tomdg says

So we finally have a government ...

2010-05-13T22:26:00.000-07:00

I love the tradition of the speech on the steps of Downing street. Even coming at the end of probably the most exciting week of politics I've ever seen, Tuesday's two examples were no anticlimax. I found both Gordon Brown's and David Cameron's speeches quite moving.

Of course the best speech of this sort ever delivered came from Jesus (Luke 4:16-21):

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour."

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

This is the vision against which I measure every government, and every time I see a new prime minister speak outside that shiny black door I am looking to see to what extent their policies and values match with what Jesus said at the start of his ministry. Of course, none of them ever meet the mark. But sometimes, as this week, I find echoes of Jesus' words, they never meet the mark; but sometimes, as this week, there are echoes every time I am disappointed, but sometimes there are the odd parallels, and this week was no exception.

What was particularly interesting this time, though, was that the speech was more than just David Cameron's agenda for the country; it contained references to things that until a week ago were anathema to most of his party and clearly came from his Lib Dem coalition partners.

And that's the great thing about coalition government. After days of negotiations - and oh, how I'd have loved to have been able to watch those 24/7 on the TV - the two parties have put together a package that cuts out the extremes of both sides in the aim of being more broadly palatable. Out go the inheritance tax cut (hoorah!) and the scrapping of Trident (shame). For once we can see how two groups of people with apparently radically different views can put aside their differences and come up with a common agenda. Are you watching, Israel and Palestine?

Like most people, I suspect, I find this isn't the government I really wanted; but neither is it the government I most feared. And perhaps that is more important.

I Went To Vote

2009-06-04T22:47:00.000-07:00

I went to vote yesterday. I took my son with me, partly because the polling station was at his school, but also because I wanted him to see me doing it because it’s important.

Everything I heard on the radio suggested that we citizens have become so thoroughly disenfranchised with the system, what with all the scandal over MP’s expenses etc, that none of us would bother.

And in the evening, since it was sunny and my son was at Beavers at church, which was also being used as a polling station, I took a book and sat on the church steps and read, and watched the people coming and going.

What I saw was a beautiful thing. Couples walking along hand-in-hand clutching their polling cards. Whole families with young children coming out together. Fathers and sons heading off to vote together for the first time. Groups of young people voting with their friends. People of all sorts, all colours, all ages. All of them smiling, all of them proud to be part of something. Just like me.

So whatever you read this morning in the media, a media that seems to be escalating its war against the politicians to ever more extreme levels, don’t believe a word of it. Real people are still going out, quietly, in their millions, to vote for a system that they not only believe in but are fiercely proud of.

And deep in the bowels of Westminster, of Brussels, of our councils, among the spin doctors, the media hacks, and the moat-cleaning duck-island building spivs, there are still people who are in public office for no other reason than that the want to help run the country and make it a better place. Long may they continue.

40

2008-11-05T05:34:00.000-08:00

Since getting up at 2am to watch the US election results, I've been strongly reminded of Psalm 40:

I waited patiently for the LORD; he turned to me and heard my cry.
He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock and gave me a firm place to stand.
He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.
Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust,
who does not look to the proud, to those who turn aside to false gods.
Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done.
The things you planned for us no one can recount to you;
were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare.

In fact I've been seized by the desire to listen to U2's version of that repeatedly. If you look back at what I wrote this time four years ago you'll probably understand why.

Election Day

2008-11-04T03:04:00.000-08:00

So, US election today.

I read in all the media that the Republican party are relying on evangelical Christians to get the vote out for their candidate.

Well, don't believe everything you see on the news. I am an evangelical, bible-believing Christian myself, and I urge anyone out there to go out and vote for Obama.

Jesus' heart is with the poor, the outcast, the alien. I pray that America's Evangelical Christians (and everyone else) will think about that as they vote today.

Harry Potter and the Political Donation

2008-10-04T01:30:00.000-07:00

I saw in the news recently (ish ... ok, I’m getting behind) that JK Rowling has donated a million pounds to the Labour party. More interestingly, she explained why here. I quote in full:

"I believe that poor and vulnerable families will fare much better under the Labour Party than they would under a Cameron-led Conservative Party. Gordon Brown has consistently prioritised and introduced measures that will save as many children as possible from a life lacking in opportunity or choice. The Labour government has reversed the long-term trend in child poverty, and is one of the leading EU countries in combating child poverty. David Cameron's promise of tax perks for the married, on the other hand, is reminiscent of the Conservative government I experienced as a lone parent. It sends the message that the Conservatives still believe a childless, dual-income, but married couple is more deserving of a financial pat on the head than those struggling, as I once was, to keep their families afloat in difficult times."

There was a time when I had real questions about the policies which JKR highlights. As a Christian, I have pretty strong views on the value of marriage. I believe (as does anyone who looks at the evidence) that a proper marriage (which means a man and a woman) is the best place to conceive and bring up children. I also fully believe in the biblical view that divorce is pretty much never the right thing (not least because that’s what Jesus says, and who am I to tell God he’s wrong?) There is a large part of the Labour party which would disagree with me on those views (but certainly not all of it), and I have a real problem with that.

But I still believe that of the choices available, the Labour party is much closer to God’s heart than the Conservatives, and JKR’s statement goes a long way to explaining why. You see, in God’s eyes, the question isn’t who best deserves a handout from the government; it’s who most needs it. It was not for the righteous (let alone the self-righteous) that Jesus came and died, but for the unrighteous, and to call sinners to repentence.

For how many people, honestly, can the married tax allowance have made the difference between divorce or working a relationship through? Between marriage and cohabitation – or more likely promiscuity? Maybe a handful. Most of the time, the policy simply gives money to people who are already better off than if they were single. Encouraging marriage is a noble cause, but for the effect it has, a married tax allowance is not a great use of government money. By contrast, giving money to poor people with children - married or not – makes a real difference to the lives of everyone concerned, particularly the children, and at a time when they really need help. It’s quite possible that the financial help given to new parents may do more to save their relationships and therefore promote marriage than the married tax allowance ever did.

But the focus of the Labour party’s policies hasn’t been on poor adults – it’s been on poor children. Children cannot help how many parents they have, nor by how hard their parents work. There may be a "moral hazard" in looking after the poor, but that moral hazard does not apply to children, as they can do very little to affect their own situation. And anyway, the concept of moral hazard - so important to right-wingers - is not something that should colour Christian thinking. It's not that it's not a valid concept - it accurately describes the fallen nature of humanity. But the only references you’ll find to it in the Bible are where we are explicitly commanded not to act in such a way. Hence the injunction that the Israelites should not reduce the value of property knowing that a year of jubilee was coming, and Paul’s comment that "should I sin more, so that grace may increase? By no means!" Yes, some people will take advantage of our good nature, but the Bible is absolutely clear that this should not discourage us from being helpful to others. If anything, the opposite: if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Because it is God who holds people to account for their actions - not us.

The reason why child poverty – or rather, poverty in families with children – is so important is that being brought up poor is so limiting to life opportunity. Yes, people can climb out of poverty. But it’s wrong to presume (as most right-wing thinking does) that if one person can escape depravation and make something of their life, then everyone can, and therefore that the poor are only ever so because of their own laziness. It takes exceptional drive and ability to do this, and few people are fortunate enough to be born like that. It is not enough to be able to point to a handful of people like JKR or Damon Buffini who have conquered adversity and therefore to claim that we live in a culture of equal opportunity. What the Labour government stands for (or should) more than anything is sweeping away a system which means that a child’s prospects in life are still largely determined by the income of its parents.

And that’s the nub. The thing the right-wing fear most is to see the children of those they label as poor and therefore feckless getting all the same opportunities that they work so hard to give their own pandered progeny. Which is what God wants more than anything. Once again, I am reminded of that fantastic prophesy of Jeremiah’s: No longer will it be said, the parents have eaten a sour grape and the children’s teeth are set on edge. Instead, everyone will die for his own sin, and whoever has eaten a sour grape, his own teeth will be set on edge. That is the heart of God.

The last thing God wants is that sinners get what they deserve. Why else did Jesus die? The politics of the right is all about the preservation of wealth and inequality. The politics of the left is about equality of opportunity and giving people a chance to start again. It is the politics of Christ.

Is it right for those in government to enforce their religious beliefs and norms on their subjects?

2008-09-08T10:40:00.000-07:00

This question is normally raised by secularists, or at least those who disagree with the religious beliefs of the government, but I of course being me, I want to answer it from a Christian perspective.

The question is related to the question of freedom of religion. People generally see that as a good thing, but personally I think it’s meaningless and impossible. The US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, but this doesn’t seem to stop them passing laws against some religiously motivated practices, such as ritual sacrifice or abuse, 9/11, cannabis smoking, or proselytising in certain circumstances. You can get around some of this by redefining the freedom as not extending to things one person does to another, but that is effectively establishing a personalised approach to faith – something that is not entirely compatible with Christianity, let alone many other religions. Freedom of religion is meaningless unless it guarantees you freedom to break the law when your personal faith / morality / worldview demands it, and for that reason, I don’t think any country can or should attempt to guarantee it. The nature of democracy or government at all is effectively that it enforces laws on people whether they like them or not. Even if a democracy only enacts laws which the majority agree with (which in itself is blatantly not the case, and sometimes probably rightly so), it can still pass laws which a minority disagree with. That incidentally is one of the reasons why democracy as we understand it really doesn’t work in countries that are deeply divided on racial or religious lines … but I digress.

So there are times when the government does pass laws restricting people’s freedom, religious or otherwise, and rightly so. That being the case, and me being a Christian, should I support legislation which brings the laws of the land more in line with Christian principles?

There are people who would say I should. One of the arguments goes like this: in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel suffered or prospered according to the behaviour of its citizens, therefore by passing laws forcing to behave in a more Christian manner, we will experience God’s favour on our nation. I think that’s a fallacious and very dangerous argument. Israel in the Old Testament was God’s country, his chosen people. In new testament times, no nation can claim to be God’s country. (To say otherwise is idolatry). God’s people now are not a physical nation but a spiritual one, gathered together from every tribe and tongue and nation (Gal 3:28-29; Revelation 7:9 etc). In the New Testament model, we are not judged and treated as a nation, but as individuals (fulfilling the fantastic prophesy of Jeremiah 31:29-30).

So putting aside that argument, there’s the argument that people are better off following God’s rules for their life. That’s sort of true, but also a bit of a dubious argument; first, because people don’t always obey the laws, and making things illegal can cause problems in itself (for example, drug and alcohol prohibition laws payroll a lot of organized crime and are responsible for a lot of very disorganized crime).

