Live by the sword, die by the sword

Look at this: Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds.: "on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun."
No surprise to those of us whose reading of the gospels leads us to think that we reap what we so and that living by 'the sword' is to put ourselves in harm's way; not to deter.
Of course, there are some politically rightist Christians who appear to disagree about that, but it's interesting that this research seems to question their dismissal of gospel imperatives in favour of a version of Luther's two kingdoms theology.

Targum :: Romans 1.16-32

Brian Walsh wrote:
"Some months ago I posted a targum on Romans 1.1-25 that received a fair bit of attention. That piece was also criticized at another site because I somehow didn’t have the “courage” to continue my expansion on Romans 1 beyond verse 25 and deal with the thorny verses supposedly about homosexuality. This morning I expanded that earlier targum, only picking it up at verse 16 and then running with it until the end of the chapter."Targum :: Romans 1.16-32 (take two) � Empire Remixed. He makes the text available as a pdf. I tend to find that a bit tiresome but it is worth looking at, so I have taken the liberty of repo-ing it here. If I've done wrong, Brian, I'll take it down, but I've assumed that it is in the public domain ...

Romans 1.16-32 Targum (take two)
by Brian Walsh
Brothers and sisters, as we listen in on St. Paul addressing folks at the very heart
of the Roman empire, I want to put my cards on the table this morning.
I want to tell you, that...
In the face of the collapse of the dominant worldview of the modern West,
I’m ashamed when consumerism and greed is embraced
in the name of a false Christian gospel of affluence.
In the face of the crisis of capitalism,
I’m ashamed when Christians embrace free enterprise as God’s own
choice for an economy.
In the face of thousands dieing daily of malnutrition,
billions living in desperate poverty,
and the world on the precipice of irreparable ecological despoliation,
I’m ashamed that good Christian folks will appeal to “Romans one”
to legitimate homophobic gay and lesbian bashing.
These are, I submit, shameful gospels.
They leave me defeated, embarrassed and angry.
But I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This gospel is nothing less than the power of God for salvation.
A power that blows apart the empire,
dethroning its pretentious claims,
unveiling its lies for what they are.
Why am I not ashamed of this gospel?
Because through its power, life is put to rights.
Why am I not ashamed of the gospel?
Because in it we meet a justice achieved not through imperial violence,
but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ,
who bore such violence
on an imperial cross.
Why am I not ashamed of the gospel?
Because such shame will paralyze me,
render me unable to heed the call to faithfulness
and so disempower me that I will not have the energy to live for justice.
Righteousness, justice, faithfulness – all in the shadow of empire.
This is the fruit of the gospel

that we long to proclaim and engender
in this Wine Before Breakfast community.
So let’s be clear about what is going on these days.
Let’s not engage in cover up with talk of market corrections,
or market misbehaviour.
Let’s not try to salvage this leaky ship of fools
with billions of dollars of tax payers’ money.
No, my friends, that’s way too cheap, and doesn’t begin to address the problem.
What’s going on in the present economic crisis
is nothing less than the wrath of God
being revealed against all ungodliness,
all injustice, all greed, all false gospels
and the distorted lives they produce.
But an empire of deceit,
an economy of lies,
is no surprise when we have become so adept
at suppressing the truth of God that is plain
from the very nature of creation.
What part of the finite and gift character of creation didn’t they get
when they adopted an ideology of infinite greed,
insatiable consumption
and an ever expanding and ever growing economy?
Doesn’t the very nature of creation
bear witness to a God of abundance rooted in justice?
Doesn’t the very goodness of creation
bear witness to the generosity of this God?
Doesn’t the very place of humanity in the order of things
teach us that are called to image the Creator
through loving and careful stewardship?
So here’s the sad truth, my friends:
this empire of greed,
this narrative of economic growth,
this whole house of cards is based on lies and deception.
This whole culture of consumption,
this whole empire of money,
is based on self-willed ignorance.
Creation proclaims a better way
because creation bears witness to a God of grace.
But we have suppressed this truth,
engaged in denial and cover-up.

