Here's Another Fine Mess ...

What a mess we find ourselves in. The now ex-Attorney-General, Julian Grieves, criticised what he calls the ‘Aggressive Secularisation’ of public life in the UK some weeks ago. As a practising Anglican and member of the Church of England, he raises a concern many of us have felt for some time. As he pointed out, Christians are being marginalised, banned from showing, discussing or even ‘confessing’ their faith. Some have been sacked for wearing crosses, or discussing their faith with others in the workplace. How ironic then, that the same corporate ‘secularisers’ fall over themselves to accommodate Muslims. 

In the same newspaper that carried Mr Grieves’ article, a photograph showed a ‘senior civil servant’ sporting a wonderful example of the ‘Mujahedin’ beard favoured by some Muslims who think it makes them look ‘faithful’ or that it is ‘required’ by their faith. A Christian in the civil service who dared to wear a crucifix, or some other token of their faith, would be ordered to remove it. A nurse was sacked for refusing to remove one on the grounds it was a ‘health risk’ - while Muslim nurses are given special dispensation to wear long sleeves, and the hijab on the grounds their faith ‘requires’ it, when, in fact, it is not a requirement in the Quran at all. British Airways has sacked a check-in desk worker who wore a cross, on the grounds that it was not in keeping with their ‘corporate dress’ code, yet I have had the experience of being ‘checked in’ by a BA worker in a hijab.

Then there is the supermarket chain I will no longer shop at, which allows its cashiers to refuse to serve people who wish to buy pork products or alcohol. This is defended on the grounds it would be a breach of their faith for them to do so, but, a Christian woman who objected to being compelled to give advice on abortion is sacked because her faith may not interfere with the organisations ‘policy’ of providing the information. The list goes on. Christians who refuse to provide bed space to Gays are dragged into court, yet Muslim B&B operators are not put to the test by the same activist organisations. That there is a very deep seated and, frankly, disgraceful, double standard being applied is all too obvious, and if that weren’t enough, there is the whole matter of ‘radical Islam’ and what can only be termed as ‘hate speech’ being spread in our universities, on our streets and in public life entirely without check.

How did we get here? How did this situation develop without someone, somewhere, putting on the brakes?

Sadly, it appears that two things apply here. The first is that our ‘liberal’ society is so afraid of being accused of racism, Islamophobia or any of the other artificial ‘phobias’ invented by them over the last 40 years, they cannot bring themselves to admit it is happening. Secondly, the good old Law of Unintended Consequences has come into play. The efforts - publicly stated by certain sections of our ‘intelligentsia’ - to ‘destroy Christianity and religion’ in Britain, has produced a society with nothing but the prejudices of the elite as a ‘moral’ compass. That has created a society in which the Islamic community can see no virtue, so, they look to their own values and want to impose those. That wish, coupled with the void created by the lack of faith in the majority (G K Chesterton had it right when he said an absence of ‘faith’ did not mean the absence of ‘belief’ - just that now people will believe anything) provides a gap into which the radicals can step with their twisted and warped version of religion and find fertile ground for converts.

In another article, an Imam points to the fact that this ‘radical’ brand of Islam is, in fact, anathema to the teaching of the Quran. One Imam has shown his disapproval to his Mosque Committee, by resigning his post after they invited a pro-IS preacher to deliver a sermon. Others, including the Muslim Council itself, have condemned the radical teachers, the recruiters for IS and the organisation and its actions - but get very little notice in the media, or, indeed, from the young men flocking to the IS Banner. An Oxford based Imam and part-time lecturer at one of the colleges there, has flagged up that the harassment of Christians and Jews (and others) is contrary to the Quran, specifically, to Sura (Chapter) 2 verse 256, which states that there is NO compulsion (forcing) in religion, each individual i free to worship as they choose. This is confirmed in Sura 109 verse 6, which states that everyone has the right to follow their own faith. Even more telling, Sura 22 verse 40 states that all ‘places of worship, whether Christian or Jewish, are to be ‘respected’ and ‘honoured’. So where does the problem with a radical version of Islam arise? 

