Christians don't have the monopoly on 'doing good', But ...

I'm beginning to think that people of no faith might have the monopoly on 'doing spiteful - or intolerant' as all too often I find them displaying something that denies anything of an  open-mind and indicates anything but rational thinking has been taking place.

It's been an interesting few days as I have listened to radio broadcasts explaining how 'delusional' Christians force children into acts of worship. I have heard supposedly sane people explain how there is no difference to be found between the fundamentalists acting across Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and Christians. There have been people almost frothing at the mouth as they peddled something bordering on hate crimes and put on display their sad Christophobic utterances.

I have to be honest here and say that were any of those with whom I 'do church' to speak as many of the self-appointed, draw your own line and approve it by your own thinking and self-approved standards, folk I have been hearing of late then I would be encouraging them to think again.

The problem is that the majority of those I have heard on the radio (or read in print) seem to have many views and very little thinking at all and I'm beginning to think that rather than the old humanist/non-theistic chestnut which claims that being Christian requires us to leave our brains at the door, this now needs to be revised with the words 'humanists' replacing the word Christian:

I am so very sad at the stuff I have heard. "Perphaps," I think to myself, "They are the secular equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church rather than displaying humanistic  mainstream thinking (but I fear not!)". The labels so many ascribe and the pure venom and spitefulness they exude: Is it any wonder that as the world adopts a more secular approach it also become a lesser place than it was in terms of justice (for all I hear these days is 'settling scores' and 'revenge') morality (for 'self' is now an acceptable focus to have) and family (let's not go there!).

I am one who believes in tolerance and yet my tolerance is apparently met by people who wish to attack and abuse and destroy as an outworking of their intolerance. If I were to try and convert people to a theist approach to life with the same vigour, venom and irrational dialogue as that demonstrated in the words and writings of some of these 'free-thinking' then 'non-theists' I'd (quite rightly) be labelled a bigot and mindless fanatic and eschewed by the majority. Cloak it in humanism or focus upon those who you consider to be nnnnnnn (choose your own cause: homophobic, racist, mysogny, misandry, etc.) and you'll soon have the morons our with their tumbrels and scythes screaming for blood. Mob rule and unthinking madness seem to be the order of the day!

I have absolutes and values and standards and these, even when I'd wish to change them, stand fir,: They guide my engagement with others around me. Others around me wish to live in a world of pseudo-scientific bunkum (odd that, isn't that what some of those claim Christians do as we supposedly oppose science?) where they worship technology and science that all too often they don't understand. They see man as the key to successful and fulfilled living but take any good idea (and I don't mean anything religious - though such a stance would fit) and watch how man will change it to meet his own ends. 

Look at all the wars that the sheep will claim were all caused by 'religion' (man's ultimate rebellion against God) and see how many were caused by non-theistic people and their thinking. 

Look at the regimes and oppressions, the greed, the corporations and tell me: Are they theistic or humanist in their attunes, values and ambitions?

I don't attack humanists, I engage with them (often agreeing at much of their thinking - if thinkers they be) and I pray for them and I respect their desire to be as they are (all too often being basically self-serving and closed minded) and refrain from ad hominem, finger-pointing, bitter recriminations and name-calling. What a shame these 'open-minded' folk can't have the grace to do the same.

One product to satisfy all the needs of all the people?

The key to success is the ability to produce sonething people want to hear, watch, read or in some way desire. That thing that touches them in the places that bring them something. Anything!

It might be pleasure, after all pleasure is surely one of the needs we live to satisfy in oh so many ways. For some it's found in images whilst for others it's music - the muses of old harnessed and shackled, cajoled and controlled and mastered- and yet touching us at a point of need (or should that be desire?).

Then there's that thing which confers the illusion of  being that which you perceive as generous and morally right - that which peddles the illusion that you are a good, moral, and 'right' person. The need to be, as a supervisor many years back, 'A good sort!' But it's sated by dropping a few coins into the cap of the beggar or by responding to that appeal on Radio Four or signing that sponsorship sheet. Look at me - I wear a poppy, a daffodil, a piece of pink silk, I must be a good person.

Mustn't I?

