it enough simply to dismiss them?
Issues
Back to the data at the top. Ridicule may make us feel better, and more righteous, but what else does it achieve? Whether we like it or not, the popularity of the BNP raises a host of knotty issues which our politicians have been tiptoeing round for years:
– What is the nature of British identity, and what is the place of Christian faith, and the Christian roots of our society, in that picture?
– What is the true nature of Islam? I live in Yeovil, which is almost entirely white, and went up to London for a day conference earlier this year. Westminster seemed to be swarming with police, and young Asian men with backpacks. You know, the kind you see getting onto the Tube in those CCTV videos. I was nervous, I couldn’t help it, even though I know that Al Qaeda is a crackpot minority. Can we talk in the UK about, for example, Muslims persecuting Christians in Pakistan, without it being branded as hate speech and quickly ushered offstage? When Nick Griffin quotes from the Koran, how many of us know whether those texts are foundational to Islam, or peripheral?
– Apart from appointing a few ‘Community Cohesion Officers’ at local councils, how are we dealing with immigration? If the population projections are right, we can expect 180,000 new immigrants per year for the next 20 years. It’s either that, or raise the retirement age to 80: increased life expectancy means that 15.6m people will be drawing their pension by 2033, and with a low birth rate, immigration is the only way to keep a balanced demographic.
- Without some crass ‘back to basics’ campaign, how do we have a debate between the values of the past and the values of the present? In two generations, public morality has changed out of all recognition, whether you look at race issues, the environment, or sexual ethics. There are both gains and losses. In areas like sex and culture, schools are encouraged not to teach a set of beliefs/morals, but to promote an informed choice. The continued epidemic of broken families, and the stubborn persistence of racism, show that this isn’t really working. Is there a place for a moral framework, and in post-Christendom, where do we get that framework from?
Wrapping Up
It’s easy to dismiss the British National Party and what they stand for, and it would be wrong to let the BNP tail wag the dog of the British body politic (sorry, metaphor decay is setting in here). Most of the liberal chatterati can’t understand how anyone could support Nick Griffin. But until we start to understand their appeal, and start addressing some of these questions, British soil will remain a fertile place for the BNP.
this article is cross-posted from Touching Base, a regular column at the Wardman Wire.
on the same topic, different angle, but well worth a read, is John Richardsons piece today.
Some of that may be Brits siding with the underdog, as we traditionally do, but there’s nothing to be gained by simply dismissing these figures. As the BBC report puts it “more than half of those polled said they agreed or thought the party had a point in speaking up for the interests of indigenous, white British people.” Baroness Warsi made the point during the debate that there was more to the BNP vote than disillusionment over expenses: “there are people who feel the pace of change is too fast.”
A Christian Country?
Nick Griffin referred to the UK as a ‘Christian country’ several times during the debate. Do a search for ‘Christian’ on the BNP site, and most of it is articles against Islam and political correctness where that impinges on the church. It’s a defensive statement of cultural identity (’we don’t want Islam’) mre than a positive one of religious identity. ‘Christian country’ is a piece of branding, the language of resistance, looking back to where Britain has come from, and trying to hold on to it. Christian groups have made it clear that Griffin speaks only for the BNP when he seeks to portray them as defenders of the faith.
Britain is in a transition phase: post-Christian without being non-Christian. We still have many of the institutions, but culture and personal ethics have slipped their Christian moorings for the open sea. ‘Life of Brian’ would scarcely raise a murmer now – witness recent attempts to create ‘outrage’ stories over religious imagery which, 40 years ago, wouldn’t have needed any media help in causing a storm.
But it’s not a clean break: recently two councils added 3 other religious holidays to the normal closures for Christmas and Easter. Despite relatively small numbers of Sikhs in Newham and Waltham Forest, Guru Nanaks birthday joins Eid and Diwali on the holiday list. The ensuing lively debate has caused a review of the policy.
The stated aim is, you guessed it, ‘community cohesion’. The result is often the opposite: there will no doubt be another row over ‘Winterval’ some time in the next 2 months, as Christmas is rebranded, and ‘we don’t want to offend people of other faiths’ is cited as the rationale. Result: people of other faiths are blamed for the decision. Winners: nobody. Except perhaps the BNP.