There are two distinct problems here, and it is important that they be recognised. The first is what is termed ‘political Islam’, that is the root of the ideological movement which seeks to impose secular control through the Sharia. The second part of the problem is that, particularly in Sunni Islam, there is no recognised qualification for preachers. So anyone can claim to be a ‘preacher’ and it is easy for a radical preacher to gain acceptance - especially if he’s able to attract the support of disaffected youth. These ‘preachers’ often draw on the collection of material known as the Hadith (The Sayings …) for material, and it is from the Hadith that the concept of martyrdom comes. It is from the Hadith that the concept of a martyr being rewarded with a life of ease in heaven attended by 72 ‘virgins’ comes.

The Hadith is of very questionable origins. Purporting to be the ‘sayings of the Prophet’ it was first compiled around 300 years after his death, and was condemned then by many scholars. It has gained traction since, becoming the source for justification of many barbaric practices, and a source for much that makes up ‘Sharia’ Law today, and most of that was first ‘codified’ in the 18th Century. It is also the source of the nonsense that allows men to demand and dictate that every women must cover her hair, wear shapeless clothing and in extreme cases, wander round hidden beneath the all black ‘tent’ of the Burkha. It is from the Hadith that some Sunni sects have adopted the female genital mutilation practices, which are, in fact, forbidden by the Quran itself. It is this twisting of the message of the Quran by men of what can only be termed hatred, that gives rise to the ‘radical’ version we now see spreading like a cancer through all sections of Islamic society. 

The problem in the west is that most of those who argue for giving concessions to ‘devout’ Muslims with regard to setting their own ‘cultural’ boundaries and even allowing them to set up enclaves in our cities, is that they do not understand the origins of much of what they assume is ‘in the Quran’. Nor do they understand (and sometimes give the impression that they don’t want to) that there is no such thing as a single universal ‘Islamic Culture’. What is seen on British streets is largely imported from Pakistan and Bangladesh, and would be laughed at in Iran and many other ‘Islamic’ countries. The Burkha comes from Arabia, and is not native to most countries. In fact until fairly recently, none of this was ‘enforced’ on women outside of Arabia and some North African tribal cultures. Even the silly beards sported by young men (and some who should know better) are not at all ‘Islamic’. In fact they are the mark of the likes of the Taliban and Mujahedin. 

So what is seen by ‘liberals’ and supporters of Multi-Culturalism as ‘Islamic Culture' is a sham, but the problem now is that it has become the ‘badge’ of devotion to Islam - so every young man who thinks he’s found a ‘cause’ in his religious beliefs now dresses in this mishmash of costumes and demands that all women in his circle do the same. And with this twisted baggage has come all the other abuses - the ‘honour killings’, the forced marriages, the female genital mutilations, the treatment of ‘Dhimmi’ girls as sex toys and, of course, the demands for the entire English legal system to be suspended and replaced by Sharia Law.

Now the nastier problems are surfacing, the Multi-Culty promoters are desperately denying that any of this is a problem created by their idiocy. For years we have been forbidden to criticise the hate preachers, on the grounds it is their ‘right’ to express these opinions under our cherished ‘freedom of speech’ laws. Or that to criticise them was ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic’ in that it was an attack on ‘the religious beliefs’ of the speaker. Anyone who dared speak out, was immediately branded a ‘racist’ or an ‘Islamophobe’ - or if they persisted, a ‘Fascist’. Even now, writers in The Guardian will go to great lengths to give the impression that the likes of the IS and the hate preachers recruiting for them in Britain, are ‘a violent minority’ who do not represent the majority. While I might accept that the majority of British Muslims (there are some 3 million of them) are not ‘violent’ and do not seek to overthrow British Society, they are funding the violent minority. They aren’t doing anything to stop the steadily increasing numbers of young men and women joining ISIS/L (currently estimated by Security Forces in Europe at between 500 and 2,000) and indulging in the murder, kidnapping and torture of Shi’ites, Eastern Christians and others. 