And there’s a bigger issue here. What is the biggest sin a person can commit? Answer: to reject God – i.e., not be a Christian. (If you are a Christian and came up with a different answer, then think again). Should that be illegal? And would you really change anyone’s beliefs or faith if you did? I very much doubt it. And if it’s not worth legislating for that, why bother about lesser things?

There’s a good biblical precedent for this too: that the laws of a state should not necessarily be the same as God’s laws of right and wrong. In the Old Testament, the God-given law for the Jewish people permitted divorce. But this was not because God things divorce is acceptable, as Jesus makes clear (Mark 5:1-12). Rather it was because making divorce illegal would have caused social ills that far outweighed the benefit of the moral guidance such a law might have provided. Lets face it, whatever the law says, people don’t divorce without some kind of sin being involved. The laws of the land are not just about what is ethical; they are more about what is practical.

There is a strand of Christian teaching in the US in particular that runs pretty much contrary to everything I’m saying here. That’s kind of why I’m writing this, because I think those views are wrong and damaging. I was particularly prompted to write by the example of Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin, although not knowing much about either of them (who does?) I can’t comment on how much I agree or disagree with their views in particular. I was interested though in a comment on the news that Republican supporters (who, like all groups mentioned on the news, always think alike) say that Bristol’s pregnancy doesn’t reflect on her mom, but praise Sarah for teaching her daughter well enough that she’s getting married and not having an abortion. Well, you can’t have it both ways. I personally hope that the decisions are Bristol’s and not the result of parental pressure; in particular, I think that getting married because you are pregnant shows a lack of respect for marriage. Marriage is for life, not just for babies – but I digress again.

This strand of Christianity seems to see benefit in trying to persuade people who don’t believe in Jesus to behave as if they did. That for me is the worst thing about this teaching; because that is ultimately preaching a gospel of works, not of salvation by faith. It feeds the common misconception that the essence of Christianity is that if you do the right things, you will go to heaven, and if you don’t you won’t. This is the antithesis of true Christianity, which says that if you try to do the right things, you will fail, but if you do the wrong things, you can be forgiven through Jesus. Campaigning for stronger laws and vilifying those who break them is not Christian, it is anti-Christian. It’s worth remembering that the strongest criticism in the New Testament is aimed not at the pagans, but at Christians who are more interested in making and following rules than in spreading God’s forgiveness (Matthew 23; Galatians 5:12).

For those of you who are US citizens – bear that in mind as you vote on November 4th.

Beijing Olympics (2)

2008-09-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

I mentioned previously that I felt some discomfort with China’s hosting of the Olympic Games in the light of their human rights record. It’s a complex issue, to be fair; I doubt any country can claim an unblemished record on human rights. Also, the things that bother me most about China may not be those that bother other people. But the point is there are a lot of reasons why people might be unhappy about China. As examples: the way it treats its workers; pollution; the one-child policy, or at least some of the issues of how that is implemented; the treatment of Tibet; the censorship of the press; and the harsh way the government deals with dissent.

Now with the Olympics being hosted in China, that naturally draws more media attention to the country, and therefore that’s a good time to bring some of these issues to the public attention. Certainly in the run up to the games, the Olympic torch relays were seen my many as an opportunity to create protests to draw attention to certain causes, and, whatever I might think of those causes, I have to say, good on them.

So one thing that really bothered me about the Olympics was the lack of any noticeable protests during the games themselves. Maybe this is just to do with its coverage on the BBC, but I suspect not. I’m sure there have been odd scuffles outside the events, but its easy for the Chinese government with its control of the media to stifle those. Things have probably changed in China since the 1989 Tienanmen Square outrage. But maybe not very much.

It would have course have been easy for the Chinese government to suppress (probably brutally) any protests happening during the Olympics. They probably did; I doubt we would have heard anything about it. But there is one place during the Olympic games where any protests would have been guaranteed to reach the eyes and ears of the world – and where I suspect even the Chinese government would have been powerless to torture or murder. On the podium.

After all, it’s been done before. In 1968, at the medal ceremony for the 200m, American Athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos and Australian Peter Norman made a protest about the treatment of blacks in the US.

There are those who feel that the Olympics is no place for this kind of protest. Sadly it seems that most sports are run by people like this. After the 1968 protest, all three athletes were effectively banned from the Olympics for life. How many Olympic associations would have supported an athlete involved in such a protest in 2008? And if they had, would they have risked the Chinese sending the entire team home? Maybe there were some who would have liked to protest but who felt that the human cost for them would have been too high. I have sympathy with them; you have to choose your battles. But I also feel that given everything that happens in China, then choosing to stand on a podium and not make a protest – and that is a choice – is to a small extent standing in complicity with the government that has used such bloody methods to stifle dissent and control its citizens.

I am in awe of everyone who won medals at the Olympics. But I also feel that each athlete who stood quietly on the podium is somehow less human as a result.

Beijing Olympics (1)

2008-09-01T02:47:00.000-07:00

I really enjoyed watching the Olympics last month. I wasn't going to watch much of them because of the Chinese human rights thing - but that's another blog entry (if I finish it). But once I started I got hooked. I enjoy watching people who are the very best at what they do performing at the top of their ability.

I saw some fantastic performances, of course – anything with Michael Phelps or Chris Hoy, for example, and Rebecca Adlington’s two totally contrasting gold medals (the first, she won by inches having lead for maybe the last two of four hundred metres; the second, she annihilated the field and had time to turn around and look at the clock before anyone else had finished).

But it’s not all about the winners. Lots of people put in fantastic performances without getting that gold medal. Indeed, I’ve always felt that the purest form of contest is the contest against yourself. And often the hardest.

So my favourite performer of the Olympics this year was Cassie Patten. This is the young loudmouth who stood beside Rebecca Adlington during her interview after the 800m final (in which Patten finished 8th), put her arm around her, and said to the cameras “My best mate. Queen, if you’re watching – two gold medals – Dame Rebecca Adlington. Dame Rebecca Adlington.” (As the BBC commentators were quick to point out, it is more traditional to address the queen as “your majesty” – but less fun). And lest we think that she’s just a big mouth – as if reaching an Olympic final isn’t already an amazing feat – a few days later, this same Cassie Patten won a bronze medal with a fantastically brave performance in the 10k open water swim – a mindblowingly tough event. After which she was still talking. Words and deeds – respect.

What’s My Name?

2008-07-03T05:44:00.000-07:00

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” – William Shakespeare

“Not if you called it ‘stinkweed’” – Bart Simpson

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” – Exodus 3:14

Amy Storms posted on her blog about God’s name, from Exodus 33-34. This reminded me of the earlier bit where God first tells Moses his name. Sometimes we miss what a big deal this is; we tend just call Him God or Lord (or Father) like they did before Moses. But there’s a kind of personal thing in knowing someone by name rather than just by title, and that’s what God gave Moses (and gives us).

In biblical times, a name wasn’t just a label, it told you something important about the person. Hence Jesus – “God Saves”. So what kind of name can God give himself? In the context, Moses wants a name which identifies God differently from all the other gods of the time. Hence the answer that God gives him: "I Am". The God who IS, who exists, and always has, and always will (I gather the tense is vague in the original). That’s what makes Him different from other gods, and even today, that’s probably the most important most important think we need to understand about him. But far from the only thing, as Amy explains in her post.

At the same time, asking God his name feels to me a bit like trying to limit him – to label him, to box him in. Fortunately for us God is graceful and does sometimes limit himself in order to help us to understand him. Like in becoming a man; like by or by trying to explain in words, which are imperfect, human tools, what a perfect and infinite God he is. But then God’s words here speak to me of the ultimate futility of trying to capture God in words. “I am who I am.” As if you say, how can you even try to describe God by reference to anything less than himself? Kind of like when he says “I swear by myself” – because it would be silly for him to swear by anything less than himself, and there is nothing greater.

“I Am.” I love the simplicity of it and also the power. If it weren't God speaking it would be pretty arrogant :)

Morgan Tsvangirai and Jesse Owens

2008-06-23T00:56:00.000-07:00

Listening to the news this morning I was reminded of a story my dad told me. (I don’t know how much of the story as I remember it is fact, but if not, think of it as a parable.) The story was about Jesse Owens in the long jump at the 1936 Olympics. The Olympics were held in Germany during the Nazi regime and were intended as a showcase of Hitler’s “master race” – blond haired, blue-eyed, white-skinned Aryans. It was therefore somewhat inconvenient when a black American called Jesse Owens won gold medals in both the 100m and 200m.

Later in the games Owens was competing for a third medal in the long jump, an event for which he held the world record. In qualifying, he had three jumps to reach the final. His first jump was ruled a foul – unfairly, Owens felt. The second jump was also ruled a foul. Owens scented a conspiracy. One more foul and he was out. So what did he do?

He took his third jump and took off from two feet behind the line. Everyone in the stadium could see that it was a fair jump, and there was no way he could be disqualified. He reached the final and won a third gold medal. Later he added a fourth in the relay.

It was his decision in that third jump that was the point of the story. In danger of being cheated, Owens didn’t cry foul or argue the case. He simply accepted that in order to compete alongside everyone else and beat the cheats, he was going to have to jump two feet further than anyone else. That’s why my dad told me the story: to inspire me that I too could overcome an unequal situation by working harder and being that much better.

That’s what I was reminded of when I heard on the news this morning that Morgan Tsvangirai had pulled out of the election in Zimbabwe. The decision means that he and the people of Zimbabwe will not be able to conjure up a Jesse Owens moment and vote Robert Mugabe out of office, despite intimidation and harassment, despite the election begin rigged and unconstitutional.

Now I know it’s not a fair comparison. I have no idea what things are really like in Zimbabwe, and I have to believe that Morgan Tsvangirai has made the best decision he could under the circumstances. But when it's possible, isn't the Jesse Owens way better?

The End of the World

2008-06-16T13:29:00.001-07:00

The world ended last Sunday. You may not have noticed it, but my little boy definitely did. We were at the Leamington Peace Festival, and I had just got Alex a balloon. I looked away for a moment, and then it happened.

“My balloon,” he said. I looked around, but it was already too late. I looked up, and there it was – drifting upwards into the sky. I turned back to him. You could see it in his face – he couldn’t speak, it was quite simply the end of the world. I can still see it now, his poor face dissolving into tears as he realizes that even his wonderful dad is not going to be able to get his balloon back.

Of course, life goes on. I gave him a big hug, and the lovely woman at the stall gave him another balloon. And then everything was ok. But at the time, from his reaction, it really was the end of the world. I’ve never seen him looking so upset.

