Recently I was sent a link to a series of photographs of children posed with their favourite toys by an Italian photographer who has gone round the world to photograph kids from different cultures in their 'home environment' posing with their toy of choice. The photos are beautiful, touching, possibly telling, but the comments that follow say a great deal more about our attitudes and our society. They range from a straight "these are beautiful" to a range of what are probably best described as 'political' comments.
One says -
Come on people, “Children From Around The World” and you couldn’t show ONE Black child living in a financially stable environment? Africa is a rich continent and there are a lot of Black millionaire families living in those countries, what’s up?!
The author of that comment obviously hasn't read the heading, which states that these are a 'sample.' While he is correct in saying that there are millionaire Black families in parts of Africa, they are very far from the lives and conditions of the vast majority of African families - so why not choose an image which shows something of the majority? Another commentator thinks that these images are the perfect example of why the US should give 'more Aid.' He then states that no one in the US lives in this sort of 'poverty' thanks to social engineering, a claim flatly denied by another commentator further down the list.
Other comments also focus on the social and political mores of our western society. Some can't see anyone being happy unless they are within walking distance of all the amenities we enjoy and take for granted. They probably have little understanding of what it cost our parents and grandparents to secure them for us. Some dive straight into the 'psychological' questions of how far a parent might have influenced a child's choices - as if this were something horrendous. Of course the parents influence the children, not least by giving them a 'role model' to aspire to emulate.
It strikes me that we all see different things when we look at images like these. I'll confess that I looked at them and could identify with the societies and the lifestyles of the parents. I've been in homes like the one from Kenya. In many parts of Africa, such a house is almost luxury, and the lives of those who live in them are hard, grinding and a struggle. It would be very wrong to pretend otherwise, but it isn't going to change either, no matter how much I give up or contribute to 'Aid.'
Very few of the commentators seem to be able to see the simplicity of the child, the child's desire to show off his or her most treasured toys and just accept them for what they are. Children invited to share a moment with an interested adult. OK, I will confess that my sympathy is moved by the child in the wattle and daub dwelling in Kenya.
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Friday, 22 March 2013
A Myth of Reason?
Recently I read an article that repeated one of those modern myths that seems to have gained traction in the minds of many. It states simply that all the wars in history have been 'caused' by religion. The author claimed that 'reason' as opposed to 'religious superstition' would have avoided, among others, the two world wars. According to those that push this line, every war is religious in origin. In a recent debate - if that is the right word - with someone from the atheist camp on this subject, I was reminded, yet again, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin a failed Russian Orthodox monk and Mao Tse Tung had followed Buddhism. "Proof" according to my interlocutor, that religion motivated them to commit the atrocities and excesses that led to millions of deaths.
Of course, he was right. Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic, Stalin was a novice in an Orthodox seminary, Mao was a follower of Confucionism rather than Buddhism and there are many more examples of truly horrendous psychopaths who followed a religious path. My challenge to my friend was to show me what part of the teachings of the religions of confessions concerned, taught these men (and there are one or two women as well) to do what they did. They may have been raised in these religions, but they did not practice what they were taught, nor did they live the life these religions encourage. Hitler famously told a questioner that, because he had been raised a Roman Catholic, he knew exactly how to twist them round his fingers, and Stalin certainly followed the same pattern. Having first closed churches all over Russia and the Soviet Union, he re-opened them when he needed to convince the populace that the war - which he'd helped Hitler precipitate - was a'righteous' one. Yes, these men certainly knew how to play the religious card, but not one of them actually practiced what the religions teach. Can Hitler or Stalin be called a "Christian"? I would argue that the answer to that is an emphatic no.
As the Bible says, "By their fruits you will know them."
That, of course led to an exposition of the Crusades as an example of how Christianity has "always" used war to spread its message. Yes, the Crusades were a "religious war", and they were a response to the invasions from the Arabian peninsula of the Islamic armies. The Middle East and North Africa were largely Christian when Mohammad's followers began their invasions against the Byzantine rulers of these areas. From roughly 700 AD to 1000 AD they overthrew and subjugated one province of the Byzantine Empire after another. Their renowned 'tolerance' is a chimera used today to 'prove' that the Christians were 'barbarous' and the Arabs 'enlightened.' The 'tolerance' was a token. You could hold to your Christian faith, but paid a premium tax, your land could be seized, your servants could be removed if they converted to Islam, since no 'Unbeliever' may hold a position over 'Believers' and even the recitation of the Christian Creed could lead to a charge of blasphemy. Belatedly Western Christians decided to act - but, because the East didn't acknowledge the claims of the Pope to sole headship of the Church, Catholic and Apostolic, tried to act alone. Yes, this was a war of 'spreading the word' and like most such ungodly acts, it failed disasterously.
So what of the rest of the wars since the Crusades? Was the American War of Independence religiously inspired? Was the French Revolution? The Napoleonic Wars? The Franco-Prussian war? The Anglo-Boer Wars? What about Queen Victoria's 'Little Wars' to suppress the slave trade, promote the sale of heroine to China or the Boxer Rebellion? What, indeed, of the American Civil War? I was somewhat astonished by the assertion that 'religion played a key part in all of them.' Really? Naturally I asked for an explanation, since my understanding of the history of all these conflicts is obviously in some way flawed.