The use of ‘labels’ with a pejorative meaning is a deliberate ploy by those who wish to shut down any debate they don’t want held. By accusing those who dare to question anything, of racism, Islamophobia or fascism, they whip into a fury all the ignoramuses who never stop to look further than the half truths and sometimes downright lies they are fed, leading to the hounding of the inconvenient ‘target’ from the public stage. Now the tactics are coming home to roost with something of a vengeance. We are in this mess precisely because we have not been allowed to debate any aspect of the drive to impose ‘multi-culturalism’ without any regard for the very real, and very foreseeable, consequences. No one dared to challenge the poison being spread by hate preachers like Abu Hamza. We weren’t even allowed to deport them - on the grounds that sending many of them back to the countries they came from, would be a breach of their ‘human rights’.

And now, no doubt, the same ‘human rights’ lawyers are sharpening their ‘briefs’ in preparation to defend the 500 (or 2,000) British passport holders currently fighting under the IS banner. I have no doubt that when the Security Services do track down the funders, recruiters, IT experts and supporters working from inside the UK for the IS murderers, these same ‘human rights’ lawyers and organisations will rush to defend them from criminal charges. Frankly, these lawyers are a major part of the problem, and should be made to face the survivors and the relatives of their ‘client’s’ victims - if not charged with treason alongside the murderers and psychopaths of IS.

According to the Security Agencies in Europe, Britain is now the No.2 exporter of radicalised Islamic terrorists (France is currently No.1 by a small margin). We are an international joke, and our politicians and civil servants haven’t a clue what to do about it. And while they remain paralysed by fear of the consequences of speaking out, and of being accused of attempting to curb the ‘right’ to some extreme form of speech, religion or oppression. So, it appears inevitable, that we will be ‘sleep walked’ into a war for our very existence. 

Our fathers, grandfathers and their predecessors must be rolling in their graves.

Race or Religion?

Listening to a discussion yesterday on the conflict and tensions between 'Palestinians' and 'Israelis' one of the debaters, an earnest young woman, clung to her theme that 'Jews' are simply members of a 'religious movement' and not a distinctive 'race'. Her argument is the familiar secular/humanist one that revolves around the diversity of Jewish genetics, and the relative comparison with 'Palestinian' Arabs. Both, it can be said, are 'Semitic' peoples, and therefore, it is argued, the only distinction is 'religion'. This argument misses a key element of 'Jewishness' - which is that the 'religion' does not, as Shakespeare would phrase it, 'a Jew make'.

Anyone can 'convert' to Judaism, but that does not make them a 'Jew'. To be a Jew, you have to have been born of a Jewish mother. In typically pragmatic fashion, the Jewish 'Law' of inheritance states that 'a man may have many fathers, but only one mother' and therefore inheritance is through ones mother, not your father. As the admirable programme for the BBC by Simon Sharma on the History of the Jews explains, they are a very diverse population. A true 'rainbow' nation, and Judaism (the religion) is just as diverse. It is a monumental mistake to claim they are 'just followers of a religion' and not a 'people' of distinct lineage, whatever the 'genes' indicate. Unless one is completely isolated from contact with other human tribes for, I suspect, at least a thousand years, the chances of retaining one particular 'pure' genetic lineage are pretty remote.

One has only to look at the modern human population of Europe to see this. What makes anyone English, German, French, Scottish or Swiss? Genetic samples of any population with produce matches across the entire spectrum. Does this make us all members of some Pan-European 'tribe? Are all Scots inflicted with red hair and blue eyes? Of course not, but those who argue that 'Jews' are not distinct as a racial group try to advance that argument. In fact, they are misled by their own propaganda, since whether a Jew has his most recent roots in Europe, the steppes of Russia, or the US, there are a number of particular 'markers' in their genes that link them. Once again, that simple statement of 'many fathers, only one mother' comes into play. It is something that should be far more carefully considered - especially in relation to the Jews, who, as Simon Sharma so ably points out, have been the world's 'whipping boys' since the beginning.

So, if their genes are as diverse as everyone elses' (barring the already mentioned unique markers) why is their religion such a unifying force? After all, there are probably as many Jews who do not believe or practice it, as there are those who do. Why, as Simon Sharma tells us, do even those who do not believe or regularly 'practice' the religion, still call themselves 'Jews' and why do they still mark the major festivals following the timeless rituals? That is what seems to confound the secularists, because the 'religion' is a product of the 'race'.

