Did anyone else see the Newsnight coverage of the first day's Parliamentary debates on human embryology? Presumably in order to portray the fact that there are deep underlying issues to do with the 'Meaning of Life' (the headline projected on the backdrop) the reporter was filmed sitting under statues of the Virgin Mary in the gloom of an old church behind flickering candles.
Er, what? It was difficult to tell whether the tell-tale Paxman raised eyebrow flickered when they cut back to studio.
As far as I recall, there was no specific reference to the Catholic moral position, or 'playing God' or anything - the incongruity just kind of hung there. What to make of it?
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Friday, 16 May 2008
Creating little anti-religious martyrs?
The British Humanist Association has recently called for the law to allow children of 'sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding' to be given the right to absent themselves from 'compulsory' acts of worship in schools regardless of their parents wishes :
(see http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2448
The implication is that people can be made to worship against their will, which is an infringement of their human rights. At first sight this is a ludicrous suggestion. No one can be 'forced' to think or feel (or not think and feel) things — what goes on in the private thoughts of people is inaccessible to outsiders and immutable. The suggestion that sitting passively in a school assembly whilst someone else says a prayer is tantamount to being 'forced to worship' is daft. At the most extreme it is 'forcing' the passive attender to tolerate other people saying prayers — or praying them. (A very good reason, I would have thought, for insisting that they attend, since toleration is in itself a valuable lesson.) Mere attendance at an act of worship implies no personal belief. If I attend (as I have done) gatherings sponsored by the British Humanist Association, should I absent myself if I want to have a prayerful thought? Should I avoid going into a mosque because I am not a Muslim? The BHA, not normally known for intolerance and divisiveness, has lost the plot, hasn't it, and needs to rethink?
On the other hand, I'm reminded that the early Christians were thrown to the lions — as 'atheists' — for refusing to burn a pinch of incense to the Roman Emperor as a god once a year. In all other respects they were model citizens (or so I like to believe) but this was the 'thin end of the wedge'. Other Christians, on the other hand — the so-called 'Gnostics' — took the view that what mattered was not external practice but deep inner knowledge. To the one who 'knows God', the pinch of incense to the emperor was meaningless, and therefore harmless. Needless to say, there was no love lost between the different Christian camps.
It seems to me that the dividing line comes somewhere where inner private thoughts are translated into outward actions — a pinch of incense, genuflection, a spoken prayer or sung hymn or whatever — the failure to perform which brings sanctions from those with power. (That equally includes the opposite situations in which atheist authority oppresses overt religious practice).
But if that is the case, the safest option is to insist on passive attendance in school assembly — attendance that doesn't require active statements of belief or whatever on the part of those present.
To refuse to attend such a gathering would an overt non-religious act. I'm far from convinced that many 'mature, intelligent and understanding' *Christian adults* really have much understanding the full *breadth* of what Christianity is, and most of the things many atheists tell me I believe in are often crude and simplistic cariacatures of what it's about, with a heavy emphasis on philosophical propositions (which are rarely the concern of religious believers anyway). Whenever you read a statement "(all) Christians believe x" you can be fairly sure the writer doesn't know many Christians.
There's an assumption here that the purpose of RE lessons is to help students decide whether henceforth they will have anything to do with the whole world/language that is Christianity, or whether they will boycott any activity with a religious dimension. The idea that a few exam-oriented lessons on all the world faiths, taught by someone who may well not be a practising member of any religious community, can begin to express the holistic breadth that constitutes a 'world faith' is completely laughable! No world faith can be described in a few propositional statements or peeks at the 'exotic' behaviour of religious people, as the BHA are implying here. I find it hard to accept that anyone, let alone under-15s who have had no opportunity, independently of their parents, to really explore religious worlds in any depth — let alone breadth — could be violated by sitting passively in an act of worship.
'Doing God' in school assemblies is, anyway, a risky enterprise for the would-be evangelist. Richard Dawkins learned what he learned about religion that way!
I'm not even convinced that inviting someone to (for instance) say the Lord's prayer out loud is 'making them express faith' — provided it is not coercive and failure to do it brings no sanctions. To recite traditional formulae doesn't imply personal faith, any more than me singing along with Jimi Hendrix makes me a 'Voodoo Chile'. On the other hand, for authority to insist on the 'pinch of incense' or the saying of a prayer on pain of sanctions is to have already passed from the realm of personal faith (or lack of it) and into the political realm. It's at that point that religion has become an instrument of political power, so it's at that point that the language of 'rights' starts making sense.