It must be really hard being so sensitive. It’s certainly really hard being around someone who’s so sensitive! But then, after all of that, what did it take to make things ok – nothing more than a balloon, which this time his dad tied to his wrist. If only I’d done that in the first place …

I could draw out a lesson here about being childlike, and how great it is when everything’s that simple. But things aren’t that simple. I was lying in bed the other night fretting about one or two problems in my life, and then I thought about food prices and what that means to someone who is really poor – poorer than I’ve ever been. I’m not going to pretend my son’s childlike attitude has anything to bring to people who are unable even to buy food to eat.

But it did strike me that really, my life isn’t so bad – not compared to lots of other people. That doesn’t make my problems any smaller. But sometimes by getting them out of proportion, I do make them bigger.

Fuel and the Price of Beans

2008-06-16T11:58:00.000-07:00

As of this morning, the cheapest petrol price I saw on the way to work was £1.18 a litre (that’s $8.80 per Gallon US, although bear in mind that our basic grade is 95 octane). Spanish lorry drivers are going on strike, Spanish fishing boats area already on strike.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a good thing? Fewer boats at sea in the long run ought to help overfishing, and about time too; and while some haulage firms might go out of business, companies still need stuff moved and will have to pay what it costs. Yes, we’ll pay more for everything, and that means we’ll have to buy less stuff, which again isn’t such a bad thing. I’d like to see the EU increasing fuel duty. Let’s face it: oil is running out, we’re already fighting wars about it, and in the long run I can’t see it ever getting much cheaper. Let’s not complain about it; let’s learn to live with it.

I’m far more worried about global food prices. We can buy less stuff and drive / fly less, but we still need to eat; and as everyone knows, high food prices hit the poorest people hardest. I guess more can be done to increase the amount of food in the world. Giving land to people who are likely to farm it effectively, for example (I could point to Zimbabwe here, but instead I’ll point to my nice suburban garden); not using edible crops to make biofuel; finding ways of producing more food per acre (which have to be viable long-term, not just short-term). But like the oil thing, there are limits.

In the long run the problem is that there are just too many of us on the planet, and still more every day. Sadly I’m contributing to this problem too, since I have two children. Easy for me to say this now, I suppose, but we need to move away from a mindset that worries about falling birth rates and who’s going to support the aging population, and try to reinvent our economy in a way which copes with falling and aging populations. Maybe allowing more immigration would help.

Prison overcrowding

2008-03-03T03:03:00.000-08:00

I swore at the radio this morning. I normally try not to swear, but this guy on the radio pushed me too far. Ok, I shouldn’t blame him for my lapse. But he did wind me up.

The speaker was a Conservative MP who was trying to drum up some votes by saying that his policy is to build even more extra prison places than the government. The interviewer was asking if this was the right policy. He pointed out that of the 80,000 prisoners in jail now, around half are on sentences of 6 months or less; He pointed out that for all prisoners released from jail, re-offending rates are around two-thirds, and they are particularly bad for those serving shorter sentences. He also pointed out that re-offending rates were 22% lower for those given community orders instead of custodial sentences – something that could easily be considered instead of short sentences.

So, I did some maths. 80,000 prisoners, maybe 40,000 on short sentences. Of those, two-thirds – maybe 26,000 – will go on to commit another crime within a couple of years of release. If they were given community sentences, that figure could be 22% lower. Put another way, an additional 5,000 crimes happen because we insist on sending people to jail rather than giving non-custodial sentences.

Ok, I’m probably abusing the statistics, the numbers are not really meaningful. But the experience of being one of those people is.

The MP agreed that the reoffending rates following prison sentences were terrible, and pointed to his party’s policies which were intended to address this. Fair enough. But until those policies have been proven to work, why not use the more effective technique of community sentences instead of sending people to jail for short terms? The MP said that the problem was that with community sentences there wasn’t the perception of an appropriate punishment for the crime. Specifically, he used the word punishment.

This was the point where I swore.

I guess it all comes down to what the penal system is for. For me, it is to prevent crime, and ideally, to help people to live within the law. But that’s not the only view. The MP was expressing the more common view that part of the system is to punish – basically, it’s an expression of the basic human desire for vengeance and retribution.

It was unusual to hear it discussed so honestly. Normally people talk about “deterrence”. People want to kill murderers as a deterrent. Never mind the fact that deterrence only works for people who think about and care about the consequences before they act, and jails are filled with people who don’t. But get to the truth, and when people want tougher sentences, when they talk about wanting justice, what they really want is to make the perpetrator suffer as they have suffered.

It’s a natural human desire. But the thing is, as a Christian, it’s not acceptable. Jesus puts it very well in one of his parables (Matt 18:23:35). Christians only live by the grace of God, because our sin has been forgiven. How dare we then seek “justice” by punishing others for what they have done to us? “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence?” (Luke 23:40)

Now I’m no expert on criminology, and I don’t know much about reducing crime. But surely, if statistics show that throwing certain people in jail makes them more likely to reoffend, then we shouldn’t be doing it. Maybe this is an example of what Ghandi said: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

2008-02-01T04:43:00.000-08:00

I disagreed with Thought For The Day on Radio 4 this morning. The guy was talking about how good the separation of religion and politics was in America, that religion should stick with moral issues. It strikes me it’s that kind of imbecility which leads to a nation of upright people and in particular a large number of Christians voting for someone who lines the pockets of the rich and murders 500,000 Iraqis. If politics isn’t about moral issues, what is? Whoever the speaker was they said that faith and politics getting together was always a bad thing. Well, this is what I say. Martin Luther King. End of argument.

More seriously, I guess the point is that involving religion in politics gives it a lot more potential to affect people’s lives, so the real conclusion is that getting the right kind of religion involved in politics is a good thing and getting the wrong kind involved is a disaster. But of course one can’t admit that without admitting that there are right and wrong kinds of religion.

On Madeleine McCann and war in Iraq

2007-05-27T01:51:00.000-07:00

English wasn't really my subject at school; English literature was the only 'O' level I failed. Poetry in particular tended to pass me by, with one or two exceptions. One of those exceptions was a poem that has come to mind several times since, usually triggered by something in the news. Madeleine McCann, in this instance. I'd searched for it on the web but not found it until now.

Death of a Whale by John Blight

When the mouse died, there was a sort of pity;
The tiny, delicate creature made for grief.
Yesterday, instead, the dead whale on the reef
Drew an excited multitude to the jetty.
How must a whale die to wring a tear?
Lugubrious death of a whale; the big
Feast for the gulls and sharks; the tug
Of the tide simulating life still there,
Until the air, polluted, swings this way
Like a door ajar from a slaughterhouse.
Pooh! pooh! spare us, give us the death of a mouse
By its tiny hole; not this in our lovely bay.
-- Sorry, we are, too, when a child dies:
But at the immolation of a race, who cries?

Anyone living outside the UK or perhaps Portugal may not be aware of the media furore that this little girl's disappearance has caused. Likewise the shootings at Virginia Tech in the US - they made the news here too, because they were in America. (As an aside, I was moved by the VT incident to learn to play Razorlight's song America, although wisely I didn't follow through my original idea and post a clip of me playing it on YouTube.)

There's a part of me that wants to point out at this point how many 3-year olds are dying in the Iraq war, or because they're hit by cars, or due to AIDS in Southern Africa. Churlish it may be, but it's a fair point. That's the point of the poem; that's the point I was both trying to make and trying to avoid making when I started writing this post. I do think it's sick that we give all this fuss to one little girl while the death of a dozen Iraqis in a roadside bomb barely makes a line in the "and also" column; but I wouldn't want to insult Madeleine's poor parents by implying that the loss of their little girl is anything less than the tragedy they and the media have made it out to be.

But what's just struck me is this: God doesn't see things in numbers. One untimely death is no less and no more terrible to him than a million. They all matter equally because they are all people made in his image.

In the same way, Jesus did not die to save the world, and me just a small part of it; he died for me personally.

Quote of the day

2007-05-17T05:23:00.000-07:00

"Where the **** did Jesus say it was ok to kill people for your government?"

US Soldier, Iraq

as reported by Eliot Weinberger: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n03/wein01_.html

Questions are a Burden?

2007-02-20T01:36:00.000-08:00

This is a response to this post from a great bloke I know.

"Why do you think you're the only one who is troubled by these questions?" The Nazi peer pressure approach. Funnily enough I don't remember Jesus ever using that one. There are different "right" responses to questioning depending on the questioner's motivation, but surely that isn't ever one of them. The implication is that because you're just one and everyone else is many then you must be wrong. Have you ever seen "Twelve Angry Men"? It takes a special kind of person to stand up against that kind of approach, and hooray for you.

I read Socrates at school - great bloke, and a great example for anyone who likes to ask questions. He said that "the unexamined life is not worth living"; I might not go quite that far, but the same definitely applies to faith. In my experience, people who ask questions and think tend to have a stronger foundation of their faith for when things go bad than people who just nod and say the right things. It should be fairly obvious that a faith that engages both the brain and the emotions is going to stand up better than one which bypasses one or both.

I think it's really important to think and ask questions. I guess that's the kind of person I am. I've certainly had suggestions in the past that maybe I should be more willing to accept certain things that I don't understand. That really rankles - usually it's things that my instinct shies away from and my reason can't defend. It's also been suggested that maybe I should spend less time talking about stuff and more time doing it. Maybe that's another wrong reaction to questioning like the one you describe, but not so severe; or maybe there's some truth in it. I've had to accept that I can learn from other people and don't have to argue everything from first principles (maths degree, can you tell?)

I've also realised that sometimes people like me better if I duck out of an argument. I sometimes wonder if by trying to curb my natural tendency to be argumentative I've gone too far the other way and I'm not being true to myself. Who knows. I still have some fairly non-mainstream opinions, at least relative to my current church and society at large, which must indicate some level of thinking about stuff for myself. Of course there would be those who say that simply because my opinions tend to be more on the fundamentalist side, that in itself shows that I don't think about my faith. They are of course wrong, and very arrogant with it, as the implication is that anyone who thinks hard enough will decide they're right. Richard Dawkins' delusion.

People question for different reasons - to understand and build themselves up, or to destroy and tear down. I've spoken to plenty of people who can't tell the difference - but Jesus could, and it's a very important difference. Jesus had to deal with a lot of destructive questions. Sometimes he gave a direct answer (e.g. Mark 12:18-27), sometimes not (Mark 11:27-33), but I think he always tried to address the underlying question. Not one for beating about the bush, was he? By contrast, in John 3:1-21 and John 4:1-26 he's being questioned by people who want to understand more.

Occasionally I've been thinking about a question and had to stop myself, because I realise that my imperfect understanding of the issue is leading me to choose between two wrong answers. Sometimes I have to accept that God is cleverer than I am; he knows the answer, therefore an answer exists. Faith, ultimately, is a decision to follow God; we make that decision despite not knowing, understanding, or even believing, completely. We have to accept God without knowing all the answers; but that's no excuse for not asking (or answering) the questions.
But as for believing seven impossible things before breakfast ... well, yes. I believe in lots of things that are scientifically impossible. I think that God defines the laws of nature - I don't think he's bound by them in any way. If he is, then Jesus is dead.