Refusing to live a life of gratitude,
refusing to live a life of thanks to the God
who called forth such a rich creation,
refusing to honour this Creator God,
and embracing a culture of entitlement and ingratitude,
we abandoned the God of light and embraced the dark.
And in all of our complex theories
in all of our sophisticated and incomprehensible economic talk,
we became futile in our thinking
we ended up with lots of talk but no sense,
theories that are empty,
vanity of vanities.
And we thought that we were so wise,
we thought that we had it all figured out,
but the joke has been on us,
and it is now clear that we have been fools.
You see, that’s what happens when you get in bed with idols.
That’s what happens when you don’t image God in faithful justice,
but embrace graven images,
cheap imitations,
that look so good,
look so powerful,
but will always fail you,
will always come up short
because they are impotent.
Empty idols, empty minds.
Dumb idols, lives of foolishness.
Betrayal and disappointment.
Fear and terror.
Embrace the idol of economism,
believe its false promise of abundance,
allow your lives to be shaped by the greed of this idol,
and you will reap the bankruptcy of that false faith,
you’ll be “hooked on avarice”
you’ll be caught up in an “idolatry of ideology,”
and your life will be reshaped in the image of that pitiful idol.
Embrace the idol of economism,
believe its false promise of wealth and power,
and you will find yourself facing “No Options.”
You will find your life constricted and bound,

stuck in a moment that you can’t get out of,
and the economic freedom that you dreamed of will awaken to the reality
of lost value,
international terrorism
and a despoiled planet.
And God says, “to hell with you.”
And God says, “make your bed and lie in it.”
And God says, “go ahead and screw your idols”
And God says, “I’ll let those idols screw you right back.”
My friends, we are not facing an economic crisis.
We are facing a spiritual crisis.
The issue isn’t fundamentally the markets.
The issue is idolatry at the very root and foundation of our society,
at the very root and foundation of our very way of life,
at the very root and foundation of our very souls.
We are called to live in the truth,
we are called to embody truth in our lives,
but we have traded in the truth for a lie.
Our imaginations have been taken captive,
we can hardly dream of what life outside the grip of idolatry
would look like;
we can scarcely imagine a life that isn’t enslaved to consumption;
we can’t even begin to get our heads around justice and righteousness;
generosity and contentment are alien to us,
and an economics of enough is impossible to conceive,
let alone live.
And it is all so empty,
it is all so foolish,
it is all so senseless.
We have got into bed with idols,
and not known the Lord.
We have bent the knee to idolatry
and not worshipped the Creator
who is blessed forever. (Amen.)
Having embraced an insatiable idolatry of greed,
having been taken captive by an idolatry of consumption,
our desires are perverted,
our passions run wild,
and we are lost in a sexual fantasy land that is deathly.
Our young women package themselves as sexual products,

ready for consumption.
Our young men knotch up their sexual conquests,
egocentric proof of their prowess.
Our sexuality is divorced from covenantal intimacy
and reduced to cheap carnal entertainment.
But this is not why God created us as sexual beings.
All of this is a betrayal of who we are called to be.
The image of God is perverted by such sexual idolatry.
And remember, idols are insatiable.
They always require sacrifice and they are never satisfied.
And they have a terrible appetite for children.
There is no idolatry apart from child sacrifice.
This is the devastating truth of our culture.
Just as the economy will require the sacrifice of all of creation
to fuel its ever-expanding growth,
so will an insatiable sexual idolatry require the sexual sacrifice of children.
This is a predatory culture,
and children are the most vulnerable victims.
This is the bitter fruit of idolatry.
This is the sexuality of empire.
So it is no surprise that the God who gives us up to insatiable lust,
and who gives us up to perverted desire,
also gives us up to a debased vision of life,
a mind of debauchery.
That’s what happens when you refuse to know God
because you are too busy screwing with idols!
But make no mistake!
Such idolatrous copulation bears the bad fruit
of a deeply distorted life,
full of evil longing,
greed, hatred,
envy, death,
breaking community and destroying families,
arrogance, insolent disrespect,
foolishness, infidelity,
and a ruthlessness that is borne of a heart
that has turned its back on love.
All of this ...

this imagination,
this worldview,
this cultural practice,
this way of life,
... all of this is in service of a culture of death.
So don’t be surprised if this culture dies,
and don’t be surprised that this way of life will kill you,
even as you applaud and cheer everyone who lives this way.
And let’s be clear.
I’m not talking about “them”
somehow in contrast to “us.”
No my friends, we’re in this shit together.
I’m talking about me.
I’m talking about you.