Given the use the BNP makes of ‘Christian Britain’ language, Jonathan Bartley questions whether the church should give up the ghost on trying to preserve the remnants and rhetoric of Christian identity in the UK, but I’m not sure the church should give the BNP the right of veto over the terms of debate. If the opposition starts to colonise our language, do we abandon it, or try to redeem it?
Aside from a reference to freedom of worship, there is no statement about religion or Christianity in the BNP Constitution. However a BNP leaflet from May/June this year, calls for a ‘Day of Prayer’ and attacks the Church of England for selling out. It’s since been taken offline, but points the finger at ‘Judas Archbishops’, who in the next breath, bizarrely, it calls for dialogue with. It doesn’t take much digging to find BNP members with religious views which range from the bizarre to the scandalous. But is it enough simply to dismiss them?
Issues
Back to the data at the top. Ridicule may make us feel better, and more righteous, but what else does it achieve? Whether we like it or not, the popularity of the BNP raises a host of knotty issues which our politicians have been tiptoeing round for years:
– What is the nature of British identity, and what is the place of Christian faith, and the Christian roots of our society, in that picture?
– What is the true nature of Islam? I live in Yeovil, which is almost entirely white, and went up to London for a day conference earlier this year. Westminster seemed to be swarming with police, and young Asian men with backpacks. You know, the kind you see getting onto the Tube in those CCTV videos. I was nervous, I couldn’t help it, even though I know that Al Qaeda is a crackpot minority. Can we talk in the UK about, for example, Muslims persecuting Christians in Pakistan, without it being branded as hate speech and quickly ushered offstage? When Nick Griffin quotes from the Koran, how many of us know whether those texts are foundational to Islam, or peripheral?
– Apart from appointing a few ‘Community Cohesion Officers’ at local councils, how are we dealing with immigration? If the population projections are right, we can expect 180,000 new immigrants per year for the next 20 years. It’s either that, or raise the retirement age to 80: increased life expectancy means that 15.6m people will be drawing their pension by 2033, and with a low birth rate, immigration is the only way to keep a balanced demographic.
- Without some crass ‘back to basics’ campaign, how do we have a debate between the values of the past and the values of the present? In two generations, public morality has changed out of all recognition, whether you look at race issues, the environment, or sexual ethics. There are both gains and losses. In areas like sex and culture, schools are encouraged not to teach a set of beliefs/morals, but to promote an informed choice. The continued epidemic of broken families, and the stubborn persistence of racism, show that this isn’t really working. Is there a place for a moral framework, and in post-Christendom, where do we get that framework from?
Wrapping Up
It’s easy to dismiss the British National Party and what they stand for, and it would be wrong to let the BNP tail wag the dog of the British body politic (sorry, metaphor decay is setting in here). Most of the liberal chatterati can’t understand how anyone could support Nick Griffin. But until we start to understand their appeal, and start addressing some of these questions, British soil will remain a fertile place for the BNP.
this article is cross-posted from Touching Base, a regular column at the Wardman Wire.
on the same topic, different angle, but well worth a read, is John Richardsons piece today.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Obama in Cairo: on Religious Freedom
Impressive speech by Barack Obama in Cairo, the full text is here, below are some excerpts.So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the co-operation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings....
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it first-hand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfil zakat.
Likewise, it is important for western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit– for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.....
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path....
...The Holy Koran tells u: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Discussions in other places
Madpriest had a gentle dig at a former Somerset vicar who talked about powers of evil in Portishead in a parish magazine article, drawing heavily on Tolkien. Just to spoil people's fun, I posted a comment reminding folk that Jesus recognised powers of evil as well, and that's now turned into a whole new debate over at MP's place. Is evil a 'power', or are there just very nasty people?
Bishop Alan is blogging from the Willow Creek leadership conference - I'll be really interested to see if he does a 'compare and contrast' post with Lambeth - with pithy summaries of the various speakers. There are video-based versions of the conference in the UK in October: we took a small group last year and found it very helpful.
SPCK have issued a statement, which Phil Groom has posted in full. One of the many matters debated in the last few weeks was the role of SPCK in entrusting SSG with the retail arm of its business, which was losing money rapidly and was unsustainable as it stood. It's worth reading the entire statement, here's the last couple of paragraphs:
We have been greatly upset by what has happened. We have been actively trying to do something about it, and are engaged in legal activity on a number of fronts about which it is not currently possible to say much. This and working with other interested parties and individuals has taken up a great deal of Simon Kingston’s time over the last year and continues to do so.