If we can find that thing that takes away the emptiness, that feeling that we are somehow short, somehow wrong, somehow needy - not quite right. That thing that keeps us drinking, dancing, talking, reading, watching, listening, living, copulating, earning, spending, possessing, doing, being - in the knowledge that it will bring us into that place - the reason we live:

Ecstasy

Nirvhana

Paradise

Knowledge

Salvation

Salvation? Now there's a product to be refined, packaged and peddled!

Look at the many people out there with feeble minds, some shattered (or at least crazed) by mental and emotional fault lines caused by chemical imbalance or the influence of drug, drink and the people they've meet. That ready market who will put aside reason and caution to buy into the words and images that confer the moral, spiritual and intellectual rectitude that has eluded them.

We all know them - the people who will buy into that message that brings it near to their grasp - and yet the possession of the grail is momentary.  A fleeting tingle; that momentary feeling of have made it. That tingle we feel when we've acted in such a way that we feel some connectiveness, so tangible connection with whatever or whoever we seek: That 'having touched the face of God' moment.kilkkk

What if you could sell that?

Isn't that what the TV prophets, the snake oil salesmen, the shopping channels, the sex industry, the drug pushers, the barren, the advertising industry, the plastic surgeons, the moving (and static) images, the musicians and so many others - isn't that what they do?

The modern atheist - often corrupting science as badly as those who are religious do - seeks it in reason and yet often, ironically, without reason or logic. They have no god - only their unscientific, illogical, bitter prophets - they're free thinkers (as long as they're told what to freely think)!

The person of faith - any faith, any god, any focus for their hope - seek it in in ways that contradict and contract into something self-serving and of their own construction. Seeking to buy salvation - or the hope of it through whatever guru is in vogue, or hasn't fallen (yet) by watching! listening! reading! sending their donations!

The humanist - lives (should that be exists?) in an existence that comes and goes and has no other purpose or reason other than to be now. No progression, purpose or hope really. That state of being that, as a humanist conducting a funeral had it, means, 'This is all we get - born, live, die and then gone as if we were never were - our value being in the memories of those who remember us!'

And when they forget we are gone - it as if we never were.

The more I reflect on what 'THE' product is.

That thing which would really sell and would sate the desires of all in every sense and for every sense: Seen, heard, felt, smelt and tasted. the more I reflect upon it I find myself coming back to something that should be handed out for free - not sold, not exchanged for gold or experience or satisfying our desires - and that is Jesus.

And it's a freebie!

Want a neo-Pagan/confused funeral?

Best go for a non-Christian (not actually sure it deserves the label 'humanist') service then!

Fancy a confused committal where the dearly departed is committed to Mother Earth and their spirit is set free to oblivion in the knowledge that because the people present will treasure their memories their life has found merit and meaning and they can rest safe in the knowledge that they lived for a purpose.

How's about being commended to 'all that is' and set free to be part of the whole realm of creation, tasking their part in the overall canvas of life and having the place they rest sanctified and hallowed to their memory for eternity?

The more I listen to people doing these services - especially the geezer what reads out cards, messages and emails as if it's a wedding - the more I wonder what some of these people are doing (other than making money out of the fact the customer knows nnnn 'Wasn't religious' so they offer something that is hopeless in oh so many ways!).

I am always surprised by the people who claim to have no faith and not be religious and the ways in which they cling to a hope of heaven, eternity and all that stuff. When I pointed out to one that what they'd delivered was the hope of Christianity coupled with some folklore and neo-confused pagan (ooooh, nature is so clever) tosh - the response was. 'Oh, but it gives them comfort to think there's more!'

Which is of course true but what I had before me was a snake oil salesman - offering hopelessness masquerading as hope and a terminal experience billed as something that with some confused continuance.

What makes it sadder is that some I have spoken to have told me how when the words, 'They weren't religious' are used by the person contracting the funeral then the potential for something 'humanist/non-religious' to be sourced is great. later though it transpires that this wasn't quite what the family might have wanted - they just didn't want to appear as if the deceased was an active Christian - and ended up with something quite different from that which they might have hoped for.

How very sad - and rather frustrating too :-(

Happy Holidays (not for me thank you!)

One of the people with whom I rarely find myself in conflict with (and in fact still don't even though they have prompted this post) has written that:

"Happy Holidays" is a recognition that Christians are not the only ones celebrating a major festival at this time of year. In a multifaith society this is important. 