Brown could -and should- do better

I'm pretty angry. Angry that Gordon Brown has fluffed the chance to do the right thing. Summarised here: Brown’s ideas don’t offer the change we need | POWER 2010 And here's the problem: "The PM promised a referendum on electoral reform - but not until after the next election and even then only on the Alternative Vote system which wouldn't move Parliament any closer to being proportional."
The government's first stab towards reform had a commission to recommend what voting system should be put to the vote in a referendum. That was way back at the end of the 90's. It recommended AV plus not AV because the former would not be proportional. The Labour manifestos since 97 have promised a referendum; so it's not like they haven't had time to consider and do this: so putting it off to another term of office (which is looking unlikely anyway) seems cynical in the extreme. GRRRRR!
Join the campaigns, write to your MP ... the fact that Brown has done this at all is probably because of pressure, he's trying to do something without actually doing anything; don't let him get away with it. Force this government to live up to its radical promise before it's too late and we could end up with the real smoke and mirrors of a Tory administration.

POWER 2010

If, like me, you think that more than a smigeon of reform is needed in the way that the UK governs itself, then you might want to acquaint yourself with this blog and campaign: POWER 2010: "Hi, and welcome to the Power2010 blog. This blog is where you'll be able to find all the latest developments in our campaign to take back power form politicians and reinvigorate democracy."

Willpower is depletable

As I read this report: Rough Day At Work? You Won't Feel Like Exercising, I found a question forming in my mind: is this, in God's providence, part of the point of Sabbath?
Here's the summary statement: "A new study, published in Psychology and Health, reveals that if you use your willpower to do one task, it depletes you of the willpower to do an entirely different task."
If we are trying to build communities where people are able to formulate and carry through moral choices which often may involve resisting temptations to do more easy or conformist things, then we clearly need to be helping people to find the time to rest adequately to 'rebuild their moral fibre'. This has implications for the way we run our churches, clearly. I feel vindicated in trying to help create less frenetic communities of the kin_dom...

But perhaps that's skipping too far ahead, after all the research is about resolving to exercise. However, it's hard not to think that it has wider significance. Sabbath is not the only strategy for 'building moral fibre' ...

"There are strategies to help people rejuvenate after their self-regulation is depleted," she says. "Listening to music can help; and we also found that if you make specific plans to exercise—in other words, making a commitment to go for a walk at 7 p.m. every evening—then that had a high rate of success."
She says that by constantly challenging yourself to resist a piece of chocolate cake, or to force yourself to study an extra half-hour each night, then you can actually increase your self-regulatory capacity.
"Willpower is like a muscle: it needs to be challenged to build itself,"

So routines and habits can help as can exercising moral fibre. I'm guessing a supportive social environment is going to help too.

Spanked kids =Lower IQs

Looks fairly solid research and it is certainly believable once you clock the fact that stress and fear inhibit learninng. The report article is here:
Children Who Are Spanked Have Lower IQs, New Research Finds
The theorising to explain the data, which is the most important thing, is this: "The research found that the stress of corporal punishment shows up as an increase in post-traumatic stress symptoms such as being fearful that terrible things are about to happen and being easily startled. These symptoms are associated with lower IQ.
Second, a higher national level of economic development underlies both fewer parents using corporal punishment and a higher national IQ."
I think I'd add my own theory too: that the alternative stategies for discipline tend to be more 'cognitively sophisticated' and encourage more sophisticated thought in the children and the generation of better life-strategisation down the line.

There are some Christian groups who, I would suggest, might want to reconsider their interpretation of 'spare the rod, spoil the child'. Particularly as 'do as you would be done by' gains an interesting spin in the light of this finding. Do you not want to be more intelligent? Would you not want that for your child? For all of the possibilities of people being able to sin more intelligently, other research indicates that a better educated population is one where on the wwhole there are better life outcomes for people.

Kelvin 2.0 by Stephen Baxter

New Scientist asked a bunch of authors to write some micro-stories about the year 2107. Stephen Baxter (again) shows how Sci Fi can explore important existential questions about technology and 'progress'. Here's the end; raising all the pertinent questions ...
Kelvin 2.0 by Stephen Baxter - 16 September 2009 - New Scientist: "And we need your help. The suicides have started... How did you cope with imminent cosmic termination? As Darwin said of your dying sun, 'Even personal annihilation sinks in my mind into insignificance.'
And, sir, our cosmologists ask: how was it to learn that you had been so utterly wrong?"