What we call the Old Testament is a remarkable document. Though much of it is allegoric narrative, particularly the first five books, parts are a historical narrative of folk memory, and later parts are the moral discourse on the abuse of power and wealth by the political classes that lead, eventually, to the dispersal, it is a remarkably cohesive story. It is the story of the creating, the welding together, of a people, 'The Jews', as a single unit even in a worldwide 'diaspora'. Few, if any, people on Earth have such a cohesive identity as the Jews. It is far more than their genes, and it transcends their religion, but it is a mistake to attempt to categorise the one without the other. The Bible underpins both the Jew as a race, and the 'Jew' in religion, but, once again, one has to realise that the 'religion' and the 'race' are not just intertwined, but are both badges of 'indentity'.

Yes, they are, by and large, a Semitic people, but that is simply a 'category', a 'label' for those who love to force large issues into small pigeonholes so they can ignore the more complex matters in dealing with them. That, I suspect, is why we have so many problems politically in the world today. By reducing everything to the 'lowest common denominator' those in power, and those on the peripheries who love to voice an opinion on such things, try to ignore and suppress the very real, and far more complex issues such actions are intended to hide. By denying the Jews a distinctive 'Racial Identity' the 'problem' of Israel/Palestine can be reduced to one of 'religion' and from there, the belief can be advanced, that 'religion is the cause of the conflict'.

Convenient, but far from accurate, and a major reason that no solution is likely to be found anytime soon. When those who bandy about the idea that 'being a Jew' is the same as 'being a Muslim' finally realise their assertion does not stand up to scrutiny, we may perhaps begin to find solutions to many more problems in this post 20th Century world.

Religion has caused all wars?

Came across an interesting article recently at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), which prompted me to do some digging of my own and I found that my own research accords with what they have published. One frequently reads that 'religion causes wars' or that 'all wars in human history' were caused by religion. But, is this fact?

Let's start with the wars of early human history. What part did 'religion' play in the Egyptian wars of expansion? Or the Assyrian wars of conquest? Or Babylon's? How about the Persian invasions of Asia Minor and Greece? Or Ghengiz Khan's invasions of Eastern Europe, Persia, India and China?What of the Roman conquests? Motivated by Jupiter worship? Hardly. Religion played no part in these at all, though I have seen a claim that, because the Bible mentions some of them, and that God was involved in defending Israel or Judah, they were 'religious' ... Pretty tenuous, especially as the same person was arguing from the position that the entire Bible is a fabrication, a falsehood and therefore not worth reading. From the same argument comes the claim that the conflict between the invading European settlers of the Wild West and the Native American tribes was a 'religious war'. The reason given for that claim is that the various politicians who sent in the army or sought to drum up support from the settlers labelled the Red Indians as 'unbelievers' and 'savages'. Right.

A recent book, The End of Faith, renews the claim that 'religion is the most prolific source of violence in our history', but, as I've just stated, a very cursory look at about a 1,000 year span of pre-Christian history suggests religion had no part in a millenium of wars of expansion and conquest. Again, a survey of the wars in the next thousand years, one finds a similar pattern, with one exception - the Islamic Wars of conquest into the Christian Kingdoms of Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of North Africa, and, of course, the Byzantine Empire and the Zoroastrian, Hindu and Buddhist lands of Persia, Babylon, Afghanistan and India. But even these actually represent only a small proportion of all the wars going on at the same time everywhere else.

Once we hit the Crusade period, those with an axe to grind against religion (usually, specifically, Christianity) really have a field day. Those evil Crusaders who attacked the peaceful, inclusive and tolerant Muslims with no provocation. Quite. In fact the Crusades were a response to Muslim persecution of Christians, not very different in some areas to what is happening everywhere in the Muslim world to Christians, and other non-Muslims, today. Though we are presented, by revisionists today, with an image of a peaceful 'paradise' of flowering art and scientific creativity in Muslim controlled Spain, and of scientific innovation and research elsewhere in Muslim lands, what is forgotten is that most of this was built on trades, skills and studies already in existence when they conquered these lands.