I understood that the American colonists rebelled over the stupidity of the British administration's insistence on the shipping back to Britain of all raw materials and the purchase of the finished goods by the colonists from British manufacturies. Few know that there were laws forbidding the colonists from making their own tools, or processing the cotton and tobacco they produced. There was no 'religious' motivation on the British side, it was all about vested interests and profit. Likewise the French Revolution, the motivation was not religious - unless one can count the atheist leaders of it as 'religious' - but about the abuses of the ruling class and the desire for more freedom and a fairer society. Ironically the roots of the Revolutionary ideals lay in the American War of Independence and the ideas brought back by French troops sent to aid the Americans against the British. The French involvement there was certainly not 'religious' - it was pure commercial advantage they were after.
The Revolution (like the Russian one a century or so later) quickly descended into a bloodbath. Napoleon rose to power as a result of it, and famously snatched the crown from the Pope's hands placing it on his own head. Was he 'religious' or motivated by 'religion'? I suspect Napoleon would regard you with astonishment of you suggested it. Like most wars, it was about trade and wealth from there on. Control access to markets and you control trade, control trade and, as they say, the world is your oyster.
The Crimean War was fought to prevent the Russian expansion - which threatened British and French trade interests in the Middle and Far East, so no 'religious' overtones there. The Franco-Prussian War was about who dominated Europe, France or Prussia. Even the British Civil War, though there was a 'religious' cloak to it, was really about who wielded power over the land, the King or Parliament, the political class or the nobility. Yes, the religion certainly provided the protaganists with plenty of "justification" for their un-Christian activities, but to claim that the war was 'caused' by religion is ridiculous.
I will concede that religion often plays a part in any conflict, but to make a sweeping statement that it 'causes' wars is silly. Most wars are about power, wealth, territory or political ideology. The two Anglo-Boer Wars were about territory and access to the wealth of the Gold Reef, nothing more. The 'little' wars in Africa and one or two other places, were also about access to raw materials, markets for finished goods or power. What part did religion play in the First or Second World War I asked. "Ah! Declared my friend, both sides told everyone 'God was on their side.'" He went on to remind me that the German Wehrmacht troops had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. So they did, but what did he expect? This was a hangover from the days of the Kaisers.
The churches in any nation are there to provide comfort and support to those in need, the poor, the downtrodden and the bereaved. As the Stalinist period showed, if they fall foul of the regime and are closed - they cannot do what the Gospel tells us is their function. What, I asked him, did he think of the fact that many priests, ministers and ordinary people defied the regime - some, like Bonhoeffer - paying the ultimate price for their efforts.
Digging deeper into the history of Europe, one could point to the Thirty Years War or even the Hundred Years War. What was the 'religious' motivation for these? In short, once again, when examined closely both were about who held what territory and wielded what power - religion was, once again, a cloak for a deeper political agenda.
I find, having looked closely at the facts, religion is often invoked as a cloak for some ideological ambition on the part of some ruler or another. Almost all of the wars of the Twentieth Century have no religious aspect to them (the exception is the Islam versus everybody campaign against Israel and the Christian West). The two world wars, the cold war and all the little 'hot' wars within that, were straight up ideology. So, unless political ideology has now been elevated to a formal 'religion' the statement that religion alone 'causes' wars is patently and manifestly a falsehood.
Of course, he was right. Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic, Stalin was a novice in an Orthodox seminary, Mao was a follower of Confucionism rather than Buddhism and there are many more examples of truly horrendous psychopaths who followed a religious path. My challenge to my friend was to show me what part of the teachings of the religions of confessions concerned, taught these men (and there are one or two women as well) to do what they did. They may have been raised in these religions, but they did not practice what they were taught, nor did they live the life these religions encourage. Hitler famously told a questioner that, because he had been raised a Roman Catholic, he knew exactly how to twist them round his fingers, and Stalin certainly followed the same pattern. Having first closed churches all over Russia and the Soviet Union, he re-opened them when he needed to convince the populace that the war - which he'd helped Hitler precipitate - was a'righteous' one. Yes, these men certainly knew how to play the religious card, but not one of them actually practiced what the religions teach. Can Hitler or Stalin be called a "Christian"? I would argue that the answer to that is an emphatic no.
As the Bible says, "By their fruits you will know them."
That, of course led to an exposition of the Crusades as an example of how Christianity has "always" used war to spread its message. Yes, the Crusades were a "religious war", and they were a response to the invasions from the Arabian peninsula of the Islamic armies. The Middle East and North Africa were largely Christian when Mohammad's followers began their invasions against the Byzantine rulers of these areas. From roughly 700 AD to 1000 AD they overthrew and subjugated one province of the Byzantine Empire after another. Their renowned 'tolerance' is a chimera used today to 'prove' that the Christians were 'barbarous' and the Arabs 'enlightened.' The 'tolerance' was a token. You could hold to your Christian faith, but paid a premium tax, your land could be seized, your servants could be removed if they converted to Islam, since no 'Unbeliever' may hold a position over 'Believers' and even the recitation of the Christian Creed could lead to a charge of blasphemy. Belatedly Western Christians decided to act - but, because the East didn't acknowledge the claims of the Pope to sole headship of the Church, Catholic and Apostolic, tried to act alone. Yes, this was a war of 'spreading the word' and like most such ungodly acts, it failed disasterously.
