Having taken the 'first step' we find ourselves having to 'hop' in that, as was pointed out extremely well (and with some good examples), the society in which we find ourselves leans towards some people being, "More equal than others!"
I was given examples of some groups being afforded more concessions than others through fear of appearing, or worse still being labelled, 'racist' or 'anti-Islamic, had they said 'No' to something. The other side of this coin is that to say 'No' to members of our 'own' society (or to member of the national faith i.e. Christian) would just be being honest and 'normal'.
And so it transpires that when concessions are made to (as a 'for instance') Islamic groups, those who make the concessions are being racist (a situation which in today's society needs to be addressed), those who make the decisions are acting against the natural sense of justice and fair play. The antonym of Xenophobia is, of course, tolerance and this is what freedom of speech and choosing how we live is all about.
Being a member of a faith, gender, orientation or any of people group often leads the members of it to assume that they have some 'god-given' right to be treated differently and this is no the case. The fact that any of us might have a faith, or no faith, does not confer upon us the right to become a 'special case'. The problem is two-fold in that where a religious group is also considered to be 'ethnic' (whether this be because of country of origin or because of the observance practices) we find the ghetto mentality (and reality) becoming established and because of the concentrations of one people groups (ethnic, religious or whatever) we find temples, mosques and the like peppering the area and establishing 'no go zones'.
As a Cockney I have experienced this on a number of occasions and in a number of places, here's just a few:
The Jewish community in Stamford Hill (and the more well off cousins in Hendon and Ilford)
The Bangladeshi community around the Bethnal Green area
Brick Lane, Slough, Southall and the like.
I have been in places where caste wars were to be found, where a Sikh speaker was shot dead over the Punjab issue, where various sects within Islam were often to be found fighting and more besides.
Why, because people didn't want 'them' living next door and so supported the establishment of the very communities they now fear as being ghettos.
People are free to take a pop at what I believe. They are free to put banners denying what I consider to be true and labelling it as cobblers! This is what freedom of speech is about. When Jesus was portrayed in a way that upset many Christians, it was 'art'. When the same thing happened with the religion being Sikh, the theatre pulled the performance immediately because of the (much smaller) demonstration and complaints form 'community' leaders.
I happen across books that proclaim Christ and Christianity to be a load of BS every day. Do the writers have to go into hiding? Do the Christians pronounce death threats? No, of course not. But when other religions do so, we tut and make excuses for them. Why, because we're being racist! "They' don't know any better! "They're' just a bunch of ignorant savages with an ignorant and primitive, uncultured faith.
I have a right to be Christian. Another has a right to be Islamic. Still another has a right to be a humanist, or secularist or whatever they so wish. I have a right to practice my faith, other have a right to practice their lack of it. How we work this out, how we debate, dialogue and challenge the attitudes and belief (or non-belief) of others is part of the journey and the hallmark of a balanced and tolerant society.
The fear shown by some in challenging something because it's 'Islamic' or 'ethnic' or 'Gay' or 'Christian' (well actually there's no fear in challenging Christians, they appear to be an easy target and fair game for all) is actually destroying our nation's balance, culture, tolerance and exhibiting injustice and prejudice.
Prejudice is wrong, whether it is positive or negative. It is wrong!
making decisions through fear of reprisal is wrong, this is capitulation and we have seen too much of it in our nation. Equal values, level playing fields, respect for all and accountability and tolerant, honest challenging, and decision making is the only way this nation will be saved from slipping into the mire.
Oddly, this is the message of the God of the Christians and the Jews.
Pax
Showing posts with label cowardice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cowardice. Show all posts
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Europe - 'a pathetic and impotent' force
This is how Europe has been portrayed this morning.
Fearing that they might be drawn into a conflict in North Africa, many of the European nations are content to stand by and watch Gaddafi's forces use air power to suppress an uprising of the general populace against forty-one years of oppression. Talk of 'human shields' (a contravention of Article 51.7 which states that the presence of civilians "shall not be used to... shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations" require someone to act, but the weak and cowardly European forces fear another Iraq and so refrain from doing the right thing.
The bombing of civillians is prohibited (see articles 22 - 25 1923 draft rules on aerial warfare) and yet we see this taking place. Where there are combatants in places where non-engaged civilian populace is to be found, then the rule is that you don't bomb! But we stand by and watch, tutting and shaking our heads, yet do nothing in response.
I am all too aware that Gaddafi would make capital out of any incursion by Western forces, but with the call from the Arab League for a no fly zone we have had the opportunity to support the forces of nations surrounding Libya in imposing such a zone. Mind you, I recall that the same thing was in place for about a dozen years and that ended up with an invasion. But we are looking at minimising civilian casualties and not effecting regime change (another contravention of the conventions).