The Viking invasions, the Germanic Celtic invasions of Gaul, Spain and Italy were not 'religious' and even the often quoted war on the Cathars had, as an underlying motive, the suppression of a group who threatened the power and authority of the French nobility and Crown. William the Conqueror's wars, and those of his descendants, were certainly not 'religious' and the same can be said of many more. Yes, the Thirty Years War, had religious roots, and Phillip II of Spain certainly had a religious excuse for his attempted invasions of England, but his real motive was to avenge his sister's being 'sleighted' by Henry VIII. Cromwell's wars in Scotland and Ireland had a large religious element, but the primary objective was the suppression of support for the Crown. Other researchers have analysed the causes and motivations of the wars of our history and concluded that only around 6% in total of over 1,700 recorded wars, had any religious motivation - and a little over two thirds of those were Islamic invasions. The defining characteristic of a 'religious' war is that it is waged for the purpose of forcing a group or population to 'convert' or in order to suppress and destroy a rival faith. Those who wish to destroy all faith ignore that, and argue that any mention of 'faith' in any context in any war - or the use of any terminology associated with any 'faith' - makes it a 'religious conflict'.

Can one argue that the Conquistadores were conducting a 'religious' war on the Aztecs, Incas and others? The answer, if one bothers to check who gained what and why, is a clear 'no'. The much maligned Roman Catholic Church's 'men on the ground', have left a large volume of correspondence to Rome and to the Kings and Queens of Spain and Portugal protesting and objecting to the manner in which populations were being enslaved, impoverished, stripped of wealth and treasures. The anti-religious folk all point to the decoration of churches and claim this 'proves' the church was behind the robbery - but in fact the wealth which went to decorating churches represents about 0.1% of the total that went to secular treasuries and fueled further wars of expansion and conquest in Europe.

Even a cursory look at the causes and motivations for England's external wars of the 16th to 19th Centuries shows no 'religious' motivation, but a strong secular/commercial one. A murderer waving a Bible is no more a Christian than Richard Dawkins - except in the minds of those who wish to see said murderer as 'a Christian'. Hitler, it is often said, was a Roman Catholic and therefore his 'motivation' for the Holocaust and for his war on Russia and everywhere else, was 'religious'. The fact is that he was Roman Catholic by baptism, confirmation and education - it would have been remarkable if he was not in Austria at the time he was born - but he did not practice it post WW1. In fact he was scornful of all religious leaders, mocking them publicly. He never attended Mass, and rejected the suggestion he appoint a 'Chaplain'. Religious motivation? Hardly, but he was influenced by Marx to a degree, and by the ideas of prominent secular and humanist thinkers. It's all in his book if you read it.

Stalin hated religion, dynamited churches, had priests and bishops sent to the Gulags in Siberia - but again, there are modern revisionists who want to argue that he was motivated by his 'religious beliefs'. He himself declared he had none. In fact, he had priests rounded up and shot, and sent elderly bishops to Siberia and labour camps. If that is an example of his 'religious' belief driving him, it is a strange one.

Then there is the question of the Churches making deals with both Hitler and Stalin. Rome (in)famously signed treaties with both Mussolini and with Hitler. Easy, of course, to criticise, but now consider for a moment, the fact that in order to keep the churches open, and allowed to minister to those who remained faithful to the Christian teaching, rather than the twisted Nazi and Communist ideologies, they had no choice but to do deals with the 'Devil'. Again, it is easy to say they should not have, but that begs the question of how you minister to those who do remain faithful, and keep faith alive in a hostile and aggressively anti-faith environment. The charge Jesus left his followers is to 'minister to the faithful' - not abandon them to the wolf packs. As a part of that ministry, many of the faithful became involved in hiding fugitive Jews and other 'undesirables' and the churches provided comfort and succour to those who did so.