So what of the rest of the wars since the Crusades? Was the American War of Independence religiously inspired? Was the French Revolution? The Napoleonic Wars? The Franco-Prussian war? The Anglo-Boer Wars? What about Queen Victoria's 'Little Wars' to suppress the slave trade, promote the sale of heroine to China or the Boxer Rebellion? What, indeed, of the American Civil War? I was somewhat astonished by the assertion that 'religion played a key part in all of them.' Really? Naturally I asked for an explanation, since my understanding of the history of all these conflicts is obviously in some way flawed.
I understood that the American colonists rebelled over the stupidity of the British administration's insistence on the shipping back to Britain of all raw materials and the purchase of the finished goods by the colonists from British manufacturies. Few know that there were laws forbidding the colonists from making their own tools, or processing the cotton and tobacco they produced. There was no 'religious' motivation on the British side, it was all about vested interests and profit. Likewise the French Revolution, the motivation was not religious - unless one can count the atheist leaders of it as 'religious' - but about the abuses of the ruling class and the desire for more freedom and a fairer society. Ironically the roots of the Revolutionary ideals lay in the American War of Independence and the ideas brought back by French troops sent to aid the Americans against the British. The French involvement there was certainly not 'religious' - it was pure commercial advantage they were after.
The Revolution (like the Russian one a century or so later) quickly descended into a bloodbath. Napoleon rose to power as a result of it, and famously snatched the crown from the Pope's hands placing it on his own head. Was he 'religious' or motivated by 'religion'? I suspect Napoleon would regard you with astonishment of you suggested it. Like most wars, it was about trade and wealth from there on. Control access to markets and you control trade, control trade and, as they say, the world is your oyster.
The Crimean War was fought to prevent the Russian expansion - which threatened British and French trade interests in the Middle and Far East, so no 'religious' overtones there. The Franco-Prussian War was about who dominated Europe, France or Prussia. Even the British Civil War, though there was a 'religious' cloak to it, was really about who wielded power over the land, the King or Parliament, the political class or the nobility. Yes, the religion certainly provided the protaganists with plenty of "justification" for their un-Christian activities, but to claim that the war was 'caused' by religion is ridiculous.
I will concede that religion often plays a part in any conflict, but to make a sweeping statement that it 'causes' wars is silly. Most wars are about power, wealth, territory or political ideology. The two Anglo-Boer Wars were about territory and access to the wealth of the Gold Reef, nothing more. The 'little' wars in Africa and one or two other places, were also about access to raw materials, markets for finished goods or power. What part did religion play in the First or Second World War I asked. "Ah! Declared my friend, both sides told everyone 'God was on their side.'" He went on to remind me that the German Wehrmacht troops had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. So they did, but what did he expect? This was a hangover from the days of the Kaisers.
The churches in any nation are there to provide comfort and support to those in need, the poor, the downtrodden and the bereaved. As the Stalinist period showed, if they fall foul of the regime and are closed - they cannot do what the Gospel tells us is their function. What, I asked him, did he think of the fact that many priests, ministers and ordinary people defied the regime - some, like Bonhoeffer - paying the ultimate price for their efforts.
Digging deeper into the history of Europe, one could point to the Thirty Years War or even the Hundred Years War. What was the 'religious' motivation for these? In short, once again, when examined closely both were about who held what territory and wielded what power - religion was, once again, a cloak for a deeper political agenda.
I find, having looked closely at the facts, religion is often invoked as a cloak for some ideological ambition on the part of some ruler or another. Almost all of the wars of the Twentieth Century have no religious aspect to them (the exception is the Islam versus everybody campaign against Israel and the Christian West). The two world wars, the cold war and all the little 'hot' wars within that, were straight up ideology. So, unless political ideology has now been elevated to a formal 'religion' the statement that religion alone 'causes' wars is patently and manifestly a falsehood.
Thursday, 21 March 2013
God Bless the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
The new Archbishop of Canterbury, the 105th to hold the title since Augustin arrived in England (it is reported, reluctantly), was enthroned today in his cathedral. It is always a double 'enthronement' as he both the Diocesan Bishop of the See of Canterbury and the Head of the Province of Canterbury which includes all the diocese of what, in Roman times, would have been Britannia Prime and part of Secunda (Which stretched from the Thames up the East Coast). In addition, he is the "Primus inter Pares" of the Anglican Communion, a position the Media and many individuals always seem to confuse with the Papal position in Rome. It is not, he has no overriding authority over any of the Provincial Primates or their Synods. Nor does he have the power to override any resolution made by any Diocesan Bishop and his Synod. All he may do is offer an opinion or advice.
Archbishop Justin Welby brings a number of skills to the position that we have not seen in many of his predecessors. One major difference between him and almost all of them, is that he comes with experience in the highest corridors of commerce and industry. He will need these and his mediation skills in his new role. It is to be hoped that he will have the support of the laity and the clergy of all factions within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. He comes from the more Protestant wing of the Church, but one should not make the mistake of thinking he does not value and appreciate the more Catholic traditions, he most certainly does.
His enthronement was not the massively glitzy affair which saw the new Pope installed in Rome, but it is no less important for all that. From what I have been able to see of it, it had its moments of quiet dignity, some glorious music and its moments of spirituality. I would dare to suggest that it was a good start to this Archbishop's primacy. He faces some difficult matters, not least the now entrenched belittling and antipathy to anything to do with Christianity and the Church of England in particular in Parliament and the Media. He must find ways to make the Christian message audible, acceptable and inclusive in the face of all the negative arguments advanced by the vociferous atheist, humanist and secularist lobbies. He must find ways of encouraging people to join congregations and take active roles in worship and find a way to reverse the negative impact of the secularist 'open for business 24/7' which means that many families never have the same days off together or spend time together.