Obviously Russia and China will veto anything that sees people acting against the right of nations to do pretty much as they wish under the terms of local politics. Understandable perhaps given their amazing histories of human rights breaches themselves, after all they would want people to come a knocking either! But whilst we stand around, taking moral high ground and yet stopping short of doing anything about the situation.
To quote German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle: "We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa and we would not like to step on a slippery slope where we all are, at the end, in a war." Again, if action is carried out by the very member nations of the same Arab League Libya is a member of, the potential for escalation and claims of a Western invasion in search of Libya's oil would be hollow.
It is obvious that there is no political pressure that can be brought to bear on Libya, after all Gaddafi has stuck two fingers up against many of the Western world, funding, training and equipping terrorists and acting as it wants and the world has done nothing (except perhaps sell them arms!!). If these people are meant to be politicians, then they should exercise the abilities they have and if they can't then other means must be employed. The fear of being 'sucked into another war' is surely fallacious if the right means are engaged.
We don't want a war, and shouldn't engage in one, but how can we have any integrity when we (the world at large) shake our heads and yet do nothing?
And if we see Gaddafi quell the uprising against him and see him retain power, how many of those whose hands are stayed will be dealing (albeit perhaps secretly) because he has oil. Are we not in danger of (once more) rewarding evil?
Fearing that they might be drawn into a conflict in North Africa, many of the European nations are content to stand by and watch Gaddafi's forces use air power to suppress an uprising of the general populace against forty-one years of oppression. Talk of 'human shields' (a contravention of Article 51.7 which states that the presence of civilians "shall not be used to... shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations" require someone to act, but the weak and cowardly European forces fear another Iraq and so refrain from doing the right thing.
The bombing of civillians is prohibited (see articles 22 - 25 1923 draft rules on aerial warfare) and yet we see this taking place. Where there are combatants in places where non-engaged civilian populace is to be found, then the rule is that you don't bomb! But we stand by and watch, tutting and shaking our heads, yet do nothing in response.
I am all too aware that Gaddafi would make capital out of any incursion by Western forces, but with the call from the Arab League for a no fly zone we have had the opportunity to support the forces of nations surrounding Libya in imposing such a zone. Mind you, I recall that the same thing was in place for about a dozen years and that ended up with an invasion. But we are looking at minimising civilian casualties and not effecting regime change (another contravention of the conventions).
Obviously Russia and China will veto anything that sees people acting against the right of nations to do pretty much as they wish under the terms of local politics. Understandable perhaps given their amazing histories of human rights breaches themselves, after all they would want people to come a knocking either! But whilst we stand around, taking moral high ground and yet stopping short of doing anything about the situation.
To quote German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle: "We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa and we would not like to step on a slippery slope where we all are, at the end, in a war." Again, if action is carried out by the very member nations of the same Arab League Libya is a member of, the potential for escalation and claims of a Western invasion in search of Libya's oil would be hollow.
It is obvious that there is no political pressure that can be brought to bear on Libya, after all Gaddafi has stuck two fingers up against many of the Western world, funding, training and equipping terrorists and acting as it wants and the world has done nothing (except perhaps sell them arms!!). If these people are meant to be politicians, then they should exercise the abilities they have and if they can't then other means must be employed. The fear of being 'sucked into another war' is surely fallacious if the right means are engaged.
We don't want a war, and shouldn't engage in one, but how can we have any integrity when we (the world at large) shake our heads and yet do nothing?
And if we see Gaddafi quell the uprising against him and see him retain power, how many of those whose hands are stayed will be dealing (albeit perhaps secretly) because he has oil. Are we not in danger of (once more) rewarding evil?
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Living life to the full
I have recently been exposed to the situation whereby a young lady, beset by cancer, will perhaps not make it into her teens. Contrast this with the situation where a couple who were essentially well but have chosen to leave this world having, "chosen to peacefully end their lives!"
Sorry, but I understand from a news item on the radio that the couple did this because they wanted to see a change in the law relating to assisted suicide. Well, of course even if there is, they most certainly won't be seeing it will they? Seems that the couple didn't want to reach a stage in their lives where they would have their quality of life 'diminished'.
Of course those who support euthansia point to the fact that many people have this concern and want an alternative to suffering unnecessarily whilst those against it make their stand voicing the opposite opinion. But what is the reality?