Today we see the active persecution of the church in China, where churches are being bulldozed and congregations penalised by the officially atheist regime. I have actually seen ignorant idiots safely in 'liberal' western societies advocating similar actions to be taken to 'destroy Christianity' on the grounds that it is evil, brainwashing, anti-science and, of course, responsible for all wars, conflicts and - to quote Stephen Fry and Phillip Pullman  - "responsible for the deaths of billions in the Americas and elsewhere." As I am unable to find any support for their assertion that the entire Spanish (and Portugese) conquest of the Americas was actually driven by the Roman Church (or any other) - whose priests and bishops spent an inordinate amount of time trying to stop the rape, murder and plunder of the Conquistadores and their successors - I find their numbers suspiciously dramatic and a little inflated.

That there have been, and are, some rather nasty and bloodthirsty religions in the past is undeniable. Even the Buddhist faith practiced human sacrifice until it was forcibly ended by the British and others. In Burma the British were horrified by the sacrifice of 200 young men to appease the spirits at the site of the 'new' capital being built in the 1860s - and launched a campaign which ended in the country being made a 'Protectorate' to end it. Mr Fry and his ilk, I suspect, simply ignore the fact that Judaism and Christianity did not, and do not, practice the genocidal system of sacrificing their enemies, and proclaim there is no difference. Ethnic cleansing has many faces, few of them 'religious' (though I'm sure someone will point to the passages in the Bible that command racial purity and the expulsion or murder of non-Jewish wives and offspring. What is more there is NO evidence this was ever actually practiced, then or later.). The fact is that Christianity expressly forbids such practices, and, once again, if you look at ALL the evidence, it quickly becomes apparent that while 'religion' is often used as a cloak, the real motivation is often 'commercial' and nothing whatever to do with any 'faith'.

Usually the motivation is 'capital gain' in the form of land seized, slaves obtained, treasure taken, and prime examples are the Muscovite wars of conquest and expansion, China's seizure of Tibet and the removal of ethnic Tibetans and their replacement with ethnic Chinese. Or Stalin's mass removal of Cossacks, Tartars, Ukrainians and Georgians and their replacement with ethnic Russians - the source of much of the problem in the Eastern Ukraine today. As with any ideology, everything can be twisted by those who are clever at manipulating others (and humanity is full of those who never look beyond the exciting message, or the charismatic messenger). When it suited Hitler, he made a point of being photographed with clergy. Stalin ordered some hastily released Bishops and priests to bless banners and the troops heading for the suicidal battles of the 'Patriotic Front'.

Much is sometimes made of the fact that those on both sides of any conflict invoke the protection of God for their side, but this doesn't 'prove' anything other than our natural desire to hope that we will survive - or at least find a path to a 'better place' than the battlefield if we die there. As my grandfather once remarked, "there are no atheists in a shell hole when death is raining down on you".

Despite the atheist, humanist and secularist propaganda, the vast majority of wars are not 'caused by religion'. They are caused by ideological agendas, by human greed, envy, spite and the hope of gain. This is what motivated Argentina to invade the Falkland Islands, what drove the bush wars in Angola, Mozanbique, Vietnam and Korea. The desire for political advantage and power is what drives the various civil wars in Central Africa, in Syria and in Ukraine. These can only be called 'religious' if we are to declare political ideology to be a 'religion'. I suspect that will really cause a few wars.

Propaganda is a powerful tool, and it has been used against people of faith very effectively for the last hundred years or so. Sadly, even though the evidence against the charge that "religion is the cause of all wars in history" is right in front of the vast majority, they will still swallow the lie and not check the facts. A case, perhaps, of 'don't confuse me with facts; my mind is made up'. And that, my friends, is a very sad commentary on the state of western thinking, freedom and access to information. A very sad commentary indeed.

Cleansing of the Christians ...

Today the blog Archbishop Cranmer carries an article "Disremembering Syria". What it reveals is simply appalling. If you have the stomach for it, please read it there. There are some appalling graphic images on the post.

Could this happen in the UK or elsewhere in Europe? Perhaps, especially if we continue to kowtow to extremism.

Internet Trolls are Psychopaths?