One day, I must write up my thoughts on creation, with reference to Newton, Hume, and the difference between Blade Runner and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
But not today - this is too long already.

Mixing Religion and Politics

2007-02-19T07:55:00.001-08:00

A while ago I split my blog into three bits, so that each of them would be a bit more consistent in its subject matter. I’ve noticed that with the divide, this particular part seems to be a mix of religion and politics. I was wondering if I should separate it still further - but I’m not going to. Religion and politics – it’s a potent combination.

There was a time when the general consensus was that the two should be kept separate. For too long the Church of England in particular was happy to oblige. It worked hard to make itself irrelevant by staying out of mainstream politics – the things that really matter to people – and only commenting on fringe issues (like Sunday trading). Not for nothing was it known as “The Conservative Party at prayer.”

A lot of other churches did the same. This lead to a stupid situation where Christians who on the surface claimed to believe in the bible nonetheless contrived to ignore most of what it has to say about social issues (i.e. anything that could be classed as “politics”). The problem still besets large parts of America – including a lot of the people who were duped into voting for GW Bush.

But things are changing. Politics and religion are coming closer together. I’m not just thinking about 9/11 or the Middle East; of the six candidates for Channel 4’s most inspiring political figure of 2007, three were described as devout Christians, and a fourth was a Muslim woman. (The other two were career politicians).

The Church of England, too, is getting more involved in politics. I was thrilled to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury speak out against the Iraq war; our own Bishop of Warwick was a lead speaker in the big local anti-war rally; and the Bishop of Liverpool has made some wonderful (political) suggestions on Radio 4’s Thought for the Day. Best of all is the new Archbishop of York, who always seems to be on the news, and always has something perceptive and Christ-like to say.

I can understand why secular politicians want to keep religion out of their domain. You can’t argue or compromise with someone who knows they are absolutely right because God Himself has told them so. People who don’t like the mixture point to the tea-towel-wearing terrorists of the Middle East. I don’t like what these people stand for either. But separate religion from politics and you lose the likes of Gandhi, Wilberforce, or Martin Luther King. “Keep religion out of politics” is merely the clamour of the secular trying to enforce their values (or lack thereof) on the political sphere to the exclusion of everyone else’s.

I personally think the increasing linking of faith and politics is a good thing for both sides. At best, mixing religion with politics makes our faith more “real” and our politics more principled. At worst … but the problem there is not the mix; it’s simply the wrong kind of religion.

What were you thinking?

2007-02-16T07:17:00.000-08:00

At church last week we had a talk from a senior member of the Warwickshire police. Very interesting. For one thing, he asked us to guess how many crimes of various sorts were committed. We guessed, and then he told us the real figures, which were far, far lower than we had guessed. There is a serious perception gap about crime levels here – things are no-where near as bad as people think. Why? Well, partly because when crime happens, it makes the news, and we remember it, and when crime doesn’t happen, we don’t see it and don’t remember it. But I suspect that it’s also a cynical ploy by politicians on all sides to exploit people’s fear of crime.

Sadly, the wrong perception causes its own problems. Overprotective parents won’t let their kids walk to school, and that makes the streets less safe. Fear makes us avoid certain groups and individuals, whose very isolation then makes them more prone to criminality. The climate of fear allows politicians to pass obscene legislation like the SOCPA.

The speaker also made a really good point on why he thought traffic policing was important. He’s had to pass on bad news to family members of murder victims and people who died in road traffic accidents, and in his experience, the trauma felt by the relatives is exactly the same – it makes no difference if the killer did it on purpose or by accident.

One other thing we thought about was how crime could be cut. There are people who think that “zero tolerance policing” and stronger punishments would help. In reality, most crimes are committed by people for whom the threat of any kind of punishment is no deterrent - either because they think they’ll get away with it, or because they simply don’t think before they act. Tougher sentences won’t deter them any more that the sentences we have now. In reality the clamour for tougher sentencing isn’t about crime reduction at all: it’s about the base desire for retribution. That isn’t Jesus’ way.

Next month, coincidentally, we’ve got another speaker talking on “does prison work?” I look forwards to that one – maybe I’ll ask an inflammatory question …

Augusto Pinochet, Rest In ...

2006-12-18T01:33:00.000-08:00

In my Spanish class a couple of years ago we listened to a beautiful song (in Spanish, of course). It was all about how the people who physically work the earth ought to be able to share in what they produce. It was simple, and moving, and so was the voice which sung it.

Once we'd filled in all the gaps in the lyrics and discussed the meaning (it was an excercise, after all), we were handed another sheet. It told the story of the singer: following a miltary coup in 1973, the singer and many other supporters of the (democratically elected) former government were rounded up and taken to the national football stadium to be tortured and killed. So the story goes, he tried to keep his fellow captives' spirits up by singing and playing the guitar, so the guards cut off his hands and taunted him to continue. He did, playing the guitar like a drum. His wife was called to identify his dead body several days later.

His name was Victor Jara.

Last week saw the death of Augusto Pinochet, the man who ordered the murder of Victor Jara and three thousand of his fellow countrymen. He died without ever being taken to court for their murders, and the last hope of some kind of earthly justice for the friends and families of his victims died with him.

It's at times like this that it's a little less uncomfortable to believe in Hell. One day, I know with certainty, Augusto Pinochet will face judgement for his crimes. He will be judged honestly, accurately, and fairly, and if he is found guilty, the sentence will be eternal damnation. If Pinochet died as he lived, unrepentent and adamant that he did the right thing, then eternal Hell will be his fate, and he well deserves it.

But when I heard that he was dying, my biggest hope was that in the last few days of his life he might finally come to regret what he had done - to apologise to the world, and in particular to the families of the victims, repent, and call out to God for forgiveness. While he was alive, there was still that hope for him, even after everything he had done. Much as I dispise what he did, I still have to believe that - if not for him, then for me. After all, how could I wish anyone to the fires of Hell, when there but for the grace of God go I?

Congratulations

2006-12-04T00:50:00.000-08:00

I would like to offer my congratulations to Hugo Chavez on being re-elected as president of Venezuela. There was a time when Latin America was caricatured as a continent of banana republics run by tinpot dictators; all too often, these governments' highest ideals were simply to fill their own pockets, and they cared not a bit for the welfare of the poor. But those days are drawing to an end: country after country is now embracing democratic elections like those in Venezuela.

I look forwards to hearing more significant congratulations for Mr. Chavez from the leaders of other countries which have long strived to promote democracy throughout the world, and in particular from President Bush. There have been times when the US's commitment to government "by the people, for the people" could have been seriously questioned, particularly in Latin America: the US's support for the overthrow of Allende's democratically elected government in Chile in 1973 and it's replacement with Pinochet's murderous dictatorship is a moment of great shame in American history.

But hopefully those days are now gone. Hopefully, the US will throw it's support behind Venezuela's newly re-elected government, and show the world that it really does believe that democracy is more important than profit.

Ashes Fever

2006-11-24T02:34:00.000-08:00

Ah, Cricket. The thump of leather on willow and all that. For anyone who's never got to grips with this game, last summer you missed the greatest sporting spectacle of all time: a contest between two groups of men which lasted for two months, and where the result was still in doubt until lunchtime on the very last day. And at the end, England managed, for the first time in realy 20 years, to beat Australia, their great rivals and the best team in the game.

Loads has been written about it, but two things in particular struck me, from the first day of the first match (which England lost). The first was the second ball. After all the buildup and anticipation, English bowler Steve Harmison managed to hit the Australian opening batsman with the ball so hard that it left him needing stitches on the side of the head. The batsman carried on batting regardless. It set the tone for the series: both sides going at each other hammer and tongs, throwing everyting into the competition, giving no quarter and expecting none in return. And yet, all done in the best possible spirit of sportsmanship.

After all the hope and buildup, England started brilliantly, by bowling Australia out in two sessions for a meagre 190 - an excellent result for a bowling side, and a great opportunity to start the series with a win. Then in just a few minutes, all that hope whas punctured, when one Australian bowler bowled out half of the England side for just 21 runs. Enter a man who had never played a test match before, and who was regarded as very much the unsafe selection: Kevin Pietersen. He was already well-known for his panache and style in one-day cricket, where his attacking, unorthadox approach to the game earned him a hatful of runs. But to see him striding out at this point brought a shudder to most of the commentators: all the wisdom of cricket says that at 21 for 5, the last thing you want is a cocky, agressive debutant; you want an experienced campaigner who can play defensively and steady the ship. All the people who advised against the inclusion of Pietersen had cautioned against exactly this: what happens if he comes in at, say, 60 for 4 - does he have the temperament to ride out a storm and play safely and sensibly?

Well, it turned out that he did, at least for a while. But he did far better than that. While all the other England batsmen collapsed in the face of an onslaught from three of the world's finest bowlers, Pietersen came out fighting and took them all on, hitting each of them in turn out of the ground. He was eventually out to a brilliant catch right on the boundary rope, while going for a second successive six off the bowling of Shane Warne, arguably the best bowler in the history of cricket.

In the end, England lost the match by the substantial margin of 239 runs: their bowlers failed to repeat their earlier heroics in Australia's second innings, and their batsmen were once again skittled out for a tiny total. Only one batsman reached fifty - but that was Pietersen, who once again, took on the bowlers agressively and got the upper hand against each of them.

England lost the match, but went on to win the series; two key things from the first match pointed the way. Before the first test, Australia had acquired an aura of invincibility. But even in defeat, England in the first test had proven that Australia were beatable. First, following on from Harmison's aggression, they had demonstrated that their bowlers were capable of getting Australia out for a beatable total; and secondly, when all the other batsmen were getting out, Pietersen showed that by sheer agression it was possible to beat the Australian bowlers.

In the next match, England batted first. From the outset, every one of them followed Pietersen's lead and batted aggressively. England scored over 400 in a day - a feat which hadn't been achieved for years - and went on to win the match (just). The rest is history - and it was fitting in a way that it was Pietersen who, on the final day of the series, once again took on the Australian bowlers and bludgeoned a fantastic 158 to save a crumbling innings and snatch away Australia's last chance of drawing the series and hence retaining the historical Ashes trophy.

But isn't it interesting how often the seeds of ultimate victory can be found even in the depths of defeat?

On Nationalism

2006-11-02T03:21:00.000-08:00

It's not really what the article is about, but this post on the BBC made a comment about nationalism. The author talks about two kinds of nationalism: a positive nationalism which is a pride in "national" achievements, history, and culture. The other, which he describes as "prickly", feels itself above criticism and seems predominantly aimed at taking offence.