Its origins are, I believe, in the US where the significance of the Jewish community's celebration of Hanukah is acknowledged. Of course, here we also have Diwali which seems to move about a bit date-wise but occurs mid-winterish. This doesn't (or shouldn't) stop Christians witnessing to the birth of our Saviour, but I am always very pleased to receive my annual card from a local Islamic organisation wishing me "Happy Holidays"."


He also writes that Birmingham's failed 'Winterval festival' (which I have dealt with before) was never intended to replace or redefine Christmas and I have acknowledged (more than once) that it was nothing more than a bit of cynical marketing to try and attract various of the major faiths (and those of no faith) into Brum for a bit of shopping and perhaps even a spot of culture! The goal was to develop an extended period of commercial opportunity by stretching things from Diwali to Christmas [and perhaps beyond]) not create,  or do away with, any of the festivals but as it wasn't going to mention any by name any longer, this would still have been the outworking even if not the desire!

Anyway, all I said was  (tempted to do 'Life of Brian' here, but will resist) that it was cynical (and it was) just as the 'Happy Holidays' tosh is pretty much an exercise in cynicism, too!

So let's look at the 'including all faiths' piece of 'Happy Holidays' for 2012. It appears to encompass:
Diwali = 13th - 17th November (at the very earliest edge of things)
Hanukkah = 8th - 16th December (some early coalescence)
Advent = 2nd - 24th December
Christmas = Christmas Eve to Epiphany (6th January)

For so many of us these days Christmas starts early. Where I live our town's Christmas lights went on on the 17th November and the week leading up to that saw a christmas tree festival in the parish church too! I have Jewish friends and whilst they are happy to get Christmas cards along with their Hanukkah cards, they are very definite that it is not 'Happy Holidays' either.

And regardless of whatever reason some might have introduced this into the US the reality is that for many it is more about not doing the 'Christ' word and that for me is more than sad making - it is something much, much, much  (overactive Police Academy gene - sorry) worse at a number of levels for a number of reasons:

A couple of years back I was wished 'HH' by one of the members of a call centre and upon asking why they'd done it was told that it was company policy because it was less offensive to people who didn't celebrate it. Being that sort of a person I rang the head office and eventually got through to someone who informed me that it was policy so as not to offend the many 'non-religious people' who might find the Christian festival offensive that it was merely referred to as 'holiday'.

"Are there many of them? " I asked. The person on the other end said they weren't sure but it was company policy and had come from 'someone upstairs'. So I ask to speak to someone in that place and eventually found myself chatting to a director (about thirty minutes) who listened and promised that, on the balance of our conversation, they would revisit their policy. I left assured (in my mind) that nothing would really happen and was stunned when I got a call from the same call centre to be wish a 'merry Christmas'.

As for being offensive my many friends and acquaintances from other faiths not only insist on referring to Christmas but have also been extremely vocal (and far more active than the Christians) when they have perceived that Christmas might be being weakened or threatened. The reality being that members of the world faiths (and that include a great number of Muslims by the way in case there are any Daily Fascist readers visiting) are supportive of those who hold other beliefs. It is called tolerance - something that many secularists and humanists appear to know nothing about!

With that I take this early opportunity to wish you and yours a wonderfully blessed and peaceful Christmas and a prosperous and happy New Year.

More Humanist humour

The teacher in a primary school asked her year three pupils about faith issues and seeking to gauge who might know what the fast-approaching Christian festival was asked if any of the children went to church. Only one hand went up.

She asked the child who put their hand up, why she went to church. Proudly she answered, "I'm a Christian, Miss!"

The teacher continued, "And can you tell the class why you're a Christian please?"
The girl responded, "That's easy. My Dad's a Christian, my Mum's a Christian and so I'm a Christian too!"

Trying to make a point about personal belief rather than being born Christian, the teacher stopped the girl and said to her, "That's not necessarily the case. If your Father was a moron and your Mother was a moron, what would you be then?"

"Oh that's an easy one," replied the girl, "I'd be a secular humanist!"

(Wow, two birds with the same stone - Thank you Peter!)
---------------------------------

A Rabbi, a Priest, an imam and a secular humanist were engaged in a theological debate"

"My G_d is the G_d of Abraham," says the rabbi.

"My God is the God of Abraham," says the priest.