But which secular school is going to punish a child that keeps quiet when the Lord's Prayer is said? Perhaps the BHA demand is a back door way of undermining faith schools, where presumably the performing of religious ritual in various ways is supposedly part of the ethos. I disagree with state 'faith schools' as strongly as the BHA, albeit for different reasons. But there are much more direct and effective ways of secularising state schooling without trying to create little anti-religious martyrs.
(see http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2448
The implication is that people can be made to worship against their will, which is an infringement of their human rights. At first sight this is a ludicrous suggestion. No one can be 'forced' to think or feel (or not think and feel) things — what goes on in the private thoughts of people is inaccessible to outsiders and immutable. The suggestion that sitting passively in a school assembly whilst someone else says a prayer is tantamount to being 'forced to worship' is daft. At the most extreme it is 'forcing' the passive attender to tolerate other people saying prayers — or praying them. (A very good reason, I would have thought, for insisting that they attend, since toleration is in itself a valuable lesson.) Mere attendance at an act of worship implies no personal belief. If I attend (as I have done) gatherings sponsored by the British Humanist Association, should I absent myself if I want to have a prayerful thought? Should I avoid going into a mosque because I am not a Muslim? The BHA, not normally known for intolerance and divisiveness, has lost the plot, hasn't it, and needs to rethink?
On the other hand, I'm reminded that the early Christians were thrown to the lions — as 'atheists' — for refusing to burn a pinch of incense to the Roman Emperor as a god once a year. In all other respects they were model citizens (or so I like to believe) but this was the 'thin end of the wedge'. Other Christians, on the other hand — the so-called 'Gnostics' — took the view that what mattered was not external practice but deep inner knowledge. To the one who 'knows God', the pinch of incense to the emperor was meaningless, and therefore harmless. Needless to say, there was no love lost between the different Christian camps.
It seems to me that the dividing line comes somewhere where inner private thoughts are translated into outward actions — a pinch of incense, genuflection, a spoken prayer or sung hymn or whatever — the failure to perform which brings sanctions from those with power. (That equally includes the opposite situations in which atheist authority oppresses overt religious practice).
But if that is the case, the safest option is to insist on passive attendance in school assembly — attendance that doesn't require active statements of belief or whatever on the part of those present.
To refuse to attend such a gathering would an overt non-religious act. I'm far from convinced that many 'mature, intelligent and understanding' *Christian adults* really have much understanding the full *breadth* of what Christianity is, and most of the things many atheists tell me I believe in are often crude and simplistic cariacatures of what it's about, with a heavy emphasis on philosophical propositions (which are rarely the concern of religious believers anyway). Whenever you read a statement "(all) Christians believe x" you can be fairly sure the writer doesn't know many Christians.
There's an assumption here that the purpose of RE lessons is to help students decide whether henceforth they will have anything to do with the whole world/language that is Christianity, or whether they will boycott any activity with a religious dimension. The idea that a few exam-oriented lessons on all the world faiths, taught by someone who may well not be a practising member of any religious community, can begin to express the holistic breadth that constitutes a 'world faith' is completely laughable! No world faith can be described in a few propositional statements or peeks at the 'exotic' behaviour of religious people, as the BHA are implying here. I find it hard to accept that anyone, let alone under-15s who have had no opportunity, independently of their parents, to really explore religious worlds in any depth — let alone breadth — could be violated by sitting passively in an act of worship.
'Doing God' in school assemblies is, anyway, a risky enterprise for the would-be evangelist. Richard Dawkins learned what he learned about religion that way!
I'm not even convinced that inviting someone to (for instance) say the Lord's prayer out loud is 'making them express faith' — provided it is not coercive and failure to do it brings no sanctions. To recite traditional formulae doesn't imply personal faith, any more than me singing along with Jimi Hendrix makes me a 'Voodoo Chile'. On the other hand, for authority to insist on the 'pinch of incense' or the saying of a prayer on pain of sanctions is to have already passed from the realm of personal faith (or lack of it) and into the political realm. It's at that point that religion has become an instrument of political power, so it's at that point that the language of 'rights' starts making sense.
But which secular school is going to punish a child that keeps quiet when the Lord's Prayer is said? Perhaps the BHA demand is a back door way of undermining faith schools, where presumably the performing of religious ritual in various ways is supposedly part of the ethos. I disagree with state 'faith schools' as strongly as the BHA, albeit for different reasons. But there are much more direct and effective ways of secularising state schooling without trying to create little anti-religious martyrs.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Age a blessing?
