Write and Wrong

Seems to me that on a day where 80,000+ people petition to have a boxer banned from a BBC sports personality vote and 200,000 sigh another petition (probably many of the same people who voted over the Fury thing!) to ban Donald Trump from coming to this country because he's a wally (albeit a rich wally of course) that the words of St Augustine of (not 'the') Hippo spring to mind:

Now just because we don't agree with someone is not reason to ban them or vilify them or act against them; what democracy does is permit people to hold views, even when the person (or the views) are foolish or differ from the views you hold.

We are seeing more and more of this childish attitude where, having heard something we don't like, we stick our fingers in our ears to deny their words being heard. Being grown-ups we now engage in all these stupid polls and petitions because we have the mistaken mindset that sheer numbers of people wanting the same thing makes whatever view is being held, right - and of course that's a wrong mindset.

I encounter many people on a daily basis, many of whom have lifestyles, viewpoints and attitudes that are just plain out of whack with anything rational, positive or good (and I'm not just looking at the Bible here - I'm talking about good old-fashioned logic here).

Some of these will tell me how something is right, because they want to think that or because it's something they do, and yet the same people will pull down the attitudes or lifestyles of others and tell me how they should not be allowed to exist! 

You can find a whole raft of opinion on a whole spectrum of behaviours, attitudes, mindsets and the like. The problem is that if I am willing to take Tyson Fury to task for his apparently mysognistic views. I have to say 'apparently' because I have met a woman who told me that he'd got it right and that he'd described the world she wanted with her man! Hey ho, there's always one - and that's the point -  and what of the misandrists who seem to exist in such numbers these day, how will you deal with them? The answer has to be 'open-handedly'.

Even if there is but one person who holds a view that you don't agree with: They still have the right to hold that view! This is what freedom of speech and democracy are all about. We might not agree with a person but the fact that they can hold their view and speak about it should they so wish is something to be cherished and protected.

I meet many who want proportional representation to be the model for the politics in the UK. I tell them that this is fine, but that they must be willing, if that is to be the means by which we elect our parliament, to have coalition government and to have MPs from the National Front, UKIP and other oft' vilified groups. Their response to this is usually, "Oh no, they'd have to be banned!' This is not democracy but another facet of the fascism we are seeing from all political parties and all social groupings too!

And this is the problem - we don't want tolerance, we want what we want at the cost of free speech, democracy and equal rights. I am happy for someone to be an atheist and respect their right to be such and yet many atheists demand their right to be such and want to see people of faith wiped of the board - apparently their opinion outweighs the opinion of a believer; mind you one side might use the Bible whilst the other likes to be as subjective as some Christians I meet by referring to their own intellect and logic (so that's them on the losing side then I guess!).

My right to choose how I might live in terms of relationship or sexuality appears, or so it seems, greater than someone's right to not have that as their chosen lifestyle. The problem is that when this occurs one side is 'whatever'phobic' whilst the other side is merely 'right' and that, of course isn't right.  If I choose not to drink coffee (and I don't drink coffee) then I am not engaging in 'coffee phobia', neither am I making a comment or criticism about coffee-drinkers, I am just saying that this is not something I have chosen. Why doesn't this apply across the board and why can't we engage in conversation over issues rather than resort to fingers in ears, demanding our way and creating yet another ridiculous petition?

I can't imaging that the government will waste its time debating this facile petition - all it requires is for us to largely ignore the bloke (but the press won't because it sells papers and air time) and to listen to those rational voices around us instead. He's not going to be the next President of the US (although they said that about Reagan I recall) but if he did get that job, there's no doubt he would be most welcome here as part of cementing the 'special' relationship (well, he appears to be a case for 'special needs' education so perhaps he's halfway there!).

Why don't you stop signing petitions and demanding people be silenced and vilified and try to use some reason? You might find you like it and things get better :-)

I'll leave you with a sound bit of thinking:

Pax

Standing on the rock

What an odd few days I've had as Remembrancetide, building on All Saints and All Souls, headed towards the climax that is Armistice Day (11th November) - the variety was sublime but some of those I met during the exercise left me just a little bruised and bewildered. It is to them that, as promised, I write the following (but all may read and offer correctives for that in which I miht have erred and, like a lost sheep, strayed).

One end of the 'knowledge/opinion' spectrum' appears to be filled with opinionated people with very little knowledge (and/or understanding) and yet they shout about everything in quite an unsettling manner. At the other end we find people who are quite passionate about stuff but, having taken the time to learn 'everything' about whatever it is that matters to them, they proceed to bombard you with their version of the truth whilst sticking their fingers in their ears.