"My God is aso the God of Abraham for Abraham served Allah," says the imam.

"But there was no god for Abraham to have, says the secular humanist.

The Rabbi looks aghast and asks, "How on earth can you disagree with so many learned theological opinions?"

"I have no problems with the odds even though it's three against one, I am happy to be in the minority for I know I am right" says the humanist.

The men pray that God will send a sign to support their view and the room fills with a sense of peace and is ablaze with the shekinah glory of the Lord and a voice whispers into the hearts of all four men, "I am the God of Abraham!"

"O.K." says the humanist, "No change, merely four against one!"

(From George, a secular humanist - see, they do have a sense of humour - thought they would!)
---------------------------------

One mail I have received says that we are not allowed to laugh at ourselves or others because it gives people permission to ridicule. made me think of this wonderful cartoon:

b___0___d

……..[]……..

……..[]……..

Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

Humanist Humour?

Following my earlier post, I have been sent this:

A rather accurate assessment perhaps?

And a joke (thank you Dave):

"An octogenarian atheist is on his death bed, the end approaching swiftly. He turns to his son and tells him to get the local Catholic minister, he wants to convert. Totally shocked, his son reasons with his father, "You’ve always been an atheist, why change your mind now, what about your integrity?" But the father will have none of it, "Get the priest, now!"

The son continues to protest, "But you have taught us that religion is a con, that God doesn't exist and those 'people of faith' are nothing but hypocrites, why now?" Again the father demands that the son fetch the priest to which the son replies that he will if his father can give him one good reason.

"Well son," says the man, "I've figured that it's better for one of them to die than one of us and so I decided to bite the bullet!"

Five minutes later, the priest was there!

Any more?

(I wonder if humanists tell humanist jokes. I suspect not.)

Pax

Humourous Humanists

Having written about education yesterday I have received an email from an oxymoron, 'humanist minister' (no, the 'P' is not missing!).

This erudite gentleman is taking me to task for the fact that I clearly stated, "That humanists are a 'non-religious' bunch of often confused and fatalistic people who come under the classification of 'philosophy'." I have to admit that I am 'guilty as charged', thus far.

He continues to inform me that, "Humanists are not flawed, for their thinking is logical in that they assume there to be no supernatural force at work in this world, only those forces which we choose to exert ourselves! Respect for everything and everyone (including their religious beliefs?) is the hallmark of humanism and that those who choose to minister this are seeking to make meaning of life in all its fulness."

I have to say that humanist minister is, in my definition book at least, most definitely an oxymoron, but less about descriptions and more about what has been said.

I am sorry but unless something has changed with the way they do things, humanists are 'non-religious' and are merely a bunch of people who are concerned with living within their own philosophical parameters. This surely makes them a philosophy and therefore they fall outside of the label 'religious'. They are not theists, everything they have and do is centered on themselves, so how can they claim to be 'ministers' I wonder?

Some time back I found myself sitting in on a service at a crem' which was conducted by a person who would have been a clown if only they'd had the uniform. Still, undeterred by their lack of appropriate clothing, the conducted a three-ring circus of a funeral.

Act one.
Consisted of the 'minister' reading out emails and cards from friends and family. It went something like this:

"And here's a card from Uncle Albert and Auntie Kate who say, 'sorry not to be there at your big day but we both send our love!'. here's one from all the guys at the depot hoping that you find what you've been hoping for on the other side. Jean from accounts says your tea-making will be sorely missed and hope that today goes well . . . ." And so it continued for about five minutes, more like the bit with the speeches before the bride and groom (remember them, those were the days) cut the cake.

Act two.
The 'minister' read a poem about not being gone and how, like a ship the deceased had merely left harbour and was nestling just out of sight beyond the horizon. This was finished by the 'minister' telling us (from the script which they followed faithfully from their script) how this life was all we had and whatever we did in it was all that would be left to remind others of our passage through life. The lives that we left, the loves that we had and the things that we passed on were our heritage and the finally marker of a life that, having been extinguished, was no more!

Act three.
And perhaps the most bizzare element of the circus was the playing of 'Abide with me', a hymn that the dearly departed had loved all of their life. I had to wonder whether anyone had listened to the words because they spoke of a Christian hope and a victory over death and the grave. A musical summation to the fact that what had happened was merely a focus on self and an exclamation of no hope!