Among his 104 predecessors there are several martyrs, ++Thomas Beckett, the only Archbishop or bishop to be murdered in his own cathedral, ++Lanfranc, murdered by a mob in the Tower of London, ++Thomas Cranmer, the author of much of the Book of Common Prayer, murdered by Queen Mary I by being burned at the stake in Oxford, and several others deprived of the 'Living' or imprisoned after falling foul of the ruler of the day. It is a position with enormous political as well as spiritual demands upon the incumbent and there will be many among the Media pack eagerly watching for anything they may use to drag him down, just as they did with ++Rowan, the 104th Archbishop. Sadly, there will also be those among both the Laity and the clergy of the CofE who will find endless fault with his actions, advice and decisions. One can but hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will uphold, uplift and inspire him at every turn.
I shall be praying for the success of his ministry.
Archbishop Justin Welby brings a number of skills to the position that we have not seen in many of his predecessors. One major difference between him and almost all of them, is that he comes with experience in the highest corridors of commerce and industry. He will need these and his mediation skills in his new role. It is to be hoped that he will have the support of the laity and the clergy of all factions within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. He comes from the more Protestant wing of the Church, but one should not make the mistake of thinking he does not value and appreciate the more Catholic traditions, he most certainly does.
His enthronement was not the massively glitzy affair which saw the new Pope installed in Rome, but it is no less important for all that. From what I have been able to see of it, it had its moments of quiet dignity, some glorious music and its moments of spirituality. I would dare to suggest that it was a good start to this Archbishop's primacy. He faces some difficult matters, not least the now entrenched belittling and antipathy to anything to do with Christianity and the Church of England in particular in Parliament and the Media. He must find ways to make the Christian message audible, acceptable and inclusive in the face of all the negative arguments advanced by the vociferous atheist, humanist and secularist lobbies. He must find ways of encouraging people to join congregations and take active roles in worship and find a way to reverse the negative impact of the secularist 'open for business 24/7' which means that many families never have the same days off together or spend time together.
Among his 104 predecessors there are several martyrs, ++Thomas Beckett, the only Archbishop or bishop to be murdered in his own cathedral, ++Lanfranc, murdered by a mob in the Tower of London, ++Thomas Cranmer, the author of much of the Book of Common Prayer, murdered by Queen Mary I by being burned at the stake in Oxford, and several others deprived of the 'Living' or imprisoned after falling foul of the ruler of the day. It is a position with enormous political as well as spiritual demands upon the incumbent and there will be many among the Media pack eagerly watching for anything they may use to drag him down, just as they did with ++Rowan, the 104th Archbishop. Sadly, there will also be those among both the Laity and the clergy of the CofE who will find endless fault with his actions, advice and decisions. One can but hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will uphold, uplift and inspire him at every turn.
I shall be praying for the success of his ministry.
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Crime, criminal actions and responsibility ...
Crime has been with us almost as long as we have lived in 'societies' and made 'rules' about what is, and is not, acceptable behaviour toward it each other. That is, in part, the message of the allegorical story of Cain and Abel in the Book of Genesis. There are, of course, two types of 'rules' - those that are based on our 'moral codes' of behaviour, and those that are less easily identified as having that 'moral' link and are more concerned with the protection of property. Generally, those that steal are more easily identified as 'criminals' while those who commit offences in the other group of 'rules' can be seen in a different light.
Many 'legal' systems, which is what our 'moral' codes have become, focus on the offender and often ignore or even exclude, the victim. There are some who argue that this, by removing the emotional suffering of the victim, ensures that Justice remains 'blind' and is truly served. I confess that I have some serious doubts on that score, and a recent case in the US strengthens it. The real problem with crime of any sort is how our society often condones it. This was brought home to me reading a post by Henry Rollins on the blog Under the Gun Review. His comments on the Steubenville Rape Case are extremely thought provoking.
The case on which he comments highlights a number of difficult areas in our society, not least that of 'responsibility.' In the Steubenville case the offenders were 'American Football Stars' in their High School team and so there were massive attempts to 'cover up' the crime. The girl concerned was drunk, according to some sources, 'reveallingly attired' and certainly the Defendents legal team tried to shift the blame onto her. The alarming thing about this case is that it took place in the presence of witnesses and was videoed, the video being posted online - which is what eventually forced the authorities to take action. More alarmingly, this is not a unique case, there are a number of other similar cases on record.
That raises a number of questions. Why did no one act? Why did no one attempt to stop the crime? Why were the police not immediately informed of a 'crime in progress' if no one felt able to stand up to the attackers?
One thing is clear, there are a substantial number of those involved who feel that the victim 'deserved what she got' or was somehow to blame for what happened to her. Perhaps her being drunk, and her 'revealing attire' did suggest she might 'want' to be raped - but then we have to ask why her friends didn't intervene either.
To a very large extent, this is a result of the manner in which our society has become 'individualised.' There again, we seem to have a degree of schizophrenia. When anything good is happening, it is 'our efforts,' but, as soon as it goes bad - its 'the government.' We demand absolute 'freedom' in everything, but then ask why, when someone gets hurt, the 'government' didn't prevent it. Parents divorce themselves from responsibility for the activities minor children get involved in. Many feel unable to impose discipline on their children because they fear any such attempt will lead to intervention by the Social Workers or the likes of the SPCC and other 'child' protection agencies. Others just couldn't be bothered, some in this group even take pride in the way their kids flout every law.