Thankfully there is a centre ground populated by people who've taken the time to surround themselves with knowledge of all kinds and engage with others in a most impressive way whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. These people are a joy to spend time with and regardless of their position on things, whether it be with or against you, dialogue is generally a joy (even when I found I might be wrong!). It is these whom I feel are those who are 'standing on the rock',

The sad thing is that 'bucket mouths' are usually, because they are the loudest, the people that are most noticed and therefore most reacted against; this is something that permits those in opposition to them to act with a high degree of general public support. A good case in point might be some of the stances taken on a variety of issues by groups like Westboro' Baptist Church (who I thought were a spoof when I first found them so extreme were the views expressed by them).

These people put forward views that no one I know supports and yet rather than see them as an isolated bunch of (insert your own word or words here) those who wish to portray Christians as something extreme, stupid, ignorant, downright, bigoted or generally wicked (delete whichever do not apply in your opinion - please note, your opinion might just be as wrong as Westboro's !!! ).

The equally sad thing about those who have ALL the facts (as they understand it) and do not engage in a civilised, rational and wonderfully enlightening manner - especially those who having ALL the answers are against anything that might suggest things that they do not wish to consider (and it's usually choice rather than something logical or reasonable - if you don't believe me read some of the books that a famously pseudo-scientific atheist has scribbled and tell me I'm wrong).

Ignorance is not usually the sole property of any group - It is something that all people whether they are wise or foolish, bright or dim, theist or atheist can make their own - and therein lies the rub, for as Christians I would hope that whatever we think should be influenced and set by the words of Jesus, the Christ, and the accounts of God's dealing with humankind. The problem is that science can make superstitious people out of the wise (and those who consider themselves wise( too: It can endow mind reading capabilities upon those who have read too many books to the extent that they have forgotten how to read, and enjoy, people.

The same is true of religion, for truly religion is humanity's greatest rebellion against, and rejection of, God. When blind rules are taken up in such a way as we can no longer see the image of the invisible God made visible before our very eyes (1 John 4 - you can't love God and hate your brother) then we are lost.

The problem is that between those who are ignorant and happy to remain such AND those who have all the answers can easily lose sight of the valid stuff. For me this is the message that Christ came to reconcile people to God, not teach them 'facts'.

To be 'Christian' and occupy either of the extremes on my spectrum is to act against Christ and His message of reconciliation and love; it denies everything that Jesus is and came to make known and fuels those who oppose us and confers upon them a degree of credibility they do not deserve. So the choice is ours: rock or rocky - crushed or broken?

Guenter Grass

Once again we find Israel acting like a petulant five year old! This time the focus of the fingers in the ears and shout antics is German writer, Guenter Grass, who has been declared "persona non grata" as part of yet another spisode of petulant foot-stamping! The reason for the action against Grass is that he's written a poem that is critical of Israel as a nuclear power, Germany as provider (or as Grass puts it,'sub-contractor') of weaponry and even has a pop at the leader of Iran as being a 'loudmouth'.

The majority of the world knows, and acknowledges, that Israel takes to criticism as someone with a nut allergy takes to snickers bars and so I guess that this means that the majority of the world
will not be at all surprised by Interior minister, Eli Yishai's banning of Grass entering the country. The sadness is that I still come across people whop will point to the shoah, the 'fact' that all around Israel are nations conspiring to destroy it 'at any minute' and who would consider pre-emptive strikes, missile attacks and many other, what I would call 'excesses' to be legitimate.

I struggle with the middle East conflicts as there is much posturing, many broken promises and too many awful acts carried out by both sides and the position taken by supporters has, apparently, little to do with right or wrong and morality and truth are but shifting attitudes. I struggle with a nation who, despite many resolutions and findings against them, of the international law sort, continues to build, turn off power, blockade and kill innocents (and no, I'm not ignoring the Palestinians and those within their borders who fire rockets and cause death!) and genrally act in a totally ungodly way. If these are the people of God (meaning here He who is depicted by the tetragrammaton) then I would be very afraid if I were them, for I see little or nothing of Him in this secular (and therefore Israel in name only) state.

Have heard bits of the poem read today but not read the whole but surely stir up, challenge and reflect is part of the process of being a poet. It is their job to reflect and challenge (isn't it?).

And for those who will engage in the fine art of the ad hominem, denying any credibility for Grass' words because he was once a member of the SS (a bit of an oversight but one to which he suitably, and adequately, responded in 2006). In fact, the act of forgetting to tell people of his SS connections when he was the focus of germany's conscience was perhaps understandable and might even makes his earlier days of being the 'voice of conscience' all the more powerful.

But when German (or any one else) speaks out against Israel they are not being anti-semitic any more than someone who speaks out against green or animal rights issues or homosexuality are destroying the earth, murderers or homophobes. There are just, all too, convenient ways of denying the right to speak out and belittling those who might have differences of opinion with them.

Just as Israel is doing with Grass today.

Pax