Well, I have my own views on nationalism, and I want to nail my colours firmly to the mast on this one. There is no acceptable face of nationalism.

Nationalism expresses itself in many ways, but the same fallacy underlies them all. Nationalism teaches us to value foreigners less highly than our fellow countrymen - that the blood our our soliders is more precious than the blood of our foes. Nationalism gives us false pride in the achievements of others which are nothing to do with us. Nationalism makes excuses for acts which are clearly wrong. Nationalism is insular, narrow-minded, and unfriendly. Nationalism exalts homespun mediocrity over foreign excellence. It runs contrary to reason and ethics. Nationalism caused most of the great tragedies of the 20th century. Until we learn our rightful identity as members together of the human race, we can only repeat these tragedies. There is no acceptable face to nationalism.

As I said, I want to nail my colours firmly to the mast on this one. And they are my own colours. I am a human being; no nation owns me.

Is Saddam Hussein Guilty of Genocide?

2006-10-20T05:11:00.000-07:00

Note: this post or fragment of a post is not very topical - I wrote it a while ago in response to a news item about Saddam Hussein being tried for genocide against the Kurdish people and / or the "Marsh Arabs". I can't remember if I wanted to add to it, and if so what.

Is Saddam Hussein Guilty of Genocide?

Genocide means the system extermination of an entire race. Happily many Kurds survive, so Saddam did not commit genocide. Did he attempt genocide? A question for his trial, perhaps, but for all his callous disregard for human life, I doubt he ever intended to commit genocide.

Mass murder is horrific but let's not confuse that with genocide. For all their horror, Saddam's crimes are no more a genocide than Dresden, Hiroshima or Passchendaele were. Let's be grateful for that.

In Praise of Extremism

2006-10-16T11:22:00.000-07:00

It is unfashionable to be an extremist. Quoth Ruth Kelly (a government minister): "The new extremism we're facing is the single biggest security issue for local communities." Ok, despite what she says she's probably mainly thinking of Muslims. Nonetheless, extremists get a lot of bad press, and I think this is unfair.

What is an extremist, after all? Is it not merely someone who follows a belief through to its logical conclusions? I like to think of myself as an extremist. After all, I believe Christianity is the only true faith and that anyone who believes otherwise is simply wrong. I'm sure a lot of people find that unpalatable (or would if I said it to their faces). Personally I find a lot more unpalatable the wishy-washy kind of "faith" that says that Jesus is ok for me but we each have to find our own truth. It defies logic or consistency, it's half hearted, it's lazy. As a friend said, isn't that kind of tolerance just a lack of conviction in your own beliefs?

But isn't extremism dangerous? Look at all the suicide bombings, wars, genocides. Yes, those extremists are dangerous. But groups like Quakers and the Amish are extremists in their ways, preaching utter non-violence and forgiveness (taking Jesus' teaching to its logical, extreme conclusion). Are they dangerous? Of course not. It's not extremism which is dangerous: it's the beliefs themselves.

I doubt if the Qur'an really justifies the kinds of atrocities we are seeing. If it does, then the danger isn't extremism; the danger is Islam itself. I suspect that isn't the case – that the real danger is nationalism, xenophobia, and cultural imperialism, alongside the usual suspects of money-lust and power. Christianity, too, has often been tainted by such infiltrations, and to discredit a belief based on its perversions is itself perverse. But it's not the extreme forms of beliefs which are dangerous: it's the beliefs themselves.

One thing that's happened with the recent terrorism is that it has challenged the assumption that we should be accepting of other beliefs. Whatever suicide bombers believe is clearly unacceptable. Taken to its logical extreme, relativism doesn't work. So rather than accept moderation in all things (including moderation), let's actively embrace extremism. Let's take things to their logical conclusions, and if we don't like them, reject them completely. And let's challenge people who think differently from ourselves. "Jaw-jaw" is indeed better than "war-war"; it's also better than the smothering blanket of "moderation."

There, I said it. Am I so dangerous?

Who's got the bomb?

2006-10-13T04:43:00.000-07:00

So, I read on the news that North Korea has tested a nuclear bomb.

Why the bomb? Why the test?
It's pretty obvious why the "People's Republic of Korea" would want to develop nuclear weapons: as a deterrent against a possible US invasion. It's no surprise they feel threatened, since GW Bush has already invaded two other sovereign nations with unamerican governments and has made it clear he considers the PRK in the same vein. There is no way PRK (or anyone else) could compete with the US in a conventional war. But would the US dare to invade a country with nuclear weapons, even if those weapons could only be used within that country (i.e. against the invading troops)? Probably not.

As for the test: a deterrent only works if people believe in it, and what better way to achieve that than by detonating one of the things? Sure, the test has its downside, as it will lead to sanctions and more isolation. But the PRK can survive that (it has for the last 40 years). It cannot survive a full-blown invasion. So the dangers to the North Korean regime of developing a bomb are far outweighed by the dangers of not developing one.

Could the US have prevented this?
On the surface, I find it hard to imagine that the US could have pursued their diplomatic efforts any more incompetently if they tried. That those efforts failed is proven by the bomb test. From the moment Bush described the North Korean regime as evil, the die was cast. What other response was available? "You know, you're right. We are evil. How shocking that we never noticed! But now that you point it out, we'll change at once." No, the North Korean response was the only conceivable one - "No, it is you who are evil, and you won't push us around." American diplomatic policy is that of the schoolyard bully: do what we say or we'll beat you up. Bullying can work in the playground because the threat of violence is immediate, but in international diplomacy, no threat can be more painful than the risk of losing face. The US made the same mistake with Japan in the 1930s; the consequence was Pearl Harbour.

Should I be scared?
So should we be afraid now North Korea has the bomb? Being a mathematician, I try to answer the question using game theory. If we're certain that the bombs will only be used in the case of an invasion, then we are safe so long as we don't invade, and not safe if we do invade, and hence we won't. If on the other hand we believe the bombs might be used on us anyway, then we've got less to lose by an invasion, and the bomb is therefore less of a deterrent. It is therefore very strongly in North Korea's interest to make sure that we are and feel absolutely safe from their nuclear weapons. For North Korea to even countenance selling their bombs across the ideological abyss to Muslim terrorists would be suicidal.

Taking it further: imagine the North Koreans could somehow get their nuclear bomb to, say, Washington, and detonate it. What would happen? The US would leave the whole country of North Korea so radioactive that nothing would ever live there again. From a North Korean perspective, this would be a very bad outcome.

If you doubt my logic, the proof was in the cold war. I have spent much of my life being targeted by nuclear weapons, and I am still here. Much as I hate it, it's the classic argument of deterrence, and up to a point it works.

Does that mean it's ok?
No, it's very much not ok. It's bad enough that one country has such terrible weapons, let alone more. While nuclear weapons exist, it is only a matter of time before someone ends up using one; and the more countries have them, the sooner that time will come. Just because there's a reason behind the North Korean bomb test doesn't mean it's morally acceptable; just because I understand their actions doesn't mean I agree with them. But I fail to understand how it is anything other than gross hypocrisy for the US to criticize North Korea for developing nuclear weapons, just as the US did. And I don't see nuclear weapons alone as the problem. Until we can all live together happily without needing any kind of weapons to "defend" ourselves against other people, none of us will be truly safe.

Sidetrack: when deterrence doesn't work
I mentioned before the principle of deterrence - something I disapprove of but which can be highly effective. As well as forming most of the basis behind our military, it's also one of the key principles behind our criminal justice system. It's worth pointing out, then, that there are two situations where deterrence simply doesn't work.

Firstly, deterrence relies on understanding and following logic. Many people cannot do this, or don't stop to think. A teacher may ask an unruly pupil, "What were you thinking when you did that?" This shows a fundamental misunderstanding: in all probability, if the student had thought about it at all, they wouldn't have done it. In these situations deterrence is meaningless. The same logic applies if you believe your "opponent" is insane or irrational. While this accusation could easily (and rather lazily) be aimed at the PRK, it could also have been aimed at Stalin or even GW Bush - neither of whom have triggered a nuclear war (or in Bush's case, at least not yet). In practice, I don't believe any are crazy enough to initiate a nuclear war that would result in their own annihilation.

Secondly, if the person thinks they cannot be caught, or has no fear of the penalty. A defense policy based on a strong deterrent may prevent invasion, but it isn't so effective against terrorism (or guerilla warfare), because terrorists are generally far too disparate a target for conventional weapons. Suicide bombers in particular are pretty much immune to any deterrence - particularly if they believe that any of their friends who are murdered in retribution will be transported instantly with them to paradise. That is why the US fears terrorism so much: because it undermines the entire basis of US defense policy.

So, what will happen now?
America won't back down. North Korea won't back down. In the short-term, some kind of sanctions will be put in place.

If we're lucky, North Korea will stop testing bombs and just stockpile them quietly, and the Americans will sit down and enforce the sanctions peacefully, and wait for the North Korean regime to change by itself. Maybe the US will blow up a few nuclear plants and claim that North Korea no longer has the capability to produce any more bombs, and hence is limited to what it already has.

If we're unlucky, then either the Americans will demand that North Korea destroys their nuclear capability and proves it to the world, or the Koreans keep testing bombs. The war of rhetoric continues to escalate until the Americans produce an ultimatum threatening war. North Korea, of course, fail to comply - and the US starts a war. Then they can either bomb the country back to the stone age and watch as the entire country starves to death, or launch a ground invasion, crossing their fingers against the appalling possibility of a nuclear weapon being detonated near a major troop concentration. Either way, the consequences are too horrible to contemplate.

There is one other possibility. If the process drags on for long enough, the US could get a better president who decides that his administration needs to distance itself from the last one by (amongst other things) taking a different approach to North Korea. It would be difficult to do so without being seen to give ground to the North Koreans, but that's what top negotiators are for.

Cynical speculation
Putting my cynical hat on now, I'd like to speculate on two things which didn't appear on the news.

First hypothesis: the US knew that their actions would lead to North Korea developing a nuclear bomb, and continued with those actions deliberately. Why? Three reasons.

(1) Knowing that "rogue states" have nuclear bombs will make it easier to justify almost any military expenditure, and it is after all the profits of the military-industrial complex which run the US government.

(2) Knowing that "rogue states" have nuclear weapons will further fuel the climate of fear which the Bush administration is trying to create to prop up their leadership and to justify curtailment of human rights and civil liberties.

(3) Knowing that one "rogue state" has developed nuclear weapons will add weight to the arguments when another invasion is planned, for, say, Iran. If North Korea can do it, so can Iran, and so we'd better invade before they do.

