Lahore - News, attitudes, actions and prayer

There I was, thinking the Lahore would be big news on the BBC News front page, but sadly not:

Mind you I should be grateful that it makes the smaller items on the bottom right, up there with the FA Cup means something I guess.

But once again it's Brussels that claims the headlines (perspective here being that although Lahore has 70 dead, the 35 who died in Belgium are nearer, and since one of the dead was British, this becomes bigger, more popularist, news!).

Seems that we are getting as parochial with our news as the Americans: They tend to look out to the East from New York and see the twinklng lights of California! Iinternational news is discussing things in the Northwest of the country!). Living, as we do, in this global village of ours we need to report and respond to awfulness in the same way whether it occurs in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Antipodes or theIndian sub-continent or anywhere.

We need to stand in prayer and disgust against wickedness wheresoever it is to be found - our response should be a robust 'No' and 'Never Again' should be the byword for genocide and acts of terror wherever they occur no matter who the target is.

I turned on the radio and found people ringing in to talk about the Muslim involvement in Lahore. Sadly, whilst it is easy to point to the acts of terrorists and to stir up dissent against Muslims, it seems that none of those I heard managed to mention the 'real' involvement of the majority* of Muslims in Lahore. Perhaps you'd like to read it now:

Radicalisation begins with ignorance and is fuelled by intolerance.

Please pray for the victims of the Lahore attrocity and their families and for all inhabitants of that place:

* Here 'majority' means more than the smaller number who committed the attrocity in question.
Simple really - I'm sure there is no further explanation needed.

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?

Blue Sky Thinking - Ignorance

Saw this in a slightly different form and thought I'd post it as a bit of 'Blue Sky Thinking' as it's something I wish we, as Christians, did a lot more of and would love some of the 'I'm a thinker and I'm a scientific sort' to engage in a lot more! After all so many people out there claim to be thinkers and yet their assumptions and glib off the cuff comments show them generally to be better sheep than the Christians (who are supposed to be after all!!).

Anyway, enjoy yourself with this one:

Would be good to think that there were more willing to dialogue across the strata that exists in Christendom and with those outside who claim - wouldn't it?

The Fallacies and Faith of the 'faithful AND faithless'

I have recently been amazed to find the often proclaimed 'arrogance of Christians' residing more aggressively and entrenched in those who claim to have no faith.

Time and time again I find people of faith reading books from those who oppose their belief on the grounds of reason, rational thinking and logic and yet rarely do I find the opposite taking place.

Time and time again I find those who claim that reason, research and evidence form the basis of their thinking and attitudes rarely exercise reason, never do research (unless this is the revised usage of what I call reading newspapers) and accept the flimsiest of evidence (anecdotal and unsubstantiated is always of course acceptable if it's not faith for some).

The reality is that there are those from both camps who dialogue, read, think and continue to engage in research. When I became a Christian I was challenged to collect a brain at the door rather than leave it as those of no faith often accuse. My faith demands that I continue to study and to challenge the Bible and the settings - I acknowledge consistencies and similarities with some of the Biblical narratives and other writings; I accept the psychological imperatives and definitions of faith and can agree that religion does indeed provide someone to thank when it goes well, plead with when it's going wrong and appease when 'under a curse'. That said I also acknowledge the empirical evidence before me and test it with eyes that seek explanation in both science and faith. I look at the stuff I can understand and seek to find answers to that which I cannot - acknowledging the intelligence of those 'ancients'  and trying to see what their cultures might have added to the mix too!
Would that those on the other side of the divide did the same.

Recently I encountered two sides of the same 'ignorance' coin on the same day in the one episode - I find myself returning to the people and their comments and, on each replay, find myself more frustrated and (to be honest) just a little angry with them each time - Let me explain:

The Christian
This person was firmly stuck in a position whereby their faith was something fixed and what they believe was totally dug in and fixed. They 'knew what they believed' and they were not going to be shaken from it. The problem was that what was on view was an immature faith in a long-term believer and this was all due to the place they worshipped in. You probably know the type of place - great sermons on a dozen passages, a Bible with about twelve books and a faith that move mountains and a reality that made its members walk around them!

They were rigid in their belief and vehement in their rejection of 'God haters' - the primacy of the Word they neither knew or understood was central - and yet they could neither defend it or show themselves to be able workers for it. 'In the name of the Lord' is a great way to travel - but the words need to be fleshed out and take upon themselves the incarnacy that God's Word did!

There was no willingness to debate - just to shout people down and assumed to work on the basis that by repeating trite little Christian mantras and closed statements that others would 'be saved'.

The Atheist
Were keen to tell me how open-minded they were and yet even had it been open (and believe me it wasn't) there was so little of it (a mind) that chewing gum and walking would have cause a core failure!

As the conversation progressed I realised that they kept using the word evidence and yet when prodded and probed it was obvious that their evidence was gleaned from the laboratory that is the pub, newspaper and that oft quoted source: The Friend. They (mis)quoted from their prophets and gurus and (in the name of balance I'm sure) also misquoted Bible and other 'religious' stuff too. They appealed to reason but there was little of it. Pointed to facts, but they were misquotes and error-filled utterances. They spoke of research and yet had never really even read the basic books of either faith (for theist and non-theist are but two opposing faiths - God or Science, free or under authority, self-pleasing or God-pleasing - divide it as you will).

What was sad in these encounters was that both adversaries worked from a position of entrenched ignorance. There was no research into what they or those with whom they disagreed believed (or didn't) and thought. There was no ability (or apparently willingness) to engage in dialogue and find out what the other side believed - just a reliance on the belief that merely opposing, and writing off, the other side was enough.