I trust I don't have to spell out to most of my readership why it's significant.

Reinventing the Judicatory in an Unthinkable World

It's an ugly word and not one we Britons are used to hearing. It refers as far as I can tell to a church polity; a denominational or similar jurisdiction. The article is thought provoking and worth pondering imho. The last sentence might reel you in:
"What is required is a completely different metaphor that might splice into and transform denominational DNA, that of the judicatory as a mission agency. When leaders hear this, they intuitively sense its rightness but feel again they are being catapulted into an unthinkable world. How does one one reinvent a judicatory shaped by programs and seek to provide resources to transform it into a mission agency?"
There are some signs in this country that seem to confirm this; but I suspect we have to notice it collectively and turn it intentional.
Reinventing the Judicatory in an Unthinkable World:

Take Friday off… forever?

Part of New Scientist's 'Better World' series:Better world: Take Friday off… forever - 15 September 2009 - New Scientist First we learn that Utah state did this in an effort to cut building costs by offering 4x10hr days instead of 5x8 and did cut costs not only of the buildings but also of covering sick-leave. Then we are told an interesting piece of history: "According to Facer, it was the crash of 1929 that led to the five-day week. 'Before that it was common to work six-day weeks with 12 to 14-hour days. When the Great Depression hit, the idea was to share work around to get more people into employment.' During the next big financial crisis in the 1970s, there was much talk of moving to a four-day week, but for a variety of reasons that didn't pan out. 'Things are different now,' says Facer. 'I wouldn't be surprised if we could get 50 per cent or more of the workforce working four-day weeks in the next few years.'"
This was based on the more radical work less hours but for same hourly rate. Those who've done this have found that many people are up for it: it seems that more leisure may work for some people's 'marginal utility' better than our orthodoxies might lead us to believe. This probably goes with the research that indicated that above a certain amount, more money coming in didn't actually improve people's reported happiness. But it's worth looking at the discussion in the comments section of the article page.

Eat more plants - environment will like it

Every so often I post stuff like this and I'll continue to do so because the research keeps coming in and the arguments still stack up: if we're serious about our environmental footprints, then we should reduce or remove meat in our diet. This time it's from the New Scientist: "Livestock are responsible for nearly a fifth of all greenhouse emissions, from the methane produced by their guts and manure, to nitrous oxide emissions from the fertilisers used to grow feed for them. Because it takes several kilograms of plant matter to grow a kilogram of meat, producing meat and animal products such as cheese usually greatly multiplies the environmental damage done by farming. The huge amounts of land required are driving the destruction of rainforests, for instance. Even small reductions in consumption, such as making Mondays meat-free, could make a big difference."
To me the argument is simple and I don't eat meat. I find myself how much of a sore spot this is with some people I talk with (when they ask me why I don't eat meat: I don't go around making myself objectionable). It's like I've suggested they give up sex with their spouse or suggested they live on a 50p a day! "I like my meat too much"; come on folks: surely you like your grandchildren more; enough to try to save them from the second dark ages? Enough to hope that when you're old they won't be reproaching you for not doing more? "What did you do in the climate talks times dad/mum/grampa/gramma?" "Oh, I just went on living in denial and expecting other people to make sacrifices." I hope that won't be the epitaph future generations will write for us -when they've managed to work out a way to be civilised again without cheap oil and in the thin strips of fertile land overlooking our drowned coastal cities.
Oh, and remember, this expectation of eating meat every day; it's recent, it hasn't killed anyone not to eat meat for a few days a week.
Better world: Eat more plants - environment - 18 September 2009 - New Scientist

Christina Patterson: Thank God for the Church of England - Christina Patterson, Commentators - The Independent

I rather liked this meditation by Christina Patterson on the Church of England in the light of 1 Corinthians 13. Christina Patterson: Thank God for the Church of England - Christina Patterson, Commentators - The Independent: "I love it because it is patient. It does not expect the world to change in an instant, or to be bludgeoned into belief, because it knows that certain things take centuries. I love it because it is kind. It is kind enough to welcome strangers, whatever their beliefs, and shake their hands, and offer them drinks. It is kind enough to suggest that the biblical teaching on sex before marriage is a mere technicality that can be disregarded, and to offer couples with clear evidence of this disregard (in the form of children) its blessing in the form of weddings when they want them and baptisms when they want them, and even both at the same time, if they want them.