Being involved in palliative care in the dying and seeing what can be done with those who have the 'inconvenience' of growing old I don't see too much merit in this, "Well-founded fear," (to quote a supporter of euthanasia). Still let's change the objective and look a little closer and see if we can spot anything interesting.
A while back a young man was hailed as a hero because, having been paralysed in a rugger accident, he took himself off to Switzerland and killed himself. He couldn't cope with the loss of his 'standard of living' and so took the 'brave way out'. Another hero to stand alongside our latest couple of brave people.
Now contrast this with Matt Hampson, a young man who had achieved his dream of wearing an England Rugger shirt for real (under -21) only to find himself injured on the pitch, leaving him with the same injuries and paralysed from the neck down. Did this young man reflect upon the loss of his 'quality of life' and weel his way to Switzerland. Did he decide that he wanted to leave before the going got too tough. Not on your life!
This young man has pulled his life back together and now coaches and has chosen to get busy by getting on and living. I have met young men who have lost eyesight, limbs and been horribly injured in the service of their country and to be honest their guts and drive make me look like a big girl.
Life is life as long as we have it and people have within them the ability (regardless of faith affiliations - some or none) to get it on and bring life in all its fulness. Look at Phil Packer, a man who having been told he'd never walk again managed to complete the London marathon course in thirteen days. Not a world record but yet another testimony to life being lived out in all its fulness and these two men are not alone.
All this tosh about choice and quality of life - I was father to a boy who brought much into the lives of others even though he had cerebral palsy and a myriad number of other problems besides. He managed to smile for much of the time and obviously still found some quality of life - O.K., he didn't ever bring in any money, never got any examination certificates and died before he reached ten, but he managed to give life a dignity because of what he brought out in others.
The good news is that I was pro-life before he was born and what I saw in him (and others) only convinced me that this was a right position to take.
Psalm 139 - "all the days numbered for me were written . . ." convinced me that we take our number at birth and wait to be served. Those who seek to queue-jump, like those who do the same with queues for clubs, will have to discuss their actions with the man at the door. I hope they find Him more accommodating that the big blokes we have outside the clubs here!
Sorry, but I understand from a news item on the radio that the couple did this because they wanted to see a change in the law relating to assisted suicide. Well, of course even if there is, they most certainly won't be seeing it will they? Seems that the couple didn't want to reach a stage in their lives where they would have their quality of life 'diminished'.
Of course those who support euthansia point to the fact that many people have this concern and want an alternative to suffering unnecessarily whilst those against it make their stand voicing the opposite opinion. But what is the reality?
Being involved in palliative care in the dying and seeing what can be done with those who have the 'inconvenience' of growing old I don't see too much merit in this, "Well-founded fear," (to quote a supporter of euthanasia). Still let's change the objective and look a little closer and see if we can spot anything interesting.
A while back a young man was hailed as a hero because, having been paralysed in a rugger accident, he took himself off to Switzerland and killed himself. He couldn't cope with the loss of his 'standard of living' and so took the 'brave way out'. Another hero to stand alongside our latest couple of brave people.
Now contrast this with Matt Hampson, a young man who had achieved his dream of wearing an England Rugger shirt for real (under -21) only to find himself injured on the pitch, leaving him with the same injuries and paralysed from the neck down. Did this young man reflect upon the loss of his 'quality of life' and weel his way to Switzerland. Did he decide that he wanted to leave before the going got too tough. Not on your life!
This young man has pulled his life back together and now coaches and has chosen to get busy by getting on and living. I have met young men who have lost eyesight, limbs and been horribly injured in the service of their country and to be honest their guts and drive make me look like a big girl.
Life is life as long as we have it and people have within them the ability (regardless of faith affiliations - some or none) to get it on and bring life in all its fulness. Look at Phil Packer, a man who having been told he'd never walk again managed to complete the London marathon course in thirteen days. Not a world record but yet another testimony to life being lived out in all its fulness and these two men are not alone.
All this tosh about choice and quality of life - I was father to a boy who brought much into the lives of others even though he had cerebral palsy and a myriad number of other problems besides. He managed to smile for much of the time and obviously still found some quality of life - O.K., he didn't ever bring in any money, never got any examination certificates and died before he reached ten, but he managed to give life a dignity because of what he brought out in others.
The good news is that I was pro-life before he was born and what I saw in him (and others) only convinced me that this was a right position to take.
Psalm 139 - "all the days numbered for me were written . . ." convinced me that we take our number at birth and wait to be served. Those who seek to queue-jump, like those who do the same with queues for clubs, will have to discuss their actions with the man at the door. I hope they find Him more accommodating that the big blokes we have outside the clubs here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)