Second hypothesis: the test was a hoax. The North Korean nuclear program isn't yet sufficiently advanced that they have enough bombs stockpiled that they can waste one by blowing it up. The "test" - conveniently underground and contained - actually involved a large amount of conventional explosive. The blast was real, but of course no radiation could be detected. Why? North Korea is in a race against time to develop and effective nuclear deterrent before the US invades it, or just launches airstrikes to demolish key sites. By testing a bomb - or pretending to - they can convince the world they have won the race.

An idea whose time has come?

2006-10-03T00:26:00.000-07:00

A while ago, I posted a comment about a fantastic tax proposal made by the Bishop of Liverpool on Radio 4's "Thought for the Day". The gist of it was, rather than taxing work, why not tax use of non-renewable resources so that the economy uses them as efficiently as possible?

Well, a couple of months ago, the Lib Dems announced a policy of cutting income tax and replacing it with some kind of green tax. And this morning, George Osborne, shadow chancellor (Conservative), said that his party were committed to shifting the burden of taxation from "businesses, families, and investment" on to polluters.

An idea whose time has come? It can only be a matter of time before the government follows suit. How about it, Gordon Brown?

Good luck

2006-08-04T01:06:00.000-07:00

I was posting a message on a blog this morning, and ended with the phrase "good luck". It's a common figure of speech, but one I don't feel quite comfortable with. In the end I deleted it and put something else instead.

I guess I feel that the phrase doesn't fit with my Christian beliefs. How can I, knowing the presence of an all-powerful and all-loving God, wish someone "good luck"?

I'm not the kind of person who believes that everything that happens is the will of God. That's what Muslims believe (so I understand). I think the Bible teaches that sometimes bad things happen which God doesn't want. I think they happen directly or indirectly because of choices we make. God always works for the best in the things that happen. That doesn't mean that he made them happen or he wants them to happen; but he's an expert at making the best of a bad situation, and he does intervene in our lives for our benefit. That being the case, it seems inappropriate to attribute someone's future welfare to "luck".

The other reason I guess I don't like the phrase is that it smacks of fatalism. I think to a large extent you "make your own luck". Jack Nicklaus was criticised once by someone who said he was just lucky. "You're right," he replied. "And the funny thing is: the more I practice, the luckier I get."

I suppose I shouldn't get so tetchy about a phrase. Lots of stuff happens without me knowing why. I don't know how my actions will affect other people, what serendipitous meetings might arise from me stopping off for a bagel on the way home. From an individual perspective, it feels a lot like luck.

Maybe instead I should explain what I actually mean. I should wish them: "I hope you make all the right choices in what you're about to do, that other people help you on your way, and that you can see God's hand at work around you."

It's not quite so snappy though, is it?

The difference between Qana and Haifa

2006-08-01T00:13:00.000-07:00

Something unusual happened to me yesterday. While listening to an interview on Radio 4 (the BBC), I found myself agreeing with something that the Israeli government spokesman said. Giving a partial apology for the Qana bombing, he said that the Israelis only bombed civilians by accident, whereas the Hezbollah guerillas often deliberately targetted civilians.

For once, I genuinely believe that is true. But I would reject his implication that this represents a real moral difference. The dead of Qana are just as dead as those in Haifa, the bereaved just as bereaved.

In one of the set confessions used in many Christian churches, we admit that we have sinned "through negligence, through weakness, through our own deliberate fault". The confession makes clear that although the causes may be different - negligence and weakness on the Israeli side, deliberate fault by Hezbollah - the sin is nonetheless morally equivalent.

Lest I be tempted to take the moral high ground, the confession continues: "in the evil that we have done, and in the good that we have not done."

Why pay the water bill?

2006-06-07T04:08:00.000-07:00

I was astonished to read on the BBC yesterday that 15% of the country refuse to pay their water bills, and that water companies are not allowed to cut off supply if they don't. Fifteen percent! That's mind-boggling. Do the water companies send in bailiffs to try to recover this, or can they not be bothered?

To be honest, though, the fact that they aren't allowed to cut off the supply also seems a bit stupid. I assume it's because of health arguments, probably dating back to privatisation: water is essential, after all. But so is food, and we still prosecute people for stealing that. It makes no sense for water to be treated differently. If we treat water as a public right, something everyone should have, then ultimately we should provide it through taxation as we do with other public goods. If we want to treat it as a commodity to be supplied privately, then it should only be supplied to those who wish to pay for it.

What's particularly stupid: it may be illegal to cut off people's water (and sewage) if they refuse to pay the bill, but it's perfectly legal to evict them from the house completely. If you're evicted, you can't access your water / sewage services any more than if they were cut off. How is that ok if merely cutting off the water is not?

So my suggestion: a return to standpipes in the street and public baths. That way anyone who can't or won't pay for water can be cut off and still have access to water; they'll just have to carry it like half of the third world. (As an aside, the village in Italy where my grandfather grew up didn't have running water until the 1960s or 70s; up until then the women had to go to the fountain every morning to fetch water). Imagine the stigma - that alone would probably be enough of an incentive for most of those 15% to pay their bills!

Can't believe Bishop Hill hasn't picked up on this one ;) He'd probably argue for coin-operation of the standpipes because "giving anything away for free encourages waste." One nice thing about the story, though - apparently 85% of us still pay for our water even though we don't have to, presumably out of a sense of morality. Nice to know we've still got one :)

On Immigration

2006-05-02T01:35:00.000-07:00

I was going to reply to Cheryl's post on immigration, but since my reply ended up being longer than her post, I thought it should probably go here instead.

Immigration has been on the news a lot recently. Here in the UK it's been the wave of immigration from Eastern Europe which has made the headlines most recently.

When countries like Poland etc. joined the EU, that in theory meant that Polish citizens were free to work anywhere else in the EU and vice-versa. Many countries put in temporary controls to prevent a much-feared mass wave of immigration, but the UK did not. As a result we've seen a large wave of immigration, but we certainly haven't been swamped.

Interestingly, whereas previous waves of immigration here focused on the big cities, this new wave is happening all over the country. Sleepy rural villages where they've never seen a black or asian person are now hearing conversations in Polish, Slovenian etc. Not everyone likes it. But the effect on the economy has been very significant and very positive. There is no doubt that this wave of legal immigrants has put mroe into the economy than they have taken out in benefits, state education, health care etc.

In the US, which Cheryl commented on, the news focused on the "strike" by illegal immigrants (mainly from Latin America). Their point was that, legal or not, they are a key part of the US economy, that therefore the US should embrace them (and offer them increased legality) rather than resisting them and criminalizing them.

So both the UK and US have immigrants as a key part of their economy, the difference being their legal status. Fundamentally I think that immigration is a good thing. It's good for the economy at large, so "generally" everyone benfits. Also, if you have free trade which allows money to go from one country to another, then it's only fair to allow people to do the same.

I do have a problem with illegal immigrants, but it's not the common one of "they come here and steal our jobs". I think in the US system it's the immigrants who are exploited. Because they are not allowed to be in the country and work, they don't have full access to the law – they can't demand the same minimum wage and benefits as legal employees. This is what causes the problems both for them and, perhaps, for the locals – although arguably not in the UK, as illegals here tend to do the jobs that locals are not prepared to do. So if the illegals themselves (and possibly local workers) are the losers from making immigration illegal, who are the winners? The answer is the shady companies which employ them. In the US two of the country's biggest food companies were seriously affected by yesterday's withdrawal of illegal labour.

I think the balance of criminality needs to be shifted. We should not seek to prosecute illegal immigrants. We should, however, prosecute heavily those who employ them. Perhaps we could even offer amnesty (and a work permit) to anyone who is willing to turn their employer in?

The other problem in the UK which makes the news from time to time is that of "people smugglers" who are payed large amounts of money to smuggle people into the UK. To my mind the problem is not the would-be immigrants but the law: if people are willing to pay to work here (or in the US), why not let them do so and have the government take the money?

What annoys me most about immigration is when people lose their historical perspective. Both in the UK and US, almost everyone is an immigrant. If my ancestors came to the country uninvited and took land by force, what right does that give me to turn away someone who is coming in peace and only seeks the right to earn a living?

I did a speech in my Spanish class a couple of years ago about immigration. I summed it up by saying that in my opinion what made the US the powerhouse it now is wasn't the constitution or the bill of rights: it was the words written on the statue of liberty and sadly no longer in vogue: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".

I believe in Church

2006-04-25T05:36:00.000-07:00

My grandfather: “who are the four bad men?”
My dad (aged 5): “Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and the Pope”.

I was not brought up to respect authority. My dad’s family were anti-Catholics and anti-fascists who put the Pope on a par with Hitler and Mussolini. Mum was brought up as a Quaker, but has a personal and unorthodox faith.

I became a Christian when I was 16. That set me a little apart from my immediate family, but I still I retained a lot of the anarchic and iconoclastic views I’d grown up with. To some extent I still do; the attitude Jesus showed to the religious and secular authorities of his day was a long way from slavish obedience.

But since I became a Christian, I have learned that authority is not always a bad thing. To start with, I recognized at once the authority of God. God is absolute. While we may not always understand Him, He is always right. Then I learned the authority of the Bible. People change; the Church changes. God’s word stays the same. Like God himself.

At first, my attitude to church was not unlike my parents’. Some churches clearly were full of active Christians, others were just empty ritual. It would be wrong to credit any church with the same absolute authority that comes from God or the Bible. However I have realized that for all its failings, Church is an essential part of the Christian life.

God is not a personal experience or projection; God is. He has revealed himself to us through Jesus and through the Bible. We all see in part, and we all disagree. But all of us who follow Jesus are looking to find the same God. We can learn from one another! There are many who have gone before me whom I can learn from, be taught by. On occasions, I have even learned to respect authority from people I recognize as being wiser than me.

I’ve moved a bit since I became a Christian and been part of several churches, some better than others. Through the best I have come to know Christ better and been encouraged in my faith. I’ve been taught / shown things I would not have found out by myself. I have had the example of people living out bits of Christ’s character. I’ve even been encouraged when I’d got things wrong to look a bit closer and think again.

And it goes both ways. I’ve changed through being part of a church, and I’ve caused the church to change by being in it. This is good. You can’t be a Christian without being committed to change: change is a key part of repentance and is an ongoing part of growing closer to God. It merely reflects the fact that we are not yet perfect.

I don’t believe in the absolute authority of a particular Church organization. I believe salvation from God comes through Jesus, not through a priest. But I also don’t believe one can really live and grow as a Christian without being part of a church. All churches, being human organizations, are flawed; but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a crucial role to play.

About this blog

2006-04-11T21:48:00.000-07:00

This is a space for my political, philosophical and theological rants and musings, previously posted here. To start things off I've reposted all the old ones so that anyone interested (ha!) can find them without having to trawl through my various other postings.