I like the fact that it is neither envious (of more flamboyant, more attention-seeking and more successful-at-proselytising religions) nor boastful. I like the fact that it is not arrogant or rude. I like the fact that it does not insist on its own way, but is genuinely tolerant of other religious beliefs and none. I like the fact that it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but quietly presents an ethical framework of kindness. I like the fact that it believes in the values of the New Testament, and of St Paul's description of love, which I've just paraphrased, but also believes that it is more important to embody them than to quote them.

I like the fact that it doesn't speak like a child, think like a child, or reason like a child. I like the fact that it is mature enough to recognise doubt. I like the fact that it is calm. I like the fact that it recognises that the religious impulse is here to stay, and that the more you try to crush it, the stronger it will be, and that all human beings, irrespective of their beliefs, have yearnings for the transcendent."

An anti-religious form of Tourette's?

"You get the sense that Dawkins just can't control it. It's as if he suffers from an anti-religious form of Tourette's syndrome."
It being making snide and snarky comments about religion, even when he's set himself the task not to ...
Review: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins - opinion - 14 September 2009 - New Scientist

How others see us: Alpha

This article Alpha 10: the reckoning | Adam Rutherford | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk is the final of a series in which an atheist (Atheist?) attends Alpha. It's salutary reading and I think that all of the ordinands at our college ought to engage with it (you know you want to peops). This last article summarises the main lessons learnt and this paragraph is the nearest to a summary of the whole thing:

"It may be impossible for someone like me to comprehend faith. As displayed during Alpha, evangelical Christianity simply fails to stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny. It seems unfathomable that intelligent people could genuinely believe that Christ rose from the dead, or that the Bible is not frightening, or that disease can be cured by magic. But they do. This movement feeds off ignorance and the deep-rooted latent cultural Christianity that bestows familiarity with the language and promises, but doesn't offer up enough information to say 'hang on, this doesn't make any sense, and isn't even very fair'."

Oh, and the final sentence is actually pretty encouraging too: "The revelation and truth I witnessed is this: if you are an atheist, you could do a lot worse than spend some time around those with whom you most profoundly disagree. Amen." And so say all of us (substitute your own faith stance for 'atheist').

In control? Think again. Our ideas of brain and human nature are myths

In an article which is useful for providing a fairly good, quick, overview of where we're up to with brain/neuroscience research as it impinges on how we live together and make policy. It ends with this 'left field' comment which I think we should take note of. The whole thing is here: In control? Think again. Our ideas of brain and human nature are myths | Madeleine Bunting | Comment is free | The Guardian And here's that very nearly final comment:

To add one more element to this potent brew of extraordinary ideas: what has been left out of the UK debate so far is how much of this new research maps on to Buddhism. In the US, a group of researchers has been involved in an ongoing dialogue with the Dalai Lama to deepen understanding of the correlations between the new research and Buddhism. Here is a system of thought which has maintained for several thousand years that the idea of a separate individual self is an illusion, which urges a set of practices to increase awareness of the processes of the mind in order to transform them and cultivate ethical habits such as compassion or courage.

Now there are several things to note here. One is that this provides us an insight as to why Buddhism is attractive to certain sections of British society (and we should note that in the period 1970-2000, Buddhist groups in UK grew from 74 to around 400 -see p.19 of linked article). I'd take a punt as to what sections of Brit soc, on the basis of a little observation (so this is a hypothesis to be tested): it seemingly appeals to middle-aged, middle-class slightly left-ish people. Why? -it connects science and spiritually-searching sacralised-selves, ironically in a philosophy which is all about eliminating the self -sacralised or not (rephaps the burden of a sacralised self is too much to bear?). Those people who look to meditation and the life of the mind as ways to help them to deal with life. Bunting's paragraph puts together just what I think I'm observing about the attraction of Buddhism in our society.