We celebrated one of our church member's 100th birthday this week. Churches sometimes beat themselves up over having such a high average age, but hey : a 100-year old pushes the average up a bit!
I was struck how in Isaiah 65:17ff old age is seen as a sign of blessing, and that when the 'kingdom' fully comes, people who die younger than that will be deemed unlucky. Not that old age isn't a real struggle for many : but that our society is such that people can live to that age is something to give thanks for. What's the average life expectancy in Zimbabwe? Under 40, isn't it?
I was struck how in Isaiah 65:17ff old age is seen as a sign of blessing, and that when the 'kingdom' fully comes, people who die younger than that will be deemed unlucky. Not that old age isn't a real struggle for many : but that our society is such that people can live to that age is something to give thanks for. What's the average life expectancy in Zimbabwe? Under 40, isn't it?
Monday, 21 April 2008
Recent goings-on
Recently back from Venice where Karen & I have been celebrating our Silver Wedding. Seen enough frescoes of the "Purity & Truth defeat Grubby Mercantilism (or whatever) in the clouds" variety (together with double-buttocked cherubs) to last a lifetime - yes, I know it's great art, but . . I was left not knowing whether such images were intended as a moral reminder to those inclined to lapse, or an opportunity to portray your wife as a great beauty and pillar of virtue. However, the history book said that the cult of celebrity was greatly discouraged in Venice. Went to some great concerts . . and what an interesting political history Venice has. In the 14th century, they had an elected Doge with greatly restricted personal power but important representative role. (OK, he was only elected by the aristocracy, but it's a start) He wasn't allowed out of Venice much, and that only with an escort. One wonders what would have become of Britain if Charles 1st had been similarly constrained.
We went by overnight train. Magical to walk straight out of the station on to a landing stage on the Grand Canal, even if the splendid building opposite did have an enormous Calvin Klein advert all over it (how could they?)
Went to see recent Mike Leigh film 'Happy Go Lucky' on Saturday. Is it like a rather dull episode of 'East Enders' or is there more to it than that? I find my thoughts continually drifting back to it, so I think there is. The central character, Poppy, is irritatingly flippant and shallow most of the time, yet reveals moments of depth and firm principle. She's both (apparently) self-indulgent and clueless about the impact she's having on people, yet at other times forgiving, compassionate and risk-taking for the sake of others. Both irresponsible and irresponsible. Reviews have suggested it's little more than a 'feel-good' film. I'm not so sure. I felt it was an astute observation on much of contemporary British society. I'm left wondering where she's going to end up - married, with a crushing mortgage like her sister? Or single, disillusioned and in a rut? Or still a joyous free spirit in old age, whatever happens? Go see it, see what you make of it.
We went by overnight train. Magical to walk straight out of the station on to a landing stage on the Grand Canal, even if the splendid building opposite did have an enormous Calvin Klein advert all over it (how could they?)
Went to see recent Mike Leigh film 'Happy Go Lucky' on Saturday. Is it like a rather dull episode of 'East Enders' or is there more to it than that? I find my thoughts continually drifting back to it, so I think there is. The central character, Poppy, is irritatingly flippant and shallow most of the time, yet reveals moments of depth and firm principle. She's both (apparently) self-indulgent and clueless about the impact she's having on people, yet at other times forgiving, compassionate and risk-taking for the sake of others. Both irresponsible and irresponsible. Reviews have suggested it's little more than a 'feel-good' film. I'm not so sure. I felt it was an astute observation on much of contemporary British society. I'm left wondering where she's going to end up - married, with a crushing mortgage like her sister? Or single, disillusioned and in a rut? Or still a joyous free spirit in old age, whatever happens? Go see it, see what you make of it.
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Blair does God
Plenty of cynical comment in the media about the 'Bliar - sorry, Blair Faith Foundation' but Tony's address on Faith & Globalisation needs to be read before reading other people's sniping at it. The text is up at : http://tonyblairoffice.org/2008/04/speech-on-faith-globalisation.html
Seems to me like a concise, helpful statement of where faith fits in the globalised world. It says nothing that people working in the field haven't been saying (and acting on) for decades; but the trouble is that nobody (including Tony) listens to *those* people. (In Oxford, Christian and Muslim leaders have been engaging with one another intensely since 11/9 addressing practical issues of peacemaking.)
Will they listen to Blair, though, or is he 'damaged goods'? First, let's acknowledge that bad people can do good things, and good people can do bad things : there's a smug self-righteousness around that allows people to be lazy. Just because Iraq was a huge political, moral, religious, legal mistake doesn't mean Tony has nothing to say on 'faith and globalisation'.