So who is to 'blame' in such cases? One school of thought see the offender as a 'victim of society.' They blame 'society' for 'letting down the offender,' the usual excuses beig poverty, disadvantage, educational difficulties, and so on. It is never, ever, the 'fault' of the offender. The comments on the article by Rollins make interesting reading and there as well, the 'victim is the offender because they invited it' mentality is at it again. There is a clear divide in opinions there, many want draconian punishment imposed on the offenders (both under 18), others feel the victim (also well under age) 'deserves' what happened and some feel that the offenders stand as scape goats for a wider group. I suspect I am partly in this third group.
As I write at the outset, why did these boys think what they did was even marginally acceptable? Why did those around them not intervene? Why did the parents, teachers and everyone else involved not raise objections to the cover up and then the vilification of the victim?
This is very much the mindset that allows vicious cyber bullying which leads to teenage suicide rates that are alarming. This is the mindset that allows gangs to ruin the lives of entire communities and it is the mindset that stands idly by while victims are punished and criminals laugh all the way to the next crime and the bank.
I believe those who are keen to 'reform' the Justice system actually need to adjust their vision and stop looking at 'improving' the jails, but at the root of the problem. We are now a society where there are no moral compasses for a significant slice of the population. There is no parental authority, no parental guidance and the emphasis on individualism and 'rights' has undermined all 'moral' authority. That has not been helped by the collapse in trust of all 'authority' figures, from religious leaders and politicians downward.
In the famous words from the Appollo mission that suffered a metoerite strike to its Oxygen tanks; "Houston, we have a problem." Like that mission, we have a problem that is going to require some very difficult decisions, some very tough solutions and a lot of pain and hardship to correct. And we'll either address it, or we will have to accept the failure of our society and live behind locked and barred doors afraid to venture out or to let our children go out.
The choice is ours - and sadly we put it off at our peril.
Many 'legal' systems, which is what our 'moral' codes have become, focus on the offender and often ignore or even exclude, the victim. There are some who argue that this, by removing the emotional suffering of the victim, ensures that Justice remains 'blind' and is truly served. I confess that I have some serious doubts on that score, and a recent case in the US strengthens it. The real problem with crime of any sort is how our society often condones it. This was brought home to me reading a post by Henry Rollins on the blog Under the Gun Review. His comments on the Steubenville Rape Case are extremely thought provoking.
The case on which he comments highlights a number of difficult areas in our society, not least that of 'responsibility.' In the Steubenville case the offenders were 'American Football Stars' in their High School team and so there were massive attempts to 'cover up' the crime. The girl concerned was drunk, according to some sources, 'reveallingly attired' and certainly the Defendents legal team tried to shift the blame onto her. The alarming thing about this case is that it took place in the presence of witnesses and was videoed, the video being posted online - which is what eventually forced the authorities to take action. More alarmingly, this is not a unique case, there are a number of other similar cases on record.
That raises a number of questions. Why did no one act? Why did no one attempt to stop the crime? Why were the police not immediately informed of a 'crime in progress' if no one felt able to stand up to the attackers?
One thing is clear, there are a substantial number of those involved who feel that the victim 'deserved what she got' or was somehow to blame for what happened to her. Perhaps her being drunk, and her 'revealing attire' did suggest she might 'want' to be raped - but then we have to ask why her friends didn't intervene either.
To a very large extent, this is a result of the manner in which our society has become 'individualised.' There again, we seem to have a degree of schizophrenia. When anything good is happening, it is 'our efforts,' but, as soon as it goes bad - its 'the government.' We demand absolute 'freedom' in everything, but then ask why, when someone gets hurt, the 'government' didn't prevent it. Parents divorce themselves from responsibility for the activities minor children get involved in. Many feel unable to impose discipline on their children because they fear any such attempt will lead to intervention by the Social Workers or the likes of the SPCC and other 'child' protection agencies. Others just couldn't be bothered, some in this group even take pride in the way their kids flout every law.
So who is to 'blame' in such cases? One school of thought see the offender as a 'victim of society.' They blame 'society' for 'letting down the offender,' the usual excuses beig poverty, disadvantage, educational difficulties, and so on. It is never, ever, the 'fault' of the offender. The comments on the article by Rollins make interesting reading and there as well, the 'victim is the offender because they invited it' mentality is at it again. There is a clear divide in opinions there, many want draconian punishment imposed on the offenders (both under 18), others feel the victim (also well under age) 'deserves' what happened and some feel that the offenders stand as scape goats for a wider group. I suspect I am partly in this third group.
As I write at the outset, why did these boys think what they did was even marginally acceptable? Why did those around them not intervene? Why did the parents, teachers and everyone else involved not raise objections to the cover up and then the vilification of the victim?
This is very much the mindset that allows vicious cyber bullying which leads to teenage suicide rates that are alarming. This is the mindset that allows gangs to ruin the lives of entire communities and it is the mindset that stands idly by while victims are punished and criminals laugh all the way to the next crime and the bank.
I believe those who are keen to 'reform' the Justice system actually need to adjust their vision and stop looking at 'improving' the jails, but at the root of the problem. We are now a society where there are no moral compasses for a significant slice of the population. There is no parental authority, no parental guidance and the emphasis on individualism and 'rights' has undermined all 'moral' authority. That has not been helped by the collapse in trust of all 'authority' figures, from religious leaders and politicians downward.