Of course, the other dimension is why connection isn't being made to Christian faith with regard to this. It's not as if there isn't extensive reflection by Christians about the nature of the self etc. Some of this I would propose is naked dismissal of Christianity which is fuelled by a pomo suspicion of power and the Church-state thing gets in the way. Some of it is post-Enlightenment rationalism and the contemporary equivalent of Schleiermacher's 'cultured despisers of religion' -in this case Christendom-mode Christianity is mostly in the frame. Some of it is because we Christians have not really understood what the challenge is and have been slow to reacquaint ourselves with the relevant parts of our tradition and have responded to the challenge of neuroscience in Modernist categories rather than pomo mode.

We also need to better understand Buddhism; what it actually says about such things, and how we as Christians might respond to westernised appropriations of Buddhism (and it's interesting to note that there is debate in the wider Buddhist community about what we might term enculturation into Western/Northern cultural perspectives see this article, for example). Much of this is already picked up in stuff I've blogged previously... Here regarding selfhood and karma; here about it's possible relation to pomo; And a discussion about spirituality and apologetics in the contemporary West/North refers to it too.here is comment on research relating to teens. OMF have produced a really good brief introduction to Buddhism which is written in a way that highlights the challenges to Christians. But remember, in crafting apologetics to Western/Northern Buddhism-attracted seekers, we need to understand which bits are attractive and how and address that rather than simply transplanting the apologetic moves already developed in south-east Asia or Japan, for example. Be informed by them by all means but don't take them over wholesale.

Review: ID: The Quest for Identity in the 21st Century:

I got this because I'm interested in the issue of identity both from an anthropological kind of view and also political (ID cards etc). I also have a long-standing interest in neuroscience as an ammateur onlooker and Susan Greenfield is a populariser of neuroscience -so just the kind of author I'm likely to find useful.

This book offers seeks to address the interfaces between IT, biotech and nanotech with a view to exploring what these things singly or together may do to human identity. To do this, there is a rather intriguing big picture approach to different forms of idenntity in different socio-cultural miliuex.

I found the Anyone, Someone, Nobody and Eureka typology interesting and worth funther reflection. 'Anyone' is about collective identities born of an extreme ideology where the individual is subsumed in the collective; 'Someone' is about identity formation of extreme individualism; Nobody is the danger of 'descent' into mere sensoriness and effectively losing or not activating the higher thinking capacities; Eureka is a creative identity which seems to synthesise the best of all and avoid the worst of each,

There are some interesting discussions of belief and a use of the seven deadly sins to think about the dangers of social identities. An interesting idea but needing more development and care to convince those of us who 'do religion' on a regular basis.
ID: The Quest for Identity in the 21st Century: Amazon.co.uk: Susan Greenfield: Books

The issue of suffering is not why but how?

That's what I have preaced several times in various churches I've been in. The thing that Buddhism made clear to me for my own faith is that suffering is and for most purposes the thing to do is not to focus on 'why?' questions but 'how...?' in particular 'how do I/we make this suffering count for eternity?'; for me this arises from reflection on Luke 13:1-5 where, in many ways, this seems to be the way Jesus answers.
Anyway, here's Richard Rohr saying something related which I very much resonate with. It's found at Brian McLaren's blog:
Do we transform our pain ... or ...:

"f we do not find some way to transform our pain, I can tell you with 100% certitude we will transmit it to those around us. We will create tension, negativity, suspicion, and fear wherever we go. Both Jesus and Buddha made it very clear to their followers that “life is suffering.” You cannot avoid it. It is no surprise that the central Christian logo became a naked, bleeding, suffering man. At the end of life, and probably early in life, too, the question is, “What do I do with this disappointment, with this absurdity, with this sadness?” Whoever teaches you how to transform your own suffering into compassion is a true spiritual authority. Whoever teaches you to project your doubt and fear onto Jews, Moslems, your family, heretics, gays, sinners, and foreigners, or even to turn it against yourself (guilt and shame) has no spiritual authority. Yet these very people have often preached from authoritative pulpits."

Health Care International

If a picture is worth a thousand words ....

Health Care Status.gif (image)

Question BNP hard

I had a letter publish in the Church Times a handful of months back. In it I said that we shouldn't be banning the BNP but rather making sure its arguments are heard and their refutation is heard and they have the hard questions posed and are held to answer them. And in this article: Question Time's BNP opportunity | Hugh Muir | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk Hugh Muir identifies a good set of questions to start with: "with his hands on the tiller and the nationalist courts his supporters speak of in place, who would he see thrown out of the country? The party now says it favours voluntary repatriation rather than the rounding up of minorities in the middle of the night, but what if no-one goes? What next? A reign of terror to drive them out or an acceptance of the hated multi cultural status quo?