The Trustee body continue to have the shops as an item at every meeting, and spend a deal of time discussing what is best to do. A great deal has gone on (and continues today) which is not public knowledge. It is simply not true that we have ignored the situation. And with legal issues outstanding, we simply cannot wade in with public pronouncements. Indeed, some public comments (including, frankly, one or two contributions to the various blogs) serve to make matters worse rather than better.
SPCK and its trustees are truly saddened by the situation. We made a decision in good faith, and it has not turned out well. We are really sorry at the turn of events. But breast-beating makes nothing better. We are doing what we can on a continuing basis, and this may take another year or more before it has run its course.
The next few weeks will see two of the former SPCK shops in formal re-launches under new ownership. Let us all hope that other sites also find happier times once more.
Simon Kingston, SPCK General Secretary and Chief Executive Officer The Rt Revd Michael Perham, Bishop of Gloucester, Chairman of the SPCK Governing Body 12 August 2008
Phil's blog is the place to discuss this, and judging by the penultimate paragraph, we are in for the long haul here. Please pray for Simon Kingston and everyone else involved in this, for a resolution that is good, fair, and ideally that doesn't require lawyers to sort out the fine print because people are able to deal constructively with one another.
Finally Matt Wardman has a few Olympics links - personally I'm just enjoying the sport, but it's useful to be reminded of what else is going on here. And Johann Hari reflects on the decision not to publish the novel 'The Jewel of Medina', about the child bride of Mohammed, and what it says about our ability to have critical dialogue about Islam. The book may, like the Da Vinci Code, be a pile of cobblers, but now it's been pulled, everyone will want to have a copy if it ever finally comes out. Sounds familiar.
Bishop Alan is blogging from the Willow Creek leadership conference - I'll be really interested to see if he does a 'compare and contrast' post with Lambeth - with pithy summaries of the various speakers. There are video-based versions of the conference in the UK in October: we took a small group last year and found it very helpful.
SPCK have issued a statement, which Phil Groom has posted in full. One of the many matters debated in the last few weeks was the role of SPCK in entrusting SSG with the retail arm of its business, which was losing money rapidly and was unsustainable as it stood. It's worth reading the entire statement, here's the last couple of paragraphs:
We have been greatly upset by what has happened. We have been actively trying to do something about it, and are engaged in legal activity on a number of fronts about which it is not currently possible to say much. This and working with other interested parties and individuals has taken up a great deal of Simon Kingston’s time over the last year and continues to do so.
The Trustee body continue to have the shops as an item at every meeting, and spend a deal of time discussing what is best to do. A great deal has gone on (and continues today) which is not public knowledge. It is simply not true that we have ignored the situation. And with legal issues outstanding, we simply cannot wade in with public pronouncements. Indeed, some public comments (including, frankly, one or two contributions to the various blogs) serve to make matters worse rather than better.
SPCK and its trustees are truly saddened by the situation. We made a decision in good faith, and it has not turned out well. We are really sorry at the turn of events. But breast-beating makes nothing better. We are doing what we can on a continuing basis, and this may take another year or more before it has run its course.
The next few weeks will see two of the former SPCK shops in formal re-launches under new ownership. Let us all hope that other sites also find happier times once more.
Simon Kingston, SPCK General Secretary and Chief Executive Officer The Rt Revd Michael Perham, Bishop of Gloucester, Chairman of the SPCK Governing Body 12 August 2008
Phil's blog is the place to discuss this, and judging by the penultimate paragraph, we are in for the long haul here. Please pray for Simon Kingston and everyone else involved in this, for a resolution that is good, fair, and ideally that doesn't require lawyers to sort out the fine print because people are able to deal constructively with one another.
Finally Matt Wardman has a few Olympics links - personally I'm just enjoying the sport, but it's useful to be reminded of what else is going on here. And Johann Hari reflects on the decision not to publish the novel 'The Jewel of Medina', about the child bride of Mohammed, and what it says about our ability to have critical dialogue about Islam. The book may, like the Da Vinci Code, be a pile of cobblers, but now it's been pulled, everyone will want to have a copy if it ever finally comes out. Sounds familiar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)