In the famous words from the Appollo mission that suffered a metoerite strike to its Oxygen tanks; "Houston, we have a problem." Like that mission, we have a problem that is going to require some very difficult decisions, some very tough solutions and a lot of pain and hardship to correct. And we'll either address it, or we will have to accept the failure of our society and live behind locked and barred doors afraid to venture out or to let our children go out.
The choice is ours - and sadly we put it off at our peril.
Monday, 18 March 2013
Mutualisation? What is that?
I note with interest and frustration that the government has issued a "rebuttal" of the story that they were planing to "privatise" the Fire and Rescue Services. The Minister is at great pains to make clear that "mutualisation" is NOT "privatisation." The question is, what is "mutualisation?"
My dictionary suggest that the word 'mutual' means, inter alia -
1. Having the same relationship each to the other,
2. Directed and recieved in equal amount, or
3. Possessed in common.
The English root of the word is from the French "mutuel" which comes from the Latin "mutuus" which meant exchanged, reciprocal or mutual.
Essentially it appears the Minister and his Civil Servant advisers wish to turn the Fire and Rescue Services into some form of "Co-operative" enterprise which is what, as my dictionary informs me is the meaning of the verb "to mutualise." Now, to me, a "co-operative" suggests that there are at least two "partners" in this venture, and possibly more. So now arises the question; who would be a party to this "co-operative" partnership?
Reading the Ministerial "rebuttal" one learns that the Whitehall idea is supposed to give 'control' of the service to the 'front-line experts' and to 'free' them from 'bureaucracy.' I'd love to see that, but I suspect what it will mean in reality is that there will be endless 'rules' issued by Whitehall in one guise or another and that there will be no 'savings' in Whitehall, but a severe reduction in funding to the service on the grounds that it must be 'locally funded and supported.'
It seems that what Whitehall has in mind is that the Fire and Rescue Services will take full control of their own management and 'contract' their services to the Fire and Rescue Authority under the provisions of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Effectively the Chief Fire Officer and his staff will become "owners" of the local Fire and Rescue Service, saddled with 'leasing' their stations from the FRA and their appliances, fire equipment and uniforms from the contractor currently supplying these under contract to the FRA. Again, the Whitehall idea seems to be that the current staff, the Trade Union and the FRA will form a "mutual" to deliver the Service.
Frankly, I think this is someone in Cloud Cuckoo Land dreaming of Pie in the Sky. Frankly they may be taking some chemical substance as well.
A careful reading of the relevant Article in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 says that the FRA has three options for "delivering a fire and rescue service." It can do it itself, it can join forces with another FRA and do it jointly, or it can "contract" someone to do it for them, provided the contractor employs "fire fighters." So, if an existing Fire and Rescue Service becomes a "mutual" with a contract to supply its services to the Fire and Rescue Authority in its area - and the FRA chooses NOT to be a party to the "mutual" - there is no obligation to continue contracting the service from the "mutual" owned by its former staff. (See Article 15 Arrangements with other employers of firefighters, and 16 Arrangements for discharge of functions by others.)
I can see a situation arising under the current Treasury Rules to show "value for money" in every contracted service, where a FRA may decide that awarding the contract to supply its FRS may be better "value for money" if it awarded it to - say - Serco.
Frankly this looks like one of those Whitehall schemes dreamed up to "save" money which will end up costing jobs, far more money than it "saves" and frankly feathering the nests in Whitehall and Westminster. It will be unlikely to provide any improvement to anyone outside of the small and utterly inward looking community that calls itself the Central Government under any political dispensation.
Whatever the Minister thinks may be the benefits of "mutualisation", the most likely outcome is exactly what he says it won't be. Privatisation.
My dictionary suggest that the word 'mutual' means, inter alia -
1. Having the same relationship each to the other,
2. Directed and recieved in equal amount, or
3. Possessed in common.
The English root of the word is from the French "mutuel" which comes from the Latin "mutuus" which meant exchanged, reciprocal or mutual.
Essentially it appears the Minister and his Civil Servant advisers wish to turn the Fire and Rescue Services into some form of "Co-operative" enterprise which is what, as my dictionary informs me is the meaning of the verb "to mutualise." Now, to me, a "co-operative" suggests that there are at least two "partners" in this venture, and possibly more. So now arises the question; who would be a party to this "co-operative" partnership?
Reading the Ministerial "rebuttal" one learns that the Whitehall idea is supposed to give 'control' of the service to the 'front-line experts' and to 'free' them from 'bureaucracy.' I'd love to see that, but I suspect what it will mean in reality is that there will be endless 'rules' issued by Whitehall in one guise or another and that there will be no 'savings' in Whitehall, but a severe reduction in funding to the service on the grounds that it must be 'locally funded and supported.'
It seems that what Whitehall has in mind is that the Fire and Rescue Services will take full control of their own management and 'contract' their services to the Fire and Rescue Authority under the provisions of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Effectively the Chief Fire Officer and his staff will become "owners" of the local Fire and Rescue Service, saddled with 'leasing' their stations from the FRA and their appliances, fire equipment and uniforms from the contractor currently supplying these under contract to the FRA. Again, the Whitehall idea seems to be that the current staff, the Trade Union and the FRA will form a "mutual" to deliver the Service.