Education, education, education

2006-04-11T21:46:00.001-07:00

This is really a comment on this thread, which Bishop Hill noticed, and which is closed for further comments.

In my opinion the 11-plus, along with the elitist (i.e. selective) university system with grants, was the probably the best and most socially levelling thing the UK ever had. It meant that for the first time, children from poor backgrounds who were bright, could go to a good school, get a degree and work as teachers etc. in roles that were almost totally denied their ancestors. The changes that have happened since –comprehensive schooling where the quality of education depended on where you lived, lower standards from GCSE upwards, and wider access to higher education meaning that it is no longer free and therefore less available to the poor - have reduced opportunity and social mobility.

As for the issue of funding - given that funding for education will always be limited, would it not make sense to spend the money where it has the most effect rather than decreeing that it has to be spread evenly, or worse, thrown mostly at those who get the least out of it?

"In those days people will no longer say,
'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.” (Jeremiah 31:29-30).

Shouldn't that be the aspiration of a state-funded education system?

Originally posted 2006-02-06

In Praise of Democracy (kind of)

2006-04-11T21:46:00.000-07:00

I don't believe that democracy is some kind of ideal to which we should all ascribe, but I can probably agree with Winston Churchill that it is "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". I personally reckon the test of a government is what it does, not what political system created it.

The recent Palestinian election demonstrates this point well. Some really positive points have come out of it. I think it's great that the people of Palestine have managed to hold what has been generally recognized as a free and fair election. It's also a credit to Israel that they chose to allow the elections to continue without interference, when many people urged them to intervene.

But the result has been troubling for pretty much anyone. It looks like the winners will be the political wing of Hamas, Palestine's equivalent of Sinn Fein - the political front of a bunch of terrorists.

I wonder how this will affect the US's attempts to bring democracy to the middle east? In Palestine, at least, they have succeeded; but is this a good thing? The US government have said that they will not recognize or cooperate with a Hamas-lead Palestinian authority. I can see why, but at the same time it seriously undermines their commitment to democracy. (A commitment which is already called into question by their treatment of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, also freely elected).

It raises another issue too. The US describe Hamas as terrorists. That was always true in the past. Is it now? They are a democratically elected government. Yes, they are killing people, mainly civilians, in another country. So are US forces in Iraq. And unlike Iraq, Israel has invaded Palestine and is still occupying parts of it. Can we still call it terrorism when a democratically elected government uses force to defend itself against invaders?

I have some views that many people would consider controversial. I believe anyone who thinks about morality in national terms is wrong and very dangerous (I'm thinking of the US, Israel and Hamas here, but also anyone who is prepared under any circumstances to say "my country, right or wrong"). I also believe it is wrong to go to war and kill people even when they are invading your country and killing your friends and family; I don't believe any war is ever just. But for now I'm in a small minority. For the rest of you - what other reason can there now be for failing to recognize Hamas as a legitimate authority and their fight as a just war?

Originally posted 2006-01-26

It Came Upon the Midnight Clear

2006-04-11T21:45:00.000-07:00

We sang "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear" at church on Sunday. Not previously one of my favourites, but this time the words really spoke to me. And what they said was …

God really doesn't want us to kill each other. Rather, he wants us to tell people about Jesus.

Apologies if that sounds obvious. A particular application: that’s how he wants us to deal with Muslim terrorists (just as it is for peace-loving democratic Muslims). Tell them about Jesus, pray for them, try to reach them with the gospel and save them. He doesn’t want us to blow them up.

Yes, I know these people are dangerous. No-one is safe apparently, not even here in Leamington Spa. If we let them live and try to reason with them with the Gospel, some of us might get killed.

But is that really so bad? Did that deter St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. Stephen – knowing that if they carried on preaching the word so boldly they might forfeit their lives? Absolutely not!

As Jesus says: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” (Matthew 16:25)

It came upon the midnight clear,
That glorious song of old,
From angels bending near the earth,
To touch their harps of gold;
“Peace on the earth, good will to men,
From Heaven’s all gracious King.”
The world in solemn stillness lay,
To hear the angels sing.

Still through the cloven skies they come
With peaceful wings unfurled,
And still their heavenly music floats
O’er all the weary world;
Above its sad and lowly plains,
They bend on hovering wing,
And ever over its Babel sounds
The blessèd angels sing.

Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife
And hear the angels sing.

And ye, beneath life’s crushing load,
Whose forms are bending low,
Who toil along the climbing way
With painful steps and slow,
Look now! for glad and golden hours
Come swiftly on the wing.
O rest beside the weary road,
And hear the angels sing!

For lo! the days are hastening on,
By prophet-bards foretold,
When with the ever circling years
Comes round the age of gold;
When peace shall over all the earth
Its ancient splendors fling,
And the whole world send back the song
Which now the angels sing.

Originally posted 2005-12-19

Trafalgar Day

2006-04-11T21:44:00.001-07:00

I don’t approve of war. It’s no way to solve problems, and it’s not what Jesus would do. However I do find military history interesting, and always have. As with anything, you can learn lessons from past battles which are of use in everyday life. Today is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, so here are two lessons from history from that battle - one from each side.

Firstly, from the winning side. The British Admiral, Nelson, is the obvious hero of the battle. He came up with a winning plan; his ships were better organized and won the day. Nelson’s British fleet was outnumbered in terms of ships and guns, but had better technology: British naval guns could be fired five times as quickly, and also more accurately. Taking this into account, his force was vastly superior. His plan was one of brute force. He sailed his ships as quickly as possible, straight into the opposing force. He knew that at close range his better guns would blast the enemy ships to pieces, even in the face of superior numbers. His plan worked, and the British destroyed most of the opposing fleet without losing a single ship. From then on, Napoleon’s fleet were powerless to challenge British domination of the seas. Brute force works.

The lesson here? Nelson’s ships were superior, but his tactics made the most of their superiority. In any situation, know your strengths and play to them. My small group at church looked at 2 Kings 4:1-7 recently, the story of Elijah and the poor widow. Four words struck me from the story, which can be applied in any situation: Elijah asks the widow, “what do you have?” Nelson had better guns, and used them. When faced with difficulty, don’t fret about your weaknesses: ask yourself, “what do you have?”

For me, though, the greatest heroism of the battle was shown by a French ship, the Redoutable. It was a fourth-rate ship of the line, one of the weaker ships in the battle. It nonetheless sailed straight for Nelson’s flagship, the Victory. Although heavily outgunned, it managed to get alongside the Victory and was on the verge of boarding it when another British ship, the Temeraire, intervened and saved the day. Who knows what would have happened had they succeeded? Facing impossible odds, the Redoutable met the enemy head on and kept fighting until 85% of its crew were dead. Famously, a sniper from this brave ship fired the shot which killed Nelson.

The lesson? When the two fleets met, a British victory was all but assured. In the event the bravery of the Redoutable nearly turned the battle; and the death of Nelson took all the gloss off the victory. Sometimes you enter a situation which seems genuinely impossible. If you give up, defeat is certain. But the braver option is to give it your best, to go out fighting (metaphorically speaking). And if you do, it’s never too late to make a difference.

Thousands of people died at Trafalgar, 600 on the Redoutable alone. I hope one day we’ll learn enough to say that we will never go to war again. But in the meanwhile, those who fought and died that day can still be an example to us all.

Originally posted 2005-10-21

Petrol (reprise)

2006-04-11T21:44:00.000-07:00

So, it actually happened. Driving back on the A14 after a weekend away, I passed a petrol station selling diesel at £1.01 a litre. Unlike a few years ago when petrol hit 84p and it felt like the world was about to end, this landmark was met with astonishing apathy. There were protests but only small ones, and no blockades. Yes, there were shortages of petrol, but only because everyone suddenly decided to fill up “just in case”.

I overheard a couple of people at work saying they’d filled their cars up with petrol ahead of the protests and were shocked how much it cost. This made me laugh. Firstly, it was clear that neither of them ever filled their cars up normally, something I just can’t understand. Secondly, they were amazed that it cost them over £60. You can’t physically fit £30 of petrol into my car let alone £60, so I’m guessing they drive gas-guzzling monster cars quite unlike my lovely 45mpg ultra-nippy Ford Fiesta. And finally, because I didn’t fill my car up but waited a week after which the price came down again. I have to say I felt rather smug.

But what’s really amazing is just how little difference £1 a litre has made. You still see 4x4s on the road making short trips into town to go shopping or take the kids to school. You still see 90% of cars on the way to work with just one person in them (including mine.)

If high prices are the economy’s way of sending us a message, it’s clear that we just don’t get it!

Footnote: for those of you in the US, £1.01 a litre is equivalent to $6.50 a gallon in US prices. However standard unleaded in the UK is 95 octane compared with 87 in the US so it's not really a fair comparison. £1.01 was the highest price I saw; at the place I go to, apart from a week or so at 94p, the price of unleaded hasn't ever gone over 90p.

Originally posted 2005-09-30

Incitement to ...

2006-04-11T21:43:00.000-07:00

The law is an ass, as the saying goes. Laws try to ban people from doing things we consider bad, but before they can do so, they have to define what we want to ban. Sometimes this is easy, sometimes it’s very difficult; and lawyers grow fat on the ambiguity.

The recent hunting debate was a good example. Like most people, I consider making sport from the suffering of animals to be barbaric. I’d like to see foxhunting as sport banned. (Incidentally, I don’t have a problem with using packs of dogs for pest control against foxes or any other kind of pest; it feels like a good natural solution). The problem is, I don’t think it’s possible to make a law which defines exactly what I think should be banned and what shouldn’t. I deeply dislike the “Countryside Alliance” with their right-wing, “we know better” agenda. But when they say they feel the hunting ban law is stupid, unworkable, and the result of ignorance and prejudice, I would have to agree. (Ouch, that hurt!)

The same applies with the current proposals to ban incitement to religious hatred and acts glorifying terrorism. They arise from a desire to pass laws against things we find unacceptable. But how can we define these acts? I personally believe that Muslims will be condemned to eternity in hell (just like anyone else who doesn't accept Jesus as Lord, Saviour and God), but I don’t hate them as people and wouldn’t want anyone else to either. Would the law allow me that? If so, I’m sure the “evil clerics of hate” would find it just as easy to get around it by choosing their words carefully.

Glorifying terrorism is even harder to define. What is terrorism? Would those like me who admire the tradition of civil disobedience count as glorifying terrorism? What about those who celebrate the terrorist acts of Americans during their war of independence, or of the French Resistance during world war II? What about Michael Collins and the Irish uprisings of 1916? What about the SAS? They act outside the law almost by definition. And if we our definition of terrorism now includes state-sponsored terrorism, was not the invasion of Iraq a state-sponsored terrorist act?