And who would be invited to leave? The BNP isn't very keen on miscegenation, so all the mixed heritage relationships it sees must be driving it crazy. 'Native' Britons should have priority, it says, in terms of housing and employment. So would a mixed heritage couple fall back while the claims of an all white couple are accelerated? To what extent would the whiteness of the white partner protect their position in the pecking order. Would they be housed separately, for example? Perhaps the white partner could have a nicer flat on the floor above the non white.

What would qualify as white? What about a white person with black ancestors? There is more of that than you might think. How might this differ from apartheid?"
And there's more; go and look.

PM etc 10:10 yay

I find this somewhat encouraging: Gordon Brown turns down heat and Peter Mandelson gets on his bike to support 10:10 campaign | Environment | The Guardian: "The prime minister said he would turn down his central heating by one degree, ensure his appliances were not left on standby and recycle more. 'It is these small changes that, if everyone does them, will make a big difference,' Brown said, 'With fewer than 100 days until [UN climate talks in Copenhagen], this is a great opportunity to show we are all prepared to take action.'"
Just as long as they don't think that's all they have to do: but the solidifying effect of taking action and doing so publicly is probably a Good Thing.

Eco-justice and ecological debt

This is from a recent WCC introduction to the statement Statement on eco-justice and ecological debt. I reckon that the term 'ecological debt' might be the one least familiar to readers, so here's what it says: "The concept of ecological debt has been shaped to measure the real cost that policies of expansion and globalization have had on developing nations, a debt that some say industrialized nations should repay. Dr Joan Martinez Alier, a professor at the Universidad Aut�noma de Barcelona in Spain, said climate change, unequal trade, 'bio-piracy', exports of toxic waste and other factors have added to the imbalance, which he called 'a kind of war against people around the world, a kind of aggression.'"
It's hard to see that one 'flying' of course, but it is important for us to acknowledge the truth of the matter. It's of a piece with the probable fact that developed nations 'owe' a lot of development to having been able to asset strip former empire. Of course the issue of the justice of asking people now to pay for the sins of their ancestors (or, worse, for the sins of their ancestors' oppressors) is also something that needs to be taken on board. Full statement here.

Then you go an spoil it all by saying something stupid like ...

... "'So this is what it's all about', I thought. 'A social worker showing no understanding, no dialogue – secularism and spiritual differences are to be fought against, and children subtly coerced into believing?'
That was the end of the atheist Guardian correspondent's close encounter with Greenbelt this year. such a shame, because up till then she'd been doing quite well. Okay, we might forgive her for the repeating the common mix-up of 'evangelism' and 'evangelicalism' (so she writes about 'post-evangelism', which is not really the same thing as post-evangelicalism which is what I think she actually meant). However, it may be symptomatic of a mindset in approaching the exercise, perhaps? Especially as she then ends the article rather abruptly with "This kind of discourse, I couldn't deal with. I turned around at once, and left." (Oh, and there shouldn't be a comma in the middle of that first sentence: berate the sub-editor).

The reason why I characterise the quoted response as 'something stupid' is that it does look like it rests on a probably misunderstanding: earlier she says that the two guys she's reacting to are "youth workers". You'll need to check out the article, particularly the last three or four paragraphs to get what I'm on about -An atheist goes to Greenbelt | Jessica Reed | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:. In the quote, note, we have "social workers". But hang on: 'youth workers' are likely to be church-based and working for church youth outreach programmes. The attitude expressed is perfectly consonant with that job: he's not a 'social worker' any more than a vicar is. To take umbridge at his wanting to encourage young people to take the Christian message seriously is no more 'offensive' than atheists writing books and holding lectures to not-so-subtly rhetorically co-erce the sometimes frail-minded or pre-judiced to reject theism. I digress ... if the guy had been using a position as a secular social worker to do what he said, she'd have good reason; but that isn't what's going on I think.

The sudden exit seems to have been about being confronted by the possibility that some people at least would want others (including potentially the writer herself, obviously) to change their mind, and may believe that they would be better off with another belief system. This, I take it, is meant to offend against some notion of 'laissez-faire' tolerance where one is not allowed to believe that ones own views may be 'superior' in some respect to someone else's and so wish, in appropriate circumstances, to change people's minds.