The Encore
Just when you thought you'd seen it all, the 'minister' came to the front and said something like:

"My name is Coco the Clown (name changed to protect the inanely inept!) and I hope you have found something within this service to help you reflect on N's passing. I am a registered humanist minister with the (something or other humanist association) and look forward to seeing you again one day. If any of you need my services I can be found in the telephone directory or in the (something or other humanist) association's directory.

I look forward to meeting you again one day."

And then he handed out cards to people whilst they were mooching around the flower crosses (obviously didn't tell the mourners it was a humanist bash!).

No, not flawed, something so very much worse!

ps. I have been told by some who have had 'humanist ministers' the clients felt they were getting a 'less religious' service than they would have had with a 'minister'. They certainly do Stanley!

Religious Education - Observations and potential solutions

It wasn't that long ago that Ofsted were telling us that the quality of religious education in schools was declining and that something like 20% of schools were failing and providing inadequate religious education.

If we ignore the inane mutterings and protestations of humanists and secularists who drone on, respectively and, endlessly about their belief (or rather lack of it) being included in the RE curriculum or made optional we can see their are some obvious issues and some equally obvious solutions.

Religious education is all about educating schoolchildren about matters religious! It is supposed to do what it says on the tin, couldn't be simpler. Now the first problem is that many of the RE teachers I have met at various functions, conferences and the like are people of no, or perhaps limited, faith. I have yet to meet any language teachers who are unable to converse in the languages they teach or dialogue about the finer grammatical points and the the culture of the nations what speak their lingo! I have rarely met anyone who, unlike the teachers when I was a child, was a practising member of any of the mainline faith groups and could dialogue regarding their faith or any faith with any degree of confidence.

Solution the first
Religious education teachers need to be people of faith and need to be specialists in their chosen subject. Religion is not merely a matter of geography - we're in England and so we're Christian, Anil is from India and so has to be a Hindu, etc. I don't expect theological degrees, but I do expect understanding of the core values, practices and outworking.
----------------------------------------------------

The next problem is one which if I understand the baccalaureate (B) correctly is set to increase. Religious Education might still be a 'core' subject, but it's points what wins prizes and there don't seem to be any attached to RE with regard to the IB. It might be a core subject but it, like assemblies which are now non-religious mumblings before the first lesson in many places, is is an observance rather than engagement role these days, and this appears to be likely to descend further rather than pick up.

Solution the second
Secularism is taught in every subject outside of the religious Education classroom. Everything is secular and this is naive and rather than supporting choice (which secularists claim to want but really mean 'their choice') secularists lay the seeds of dissent, conflict, misunderstanding and sectarian differences.

Regardless of the point-winning examination subjects, there is a need within a balanced society for people to have some understanding of the beliefs, attitudes and actions of others because of their faith. This is what brings peaceful co-existence. What point is there in having an intellectually equipped people who can't live alongside others (the secularist problem in a nutshell). So the solution is that we must teach faith issues - simple isn't it!
----------------------------------------------------

Humanists drone on about not being included in the RE syllabus, but in case they haven't realised it, they are actually a 'non-religious' bunch of often confused and fatalistic people who come under the classification of 'philosophy' (flawed or skewed philosophy more often than not, but hey ho - it's an 'ology'!).

One school I engaged with a few years back had an anti-Christian, alternative faith, head of RE. This person used the lessons to proselytise (unsuccessfully) and to attack and ridicule the beliefs of the faiths they were supposed to be teaching about. With this talk of 'Big Society' the reality is that 'Big Society' is what Christians are, and have been since we first set up shop - it who Jesus is!

Solution the third
Those of us who are trained in matters theological and are able to dialogue and discuss regarding other faiths, the differences and the similarities, who are equipped to explain the philosophy of religion and the realities of faith need to get off of our fat backsides and offer ourselves to the schools. I visit schools and do issues like the 'shoah' and genocide, other faiths, ethical issues, moral choices and whatever else they ask me to bring in. I do this from infant through to 'A' level and find that open and honest engagement is always well received, even when agreement might not be forthcoming.
----------------------------------------------------

So, if you are someone who complains about the falling standards of Religious Education in our schools here's the bottom-line (honestly it is):

Stop complaining and get out there and be the difference!