Frankly, I think this is someone in Cloud Cuckoo Land dreaming of Pie in the Sky. Frankly they may be taking some chemical substance as well.
A careful reading of the relevant Article in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 says that the FRA has three options for "delivering a fire and rescue service." It can do it itself, it can join forces with another FRA and do it jointly, or it can "contract" someone to do it for them, provided the contractor employs "fire fighters." So, if an existing Fire and Rescue Service becomes a "mutual" with a contract to supply its services to the Fire and Rescue Authority in its area - and the FRA chooses NOT to be a party to the "mutual" - there is no obligation to continue contracting the service from the "mutual" owned by its former staff. (See Article 15 Arrangements with other employers of firefighters, and 16 Arrangements for discharge of functions by others.)
I can see a situation arising under the current Treasury Rules to show "value for money" in every contracted service, where a FRA may decide that awarding the contract to supply its FRS may be better "value for money" if it awarded it to - say - Serco.
Frankly this looks like one of those Whitehall schemes dreamed up to "save" money which will end up costing jobs, far more money than it "saves" and frankly feathering the nests in Whitehall and Westminster. It will be unlikely to provide any improvement to anyone outside of the small and utterly inward looking community that calls itself the Central Government under any political dispensation.
Whatever the Minister thinks may be the benefits of "mutualisation", the most likely outcome is exactly what he says it won't be. Privatisation.
Sunday, 17 March 2013
Passiontide ...
Today is Passion Sunday, but it is also the anniversary of the death of St Patrick. As I have no doubt the church services will focus on the Passion, I will break with the normal and focus on the Saint. Yes, I am wearing a green shirt, but I will not be swilling green beer or any other 'token' to mark the occasion. In his memory I offer instead this version of St Patrick's Breastplate, also known as the 'Lorica.' It sums up the faith I hold and the faith he taught. Originally written in Latin, it may well be based on his own writing, it certainly fits with his known writing style.
The English version I give here comes from the New English Hymnal and is the work of the poetess and hymn writer Mrs Cecil Frances Alexander (1818 - 1895). It was set to music by Sir Charles Villiers Stanford, who used two traditional Irish tunes for it.
The English version I give here comes from the New English Hymnal and is the work of the poetess and hymn writer Mrs Cecil Frances Alexander (1818 - 1895). It was set to music by Sir Charles Villiers Stanford, who used two traditional Irish tunes for it.
I bind unto myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.
I bind this today to me forever
By power of faith,
Christ's incarnation;
His baptism in Jordan river,
His death on Cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spiced tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom
I bind unto myself today.
I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of cherubim;
The sweet 'Well done' in judgment hour,
The service of the seraphim,
Confessors' faith, Apostles' word,
The Patriarchs' prayers, the prophets' scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord
And purity of virgin souls.
I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the star lit heaven,
The glorious sun's life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind's tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea
Around the old eternal rocks.
I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide,
His shield to ward;
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.
Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility
I bind to me these holy powers.
Against all Satan's spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart's idolatry,
Against the wizard's evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.
Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me.
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.
I bind unto myself the Name,
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.
By Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord.
Friday, 15 March 2013
A New Pope - What can we hope to see?
My post of yesterday may well be seen by some as very negative, and perhaps it is. Having considered carefully and read the excellent article posted by Archbishop Cranmer, I am prepared to say that I hope Francis I will be able to bring some much needed change to the Vatican. The Archbishops article is entitled What Pope Francis might mean for the Church of England. It is worth reading.
My overriding impression of the Roman Catholic Church is that it is still a very 'feudal' heirarchy. The Pope/Emperor presides over the Provincial Cardinal/Princes and rules through the Curia, all power resides in the hands of the clergy, with the laity having little or no say in anything. Indeed, one sometimes has the impression that the laity are regarded in much the same way as peasants and serfs by the 'princes' of the Church - to be patronised, disciplined and corrected when they dare to question anything.
It is that, more than anything else, which has led to the abuse scandals that have all but destroyed the message of the Gospel for all of Christianity, not just for Rome.
The new Pope is said to be "anti-clerical" and pro-ecumenism. The Anglican Bishop of Buenos Aires (yes, there is one) has written a glowing account of his relationship with the former Archbishop, and it does seem that there is some hope of a greater rapproachment. He is also said to take a different view to his predecessor o the subject of such things as the Sacraments, which may mean a more open approach in a very wide range of matters the last two Popes have blocked. We can but hope.
Following the news here in Germany, and listening to those who want to see reforms, reading articles by prominent Roman Catholic laymen and women, I would list the following as matters Rome really does need to address -
1. Drop the claims to "infallibility" and to being the sole possessor of Apostolic Authority as 'Vicar of Christ' (the title was first used in about 600 AD and did not become 'permanent' until the 1200s),
2. Recognise the validity of the ordination of those confessions which still hold to the Orders set up by the Apostles,
3. Accept the validity of other Christian confessions and cease to demand that the only acceptable form of "Christian Unity" is the submission to the authority of Rome,
4. Move back toward the Synodical governance of the Church as practiced in the Early Church, and
5. Open the discussion on the ordination of women, and
6. Put an end to exclusion, opening the churches sacraments to all and adopting an "inclusive" stance to embrace ALL believers, not just those of their own profession.