A few days ago, some interesting research hit the news. Everyone who has used a 'discussion forum' online, or perhaps posts to a blog, even uses FaceBook to post 'updates' abot their activities, or reads the comments beneath articles in online newspapers, will have encountered at least one 'troll'. These people never debate or discuss anything. They resort to offensive smears, name calling and often extremely personal attacks on any and every topic, from religion, through climate change and politics. Even science threads are not completely free of them.

The Canadian research, which is comprehensive in its sample and extensive in the testing, has come up with an interesting conclusion. 'Trolls' are generally people who display Machiavellian manipulative traits; they enjoy causing offence and hurt; they enjoy causing fear (one acquaintance had an exchange with a Troll, who then stalked her across the internet, making personal threats. The Police were called and traced him. He turned out to be a 13 year old with the classic psychopath profile) through stalking and threats, and who have sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. This should concern us, because it is often these behaviours that make the running on a wide range of subjects and topics in todays world.

Just look at how the political debate between left and right ideologies seems to have become bogged down and dominated by epithets, offensive labels and name-calling. Look at the typical behaviours of those leading it. It seems to be particularly prevalent among many 'atheists' who troll religious debates and sites. The same has happened in the 'climate change' debate - it is the Trolls who make all the running and currently have the attention of policy makers and politicians. Why is 'cyber bullying' such a problem? Once again, it is those inclined to 'trolling' who are the lead offenders, and other studies over the years have suggested a strong link between 'bullying' and psychopathic and sadistic behaviours.

Among the classic indicators found by the researchers was 'desire to hurt' among many Trolls. These people actively take 'roles' in online games which give them the best opportunity to 'cause hurt' to other game characters, or 'kill' opponents. Another tendency is to regard animals and people as 'things', objects to be used, manipulated and abused. Again, classic psychopath behaviour. Once someone becomes an 'object' he or she is no longer considered to have any more value than would be given to, say, a stone or a window to be broken with it.

The online Independent carries a good report on the research here.  The full report is available (behind a paywall) at Science Central entitled "Trolls just want to have fun". Unfortunately, it does seem that their idea of fun is to cause as much distress and pain as possible to anyone who happens to come into contact through the internet or any other medium.

We should be worried by this, since it does tell us something important about the society we have blundered into creating. Perhaps it is also a call to run a few checks on the trolls - none of the traits they display can be termed 'healthy' for anyone, least of all themselves. The research raises some very interesting questions across a very wide spectrum of behaviours closely related to 'trolling', with big implications for a number of organisations who encourage it as a part of 'civil action' for their causes.

Religious Upheavals; Defenders of Faith, Defenders of Culture

An excellent article in the Telegraph Blog which I picked up through the Diocese of Gloucester FaceBook page, in which it was suggested that Christians in the UK could take lessons from Muslims in showing more readiness in defending their faith, got me thinking. (Always dangerous of course - thinking.) There have been several things lately that merit some careful thought - especially on this subject. One being the revelation that over 400 young British Muslims, born in the UK, raised in the UK and educated here, have joined Al Qaeda supporting or affiliated insurgency groups in the civil war in Syria. So have some 500 German Muslims, a similar number from France and a few hundred more from other European countries.

The unifying rallying cry is that they are 'defending Islam' from the 'forces of Satan'. In their eyes the Assad regime is apostate, undermining 'pure' Islam and this is a Holy War. The last time Christians were prepared to fight a war over differences in their theological, liturgical and authority positions was in the 17th Century, and for this we are very thankful. Islam, at present, is being torn between competing visions of what, exactly, 'true' Islam is. In many ways it mirrors the divisions of the 15th to 17th Century Christian struggles between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and will probably, eventually, have a similar outcome, but in the meantime, it promises to be bloodier and even more divisive than the Christian Reformation was.