The problem is that he hasn't acknowledged it - he still defends it. He is still tainted with the suspicion that he just believed, in the teeth of the evidence, that "it was the right thing to do". As Menzies Campbell commented: "You just can't argue with someone who 'just knows' what is right." The people tried to argue - especially the people he now commends in his speech - but he knew better.
I don't know where this leaves me. I welcome the high-profile raising of the 'faith and globalisation' initiative, but really wish it wasn't him doing it.
Seems to me like a concise, helpful statement of where faith fits in the globalised world. It says nothing that people working in the field haven't been saying (and acting on) for decades; but the trouble is that nobody (including Tony) listens to *those* people. (In Oxford, Christian and Muslim leaders have been engaging with one another intensely since 11/9 addressing practical issues of peacemaking.)
Will they listen to Blair, though, or is he 'damaged goods'? First, let's acknowledge that bad people can do good things, and good people can do bad things : there's a smug self-righteousness around that allows people to be lazy. Just because Iraq was a huge political, moral, religious, legal mistake doesn't mean Tony has nothing to say on 'faith and globalisation'.
The problem is that he hasn't acknowledged it - he still defends it. He is still tainted with the suspicion that he just believed, in the teeth of the evidence, that "it was the right thing to do". As Menzies Campbell commented: "You just can't argue with someone who 'just knows' what is right." The people tried to argue - especially the people he now commends in his speech - but he knew better.
I don't know where this leaves me. I welcome the high-profile raising of the 'faith and globalisation' initiative, but really wish it wasn't him doing it.
Thursday, 27 March 2008
Bishops & Prime Ministers with whips
The Prime Minister has this week had to acknowledge that some MPs owe loyalty to their religious community as well as the Party and the State. Under pressure of a rebellion in the ranks, he allowed a bill on human embryology to go to a free vote, instead of a whipped one. Roman Catholic bishops had been wielding their own whips in the preceding few days.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
BBC's Passion
Televising an account of Holy Week for national TV is an interesting exercise in bringing religion into the public sphere without offending either religious communities or those who reject religious faith. Fortunately, the particular genius of the Holy Week story is that it bridges the worlds of Roman Empire and established religion, and critiques both. And who can argue with telling a story (as opposed to presenting belief propositions)?
This BBC production is the most credible account I have ever seen (although as yet only the first two episodes have been screened). It has managed to avoid stereotyping Jesus as some human/divine weirdo, or political revolutionary, or guy with sexual or masochistic hangups, and the real dilemmas faced by Pilate and Caiaphas the High Priest are presented such that if you were Caiaphas, presented with the information he is presented with, you would have to follow his logic to its gruesome conclusion. Pilate's historically-attested brutality is not softened, but he also is not one of those Hollywood baddies who for no apparent reason just want to be bad.
The storyline seems to be following John's Gospel closer than the other accounts. As in John, Jesus has prescient knowledge of what the future holds for him, yet presses ahead nonetheless. This would have been a little weird for me a few years ago, until I read Margaret Barker's 'Temple Theology' in which she argues that the historical Jesus consciously took upon himself the missionary role of the High Priest (as a way of non-violently 'deposing' Caiaphas in the popular imagination) and took it to its logical conclusion by 'becoming God for the people' in the great Atonement sacrifice.
The story challenges all the neat boxes and labels that are often used when discussing religion and secular society.
This BBC production is the most credible account I have ever seen (although as yet only the first two episodes have been screened). It has managed to avoid stereotyping Jesus as some human/divine weirdo, or political revolutionary, or guy with sexual or masochistic hangups, and the real dilemmas faced by Pilate and Caiaphas the High Priest are presented such that if you were Caiaphas, presented with the information he is presented with, you would have to follow his logic to its gruesome conclusion. Pilate's historically-attested brutality is not softened, but he also is not one of those Hollywood baddies who for no apparent reason just want to be bad.
The storyline seems to be following John's Gospel closer than the other accounts. As in John, Jesus has prescient knowledge of what the future holds for him, yet presses ahead nonetheless. This would have been a little weird for me a few years ago, until I read Margaret Barker's 'Temple Theology' in which she argues that the historical Jesus consciously took upon himself the missionary role of the High Priest (as a way of non-violently 'deposing' Caiaphas in the popular imagination) and took it to its logical conclusion by 'becoming God for the people' in the great Atonement sacrifice.
The story challenges all the neat boxes and labels that are often used when discussing religion and secular society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