The first item on my list is, perhaps, the key to the others. The doctrine of "infallibity" is of very recent date, and, contrary to popular belief it is not about the Pope being infallible in everything, it applies only to matters issued "ex cathedra" by him and the Curia. Even so, it is unacceptable to most non-Roman Catholics. In similar vein, the claims of primacy over all Christians rests on one text in Mark, a similar passage in the other Gospels makes clear the "authority" is shared by all the Apostles and it can even be argued that it includes all believers. The earliest Pope to claim this exclusive authority arose in the 500s, but the attempt to enforce it in the 900s led to the split between the Roman Catholic "west" and the Orthodox East. Stepping away from this claim of superiority opens the door to a number of he other items on my list.
History shows that Rome was regarded, by the early church, in the same manner as the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Church, as a "Primus inter pares" or "First among equals." Adopting that status again opens the door to much more inclusivity than exists at present between Rome and all the other branches of Christianity.
Why do I bother myself with these matters when, as many of my readers will know, I am an Anglican? Put simply, it is because I do believe that Christians must seek to unite in their faith, if not in the manner of their worship or even in the "orders" of their ministry. I do believe that it is imperative we unite around how we understand and read the Bible, that we share the sacraments and that we adopt Christ's own approach to those seeking understanding - in short, that we welcome and include everyone. That we include even those we do not like, or with whom we 'have a problem.' God's mercy and grace is far, far wider than anything we can know or understand - but we are required by the Gospel to embrace it.
Throughout my own ministry I have prayed for the "unity of the church" and I have always understood that to embrace ALL Christians. But it cannot happen until we are all able to share the Eucharist in all its forms and that cannot happen as long as Rome excludes everyone who cannot accept the claim of Papal Supremacy. I will continue to pray for that 'unity,' though I fear I may never actually see it.
I hope, and pray, that the new Bishop of Rome, Francis I, will surprise me.
My overriding impression of the Roman Catholic Church is that it is still a very 'feudal' heirarchy. The Pope/Emperor presides over the Provincial Cardinal/Princes and rules through the Curia, all power resides in the hands of the clergy, with the laity having little or no say in anything. Indeed, one sometimes has the impression that the laity are regarded in much the same way as peasants and serfs by the 'princes' of the Church - to be patronised, disciplined and corrected when they dare to question anything.
It is that, more than anything else, which has led to the abuse scandals that have all but destroyed the message of the Gospel for all of Christianity, not just for Rome.
The new Pope is said to be "anti-clerical" and pro-ecumenism. The Anglican Bishop of Buenos Aires (yes, there is one) has written a glowing account of his relationship with the former Archbishop, and it does seem that there is some hope of a greater rapproachment. He is also said to take a different view to his predecessor o the subject of such things as the Sacraments, which may mean a more open approach in a very wide range of matters the last two Popes have blocked. We can but hope.
Following the news here in Germany, and listening to those who want to see reforms, reading articles by prominent Roman Catholic laymen and women, I would list the following as matters Rome really does need to address -
1. Drop the claims to "infallibility" and to being the sole possessor of Apostolic Authority as 'Vicar of Christ' (the title was first used in about 600 AD and did not become 'permanent' until the 1200s),
2. Recognise the validity of the ordination of those confessions which still hold to the Orders set up by the Apostles,
3. Accept the validity of other Christian confessions and cease to demand that the only acceptable form of "Christian Unity" is the submission to the authority of Rome,
4. Move back toward the Synodical governance of the Church as practiced in the Early Church, and
5. Open the discussion on the ordination of women, and
6. Put an end to exclusion, opening the churches sacraments to all and adopting an "inclusive" stance to embrace ALL believers, not just those of their own profession.
The first item on my list is, perhaps, the key to the others. The doctrine of "infallibity" is of very recent date, and, contrary to popular belief it is not about the Pope being infallible in everything, it applies only to matters issued "ex cathedra" by him and the Curia. Even so, it is unacceptable to most non-Roman Catholics. In similar vein, the claims of primacy over all Christians rests on one text in Mark, a similar passage in the other Gospels makes clear the "authority" is shared by all the Apostles and it can even be argued that it includes all believers. The earliest Pope to claim this exclusive authority arose in the 500s, but the attempt to enforce it in the 900s led to the split between the Roman Catholic "west" and the Orthodox East. Stepping away from this claim of superiority opens the door to a number of he other items on my list.
History shows that Rome was regarded, by the early church, in the same manner as the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Church, as a "Primus inter pares" or "First among equals." Adopting that status again opens the door to much more inclusivity than exists at present between Rome and all the other branches of Christianity.
Why do I bother myself with these matters when, as many of my readers will know, I am an Anglican? Put simply, it is because I do believe that Christians must seek to unite in their faith, if not in the manner of their worship or even in the "orders" of their ministry. I do believe that it is imperative we unite around how we understand and read the Bible, that we share the sacraments and that we adopt Christ's own approach to those seeking understanding - in short, that we welcome and include everyone. That we include even those we do not like, or with whom we 'have a problem.' God's mercy and grace is far, far wider than anything we can know or understand - but we are required by the Gospel to embrace it.
Throughout my own ministry I have prayed for the "unity of the church" and I have always understood that to embrace ALL Christians. But it cannot happen until we are all able to share the Eucharist in all its forms and that cannot happen as long as Rome excludes everyone who cannot accept the claim of Papal Supremacy. I will continue to pray for that 'unity,' though I fear I may never actually see it.
I hope, and pray, that the new Bishop of Rome, Francis I, will surprise me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