Friends living in a number of Muslim governed countries have spoken of a sea change occuring in the attitudes of the young, pointing to the fact that many of these countries have a majority of their populations under the age of 30. Saudi Arabia (Kingdom of Saudi) is an excellent example. It is the nation that includes the holiest sites in the Islamic world. It is also Wahabi/Sunni and very 'conservative' in its governance. The 'Religious Police' have sweeping powers to maintain 'public decency' and 'religious order' and use them to enforce the letter of their interpretation of Sharia Law. But, Saudi Arabia is also in the position of having 52% of its population under the age of 25. The tensions are building as young women demand rights they are currently denied, and many young men openly defy authority demanding more freedom for themselves and their sisters. It isn't helped by the uncertainty of a regime on the point of change (the King is well into his 80s and some reports suggest he's comatose and on life support) and the Islamic 'scholars' led by the Mufti of Mecca determined to prevent any 'liberalisation' in their society. The problem they face is that a growing majority of young people in these countries are disaffected with the strictures of their faith, and more and more are paying 'lip service' only to stay out of trouble, while privately seeking ways to escape.

The west has already undergone an 'anti-religion' sea change, albeit a less violent one than that currently wracking many Islamic countries. Many younger people have turned away from Christianity, the main objection being the 'heirarchical' nature of churches and the refusal to accept any new thinking on many aspects our children find inconsistent with scientific findings and the realities of peoples' lives. This doesn't mean they don't 'believe' - they do, but in something far more nebulous, less structured and more, as they see it, in touch with where they are. So Humanism (modern version of the Pelagian heresy of the 3rd and 4th Centuries) and Atheism have become popular, alongside neo-Paganism, Wiccanism and a few others. One catalyst for all of this is the internet. Never before has it been so easy to access information and disinformation - and sadly, there is a vast amount of the latter about everything on the 'net'. And, as we all know, if its on the Net, it must be fact ...

The UK, until fairly recently, prided itself on having a Judeo-Christian Heritage and culture. Most of Europe (with the possible exception of France) sees itself in a very similar manner. Germany, it must be noted, has no doubt on that score and even more 'faith' holidays than the UK. While the UK leans toward the more Protestant end of the Christian spectrum, Germany and most of Europe lean toward the Roman Catholic or Orthodox traditions which are often more colourful - a legacy in the UK, perhaps, of the Puritanical attempts to expunge joy from worship. This has its parallels in Islam, with the more 'puritanical' sects attempting to restore what they believe are the 7th Century practices and interpretations of their faith, while others want to make it more 'open'.

As the Telegraph article points out, it has become, under the ideology of 'multi-culturalism' OK to denigrate any Christian society, culture or heritage, but if one dares to criticise anyone elses - take shelter. The hounds of Political Correctness, the Media and numerous 'minority rights' groups will be unleashed against you. Why is this? Why have we allowed ourselves to be marginalised in our own countries, our own societies - often by very small, but very vocal 'pressure groups'? To a very large extent this is exactly how the Nazis in Germany, and the Soviets in Russia silenced and controlled the majorities in their countries.

I have long said that I ask only that my culture and my faith is accorded the same respect I am asked to show anyone elses. If you denigrate mine, then how can you demand I respect yours? None of us live in a perfect society or a perfect world, and all attempts to impose any given 'vision' of a perfect society inevitably lead only to conflict. History is littered with the wreckage of such attempts by those seeking to gain power or to retain it - and the legacies of those attempts still fuel conflicts and divide us. I agree with the authoress of the article I have linked above. It is time to stop allowing everyone, from Islamic extremists, Humanists, Atheists, Political Activistas and the Media to denigrate, slander and destroy our heritage, our culture and our faith. I do not advocate taking up arms, or revolution. I do advocate ceasing to simply swallow the epithets and to stand up for ourselves

The Attorney-General has been forced to 'apologise' for stating something most people recognise as being grounded in fact. Corruption has many faces and forms, and it is endemic in almost every society. Perhaps he was unwise in his choice of example, there are many others he could have chosen. That fact that most of the corruption is just on the legal side of the law - by a split hair - does not mean, as those hurling abuse at him claim, mean it doesn't exist.

I agree with Christine Odone. It is time we stood up and were counted.



Footnote:

Cristina Odone is a journalist, novelist and broadcaster specialising in the relationship between society, families and faith. She is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and is a former editor of the Catholic Herald and deputy editor of the New Statesman. She is married and lives in west London with her husband, two stepsons and a daughter. Her new ebook No God Zone is now available on Kindle.