I think we have to recognise that such a viewpoint is naive and impossible to hold consistently. We all believe what we do because we think it's right. Therefore the reflex of that is that we believe that others are to some degree wrong. In practice then, everyone tends to make some efforts sometimes to change others' minds. Heck, human communication is one long exercise in changing each others' minds. So I guess that the real issue is the interpretation (and I stress that word) in terms of what must be a strong understanding of 'coercion'. But this won't stand up to scrutiny either. We all agree that coercion is wrong and that relatively free responses are important. I would guess, had Ms Reed talked to the guy, she would find that he agreed. But like all of us, Ms Reed included, he is within his rights to use his influence to encourage people to consider a particular way of looking at things. By writing her article Ms Reed has done the very same sort of thing. In the youth worker's case, if he's operating from a church-base, then most of the people he will have been dealing with will have known the score.

Jessica Reed; I applaud you're going into the lion's den, so to speak. I celebrate that you found degrees of commonality with people you had misgivings about beforehand and I'm delighted that you found that some Christians are capable of being open-minded and enquiring (and did I catch a glimpse of a hope that some might, thereby, come to share perspectives you hold?) However, I'm disappointed that you haven't, seemingly, thought through more thoroughly the implications of pluralism and secularism in relation to competing truth claims (including your own) and the need to live together asd share a public sphere. I'm also disappointed that you seem not to have taken a spot more care in noting some of the important distinctions including between coercion and influence. If it weren't so distressing or tragic, the symmetry between the assumed superiority of atheism and that of many Christians as played out in their mutual exposure in this article would be amusing...

School Put-downs tegatively affect learning

It's perhpas no surprise: after all, it is a regular part of courses for teachers about learning and classroom behaviour issues. However, the study is further confirmation that inclusive classrooms and schools are more likely to be helping learning and improving their results. Report here: High School Put-downs Make It Hard For Students To Learn, Study Says Summary statement from the article: "classroom disruptions and psychologically hostile school environments can contribute to a climate in which good students have difficulty learning and students who are behind have trouble catching up."
Of course, it's worth considering the wider significance: if this, as seems likely, applies to workplaces and other human groups (including, say, Alpha groups or church councils) ...

10:10

I've already been doing many of the things that are involved in cutting my carbon emissions, so before signing up I need to find out whether there are further things I can do, but if you haven't really started on this, well, can I ask you to consider starting now with this? (Ideas to help on the site here). 10:10: "By committing to cut your emissions by 10% in 2010, you will join thousands of individuals, schools, hospitals, businesses and organisations all actively helping to combat climate change by making simple changes to their lifestyles, homes and workplaces. More importantly, your voice will help to put pressure on the politicians to cut Britain’s emissions as quickly as the science demands. If we in the UK can prove that fast, deep cuts can be made at a national level, then we may just inspire all the other big polluting countries to follow suit."

!! ?? !!

Speechless: even having seen these claims before ... It makes me so cross that people can lie so outrageously and not be effectively challenged. ... shakes head sadly ... Obama is losing the health debate – but he can still mobilise and win | Gary Younge | Comment is free | The Guardian: "They have argued that if Steven Hawking were British he would be dead, even though Hawking is British and alive. They insist that under the NHS the state decides whether to 'pull the plug on grandma'."

For a little light relief, the article goes on to say this:

In a blend of the comic and the tragic one protester, who was hospitalised after he got into a fight at a town hall meeting in St Louis, had to have a whip-round to pay for his medical bill – it turns out he had no health insurance.

And, assuming these figures are about right; then there is a huge (but in this case very misplaced) trust in the USA's rightist population that if it's 'America' it must be best because ...

life expectancy in the UK is higher than the US, meaning that even with our supposed state-sponsored euthanasia our grannies still live longer than theirs... As a percentage of GDP the US spends twice as much on it as the UK, and yet one in six aren't even covered. According to government figures, life expectancy for women is lower than in Albania and infant mortality is higher than Cuba. This national disgrace conceals a regional outrage. Black infant mortality in Louisiana is on a par with Sri Lanka; in the very city where the reforms will be decided, Washington DC, life expectancy is lower than the Gaza Strip