What was really sad was that neither of the people had even the basic tools to be able to defend their own beliefs and this, in my book (and God's too) is probably the most sad part of the whole.

The way forward (for theists and non-theists):
Please remember that faith engaged in without involving your brain is useless and hollow religion - it is the stuff that ignorance grows in to choke everything that God (or not god) would have us celebrate and renders us an impotent and limited, superstitious and empty people.

So read the books that form the basis of your belief (And where this is the real Bible - read ALL of it, there's 66 books you know!)

Read books about the things you think challenge our faith and find out for yourself.

Read books by people you might think oppose your faith (and people) and dialogue with them, then

Dialogue with people who believe what you believe and check your understanding (and theirs) and, that done, engage in dialogue with people you think you don't disagree with.

Remember that no one group has the monopoly on being good, acting wrongly, being stupid, having closed minds, bias, ignorance, stupidity, blind faith, selfishness, exclusivity and best of all - being just plain ugly people!

How can we say we love God when we hate the image of Him made visible in the person before us?


I scribbled this over a period of weeks - revisiting and rethinking about how what I'd encountered informed and challenged my own position and attitudes. I think that this might be the right time, as we reach the end of 2013, to post it.

Horden Shootings

The MP, Grahame Morris, and the Daily fascist (along with oh so many others) get it totally wrong. Then again what can I say but no surprise there. Morris in a totally uniformed kneejerk response (if the newspapers are to be believed) has called for tighter 'gun control' but thankfully David Cameron has come back with the right response in his assessment that this is not necessary.

Seems to me that the Prime Minister has got it absolutely right. Mind you the same boring and overbearing people who successfully called for the removal of handguns after Dunblane (and if he'd run them over with a car they would have called for a ban on motor vehicles I suppose?) are now trying, once again, to peddle their ignorance and take away the 'oh so scary' firearms from people who have a legitimate right to have them.

Now for those who will witter on about those who have the right to hold firearms (with the ambition of seeing this right removed) let me tell you what being a shooter means.

First and foremost it must be taken as a given that those who have rights also have responsibilities (whoops, there goes the animal rights lobby I guess) and there is no place where this is more true than the area of shooting. Had I a gun cabinet at home then I would have the responsibility to ensure it was safely affixed to walls such that it could not be jemmied off. Not only that but the cabinet would be of a design that resisted being forced open and were you successful in so doing would have to repeat the arduous task of breaking doors open at least a couple more times before you had the actions and the ammunition in the same place such that you might use the illegally accessed weapons held within it (and do it whilst the alarm got on your nerves to boot!). Now, picture a set of really nice Sabatier knives of a chunky set of golf clubs, which are potentially more lethal as the former could be hidden and the latter could be taken along a street without much consternation and people running away (well not until you started swinging anyway).

Secondly, being a shooter means that there are people in the community who are weapons savvy and it has been my experience that it is these very people who got a knock when granddad's 'war memento' was found wrapped in an oilskin up in the loft (and I know this to be true). It is also these people who spot the 'nutters' long before they can ever get anywhere near being issued with an FAC and it is because of this that some, who would have been problems, never make it to the front pages.

Thirdly, rather than call for increased measures and yet also saying that the use of psychiatrists as anything other than exceptional circumstances (as Mr Morris has done) many of the shooters I know from past contact were most happy for this if it proved helpful in keeping the sport/hobby of shooting more secure.

Lastly, when you consider the common denominator in pretty much all of the 'mad shooter' incidents in this country is maladministration by our overworked and under-resourced Police and ask why a man who was reported for an obvious metal health problem, or had come out of prison and was known to be dangerous (even without weapons) and yet was allowed to keep his weapons - this tells you where the real problems lie.

SOME FACTS

Shooters (generally) aren't in love with weapons in weird and wacky ways and those who came into my club and drooled at magazine pictures whilst mumbling, "Heckler & Koch MP7, oooh want one!" were destined never to shoot in our, or any other club and their cards were marked with the excellent Police officers what did firearms related work.

Six weapons in the possession of a shooter isn't 'an arsenal' any more than a bag of golf clubs, a box of Sabatier or a set of Le Creuset kitchenware is a collection of lethal weapons. Mind you, in the wrong hands and with the wrong intent all of these can be exactly that (and add the cooking of some as a credible fourth option in some cases).

Six weapons in a gun cabinet, especially when some are shotguns represents lots of firepower if there were six people, but not a lot when there is but one pair of hands available, but for one person it can be legitimised quite quickly by pointing to the different disciplines that different weapons are fit for. Target shooting, vermin, game, clays and the like quickly make the list as rational as having many clubs in your bag (or can you play with just a sand wedge?).

The idea of getting all the weapons and storing them in one place is great until you realise you have created a mega-arsenal and where there might be six (I used to have but four) there are now sixty! Rationalise that one for me.

My last point is the Ryan (Hungerford) wasn't such a non-shooter that all he managed to hit with his automatic weapons was road signs and yet they were taken away because of what he'd done (road sign protectionism?). Handguns were taken away because of Hamilton (Dunblane) and yet (a few odd practical pistol sorts aside) I would have said that these were treated with more security consciousness and greater control within shooting that even the most strict weapons banning type would have required. The reason for this is purely and simply ignorance and because they don't know they legislate.

So here's a bit more for you and a plea to politicians to actually understand what the needs and the realities are regarding shooters i.e. why not go to a club and ask questions (an MP would get you if they knocked, an ordinary mortal generally wouldn't unless they'd made appointments and stuff!

Pax

ps. Sorry it's long but I just had to keep sucking until the spaghetti was gone :)