I am a pacifist and don’t believe in killing people. Most people would disagree, and feel that at least under some circumstances, killing can be acceptable. Probably a majority would even support those like the Resistance who do so to fight against governments they feel are injust, corrupt and evil. But there’s the catch. In their eyes, the bombers in Madrid, London, New York and Palestine are all doing precisely that.

If a law is passed to allow prosecution of those who glorify terrorist acts, I cannot believe it will be used even-handedly, even if it is used at all. That cries against all my instincts of fairness. I believe the US constitution even explicitly prohibits it - equal treatment under the law.

Instead of trying to pass more stupid laws like this, they should just go the whole way and ban Islam. Now that would be REALLY stupid.

2005-09-16

Death and Taxes (2)

2006-04-11T21:42:00.000-07:00

The “flat tax” is a trendy topic these days. It seems most popular with right-wingers and wealthy people. No doubt they like the idea as it means them paying less.

These are the same people who talk about the benefits of “small government”. In all the discussion about the ideal size of government, people tend to forget what the point of government is in the first place. Why do we have law and order rather than chaos? Why have government rather than anarchy? The reason is simple. Government exists to protect the weak from the powerful.

Government works when it does this. If a nation’s farmers can grow crops without the fear of men with big sticks taking away the fruits of their labour, then the country will grow more food. If you can develop a brilliant piece of software without the risk of being outcompeted by an inferior product backed by a huge corporation with masses lawyers and marketing people, then everyone gets better software. Those with money and power can buy this kind of protection and have little need for government. The “little people” cannot. They have just as much to offer the world as anyone else, and it follows that the world is a richer place if they are allowed to contribute. But they can only do that if they are protected from those who would see them as consumers and workers rather than competition.

What is true at a national level is also true at an international level. This week sees discussions about the future role of the UN. I believe exactly the same principles apply. The world needs a government capable of protecting the weak against the abuses of the powerful. That can mean preventing citizens against genocide. It should equally mean protecting weaker nations against stronger. And in particular, against the most powerful nation of them all.

Originally posted 2005-09-14

Death and Taxes

2006-04-11T21:40:00.001-07:00

I heard a fantastic comment on Thought for the Day a few months ago, reproduced here. The author was James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool. It followed on from his earlier newspaper article.

The idea is simple: don’t tax work; tax the use of non-renewable resources. There's no way I could put it as well as he did, so I won't try - have a read of the links above.

But hey - how’s that for an idea of a flat tax?

Originally posted 2005-09-14

No other gods?

2006-04-11T21:40:00.000-07:00

This is going to start with a bit of a ramble, so if you want to the meat, skip the first couple of paragraphs.

One of the guys in the office here is a muslim. He's just finished Ramadan, and that got me thinking about things they're not supposed to eat and therefore what I'm not supposed to eat. I think meat sacrificed to idols is about the only thing in the New Testament.

As my former room-mate used to say: "'Canape, mister Bowie?' 'No thanks.' 'Canape, mister Barker?' 'No, sorry, I don't eat food offered to idols.'"

This line reminded me that God really does take idols and false gods very seriously. We are to have nothing to do with them, including not eating food sacrificed to them.

In the Old Testament in particular, the seriousness of dabbling with false religeons is made clear. In the book of Joshua, God orders genocide against the inhabitants of the promised land, illustrating the attitude we are to take towards other religeons. (Incidentally, I don't believe God demands or condones genocide in that area or elsewhere now).

Now I live in a reasonably multicultural society, so this does have ramifications. God is one, and all other gods are false. However close other religions' understandings of God might be to the real thing, if they don't recognize Jesus as God and Saviour then they are still no different from idol worshippers. While it's really important for Christians to be in contact with these people in order to show them the Real Thing - Jesus, that closeness will have limits which prevent us being involved in any of their forms of religeous devotion. Does that mean no to visiting mosques or attending Sikh weddings, for example? I don't know where to draw the line.

Most of my peers are atheistic or agnostic materialists. The gods they worship are money, family, sex, drink, self, celebrity, and posessions. These are not (all) bad things in themselves, in context. But the big question is: to what extent in my relationships with them am I guilty in "eating" the "meat" they sacrifice to their idols?

Originally posted 2004-11-25

Four more years?!? My God, My God, have you forsaken us all?

2006-04-11T21:38:00.000-07:00

The way things are going, I don't know if the world will last for four more years.

Seriously though, the thing which upset me most about the US election result was that it seems that a lot of the people who voted for Bush were Christians. Not just liberal or nominal Christians either; devout people with living faith.

I am a devout Christian, and I voted for Kerry. I didn't think he was a great candidate (I like Howard Dean, actually), but at least he wasn't Bush. Am I starting to wonder now whether I should instead have voted with so many of my fellow Christians? Absolutely not!

I believe that in this election and any election, Jesus is looking for the candidate who will stand up for the weak, the poor, the infirm. When he quotes Isaiah in saying "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor, ..." This isn't just a turn of phrase or metaphor. He means he has come particularly to bring hope to people with no money, people the world has forsaken. These are not the people who benefit from a Bush presidency, tax cuts for the wealthy; these are not the people who can be incentivised to stimulate the economy. These are the unemployed, the homeless, the underpaid, those scraping out a living on minimum wage.

I also believe that Jesus is appalled by the doctrine of preemption. Remember his words: "if your enemy hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." How could he support a government which believes that "if you think your enemy might try to hit you on one cheek, bomb his house and kill the ******". Personally I can't imagine him supporting any war - how can you love your enemy by shooting at him? But he certainly wouldn't support going to war over oil and money.

Of course, these aren't the issues which have prompted so many of my fellow Christians to vote for Bush. They're concerned about abortion, gay marriage, etc. I believe in the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of human life (including, incidentally, the sanctity of the lives of doctors who perform abortions - but that's another discussion). To what extent can I enforce my beliefs in these areas on others, in a country which guarantees freedom of religion in its constitution? I don't know. But I believe that the issues of the poor, of economics, of taxes, and particularly of war, are every bit as much ethical issues of these.

For years, right-wing politicians have cynically exploited Christian views on topics which don't cost the wealthy money, while pretending that poverty (for example) is not an ethical issue. Rubbish! Jesus was one of the most radical, dangerous, left-wing and anti-establishment figures in history. That's why Pilate put him to death.

No matter what my fellow believers do, I will never be ashamed to be a Christian or to count them as my brothers and sisters. But I do feel very sad for them, that their genuine faith has been twisted and abused to support such un-Christlike policies and politicians.

What would Jesus do? Well, whatever he'd have done, it wouldn't have involved tax cuts for the rich, colonial wars, and giving billions of tax dollars to his friends.

Originally posted 2004-11-05

This is my truth, tell me yours

2006-04-11T21:35:00.000-07:00

I believe in things. I believe Jesus is the only way to God, I believe that war is ethically wrong, lots of things.

I live in an era where this kind of belief is unfashionable. It is wrong to force one's views on others, the argument goes. How dare I claim that my opinions are more valid than anyone else's? Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and what's right for one person need not be right for another.

Well, I think this is soft-minded rubbish. Although most people preach tolerance and relativism, I think when it comes down to it they don't believe it any more than I do.

It's easy to claim that religious faith is a personal thing, that no one faith can be right. It's easy too to claim that people with strong views on abortion, sex outside marriage or pornography are trying to enforce their views on others who have equal right to their own, more liberal views. But what about when it comes to pedophilia, rape, the holocaust? Are pedophiles and Nazis equally entitled to follow their own moral code? Very, very few people would accept this, and rightly so.

Moral relativism is a nice creed to follow liberally, as it frees you from the pangs of conscience and allows you to justify your own self-gratification. But taken seriously, it's a far harder faith to follow than absolutism. I had a friend who was a Taoist. Taoism eschews moral absolutes, and he recognized the difficulties of this. He commented that the true Taoist response to suffering gay rape (his choice of example, not mine!) might be to comment, "ah, this fellow appears to have taken a shine to my bottom," since moral judgments about the action were inappropriate. I have a lot of respect for him in trying to get to grips with the consequences of relativistic teaching, but it's not something most people could ever accept.

So, while relativism seems to be a common theme these days, most people who talk about it don't really believe it. Rather it serves as an excuse for a lack of concrete belief, a lazy alternative to having to think through and justify ones own, disjointed, prejudiced moral judgments. Why bother to question your own lifestyle and beliefs, when you can just say "that's fine for you, but it's not for me?"

Coming back to an earlier question, I think there are two reasons why I might sometimes dare to believe that, yes, my opinions might be more valid than someone else's. The first, and the big one for me, is that at times I am merely reiterating the doctrines espoused by Jesus. This will clearly not carry much weight with a non-Christian, and understandably so. To them I'd point to Jesus' teachings and persona, which hopefully they might find attractive enough to add weight to some of his harder sayings. But secondly, I would hope that my opinions might be more likely to be valid simply because (like my Taoist friend) I've actually bothered to think them through.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus is God, and that all faiths which don't accept this are fatally flawed, however much of their teachings I might otherwise agree with. But I also feel closer to Muslims, Taoists, or even Atheists who take their faith seriously and dare to think through and live out its consequences, than with the vast majority who simply use moral relativism as a cover for their own laziness, ignorance and apathy.

Originally posted 2004-08-24

Voting

2006-04-11T21:34:00.001-07:00

I voted in the European elections yesterday. That puts me in a minority (nothing new there then) - only 40% of people bothered.

The EU parliament which I helped to elect is responsible for passing laws which affect all sorts of things across Europe. It's not as if they are things no-one cares about; a common theme of British life is people complaining about the latest EU directive. But it seems that here as in so many areas, British people would prefer to whinge about the situation than to actually do something about it.

I've voted in every election here since I've been eligible. I feel it is not just a privilege but also a duty. I owe it to myself and everyone else who lives in this country, since the election affects everyone.

Moreover, though, I feel I owe it to all of the people in the world who have spent so much effort trying to get what we take for granted: a vote.

At the last elections, my wife didn't really like any of the candidates. But nonetheless she felt she had to go cast a vote, even if only to spoil her ballot paper. She remembered the story of Emily Davison, a member of the suffragette movement. She threw herself under the King's racehorse and was killed. That's how important voting was to her.

And in South Africa, elections are still a matter for national celebration, because so many people there were not allowed to vote for so long.

So as I walked from the polling station, I closed my eyes and pretended I was in South Africa.

I wonder what Emily Davison would say now. She gave her life so that half the population here could vote, and now half the population aren't even willing to give up their seat on the sofa for ten minutes.

Originally posted 2004-06-11

Petrol

2006-04-11T21:34:00.000-07:00

There is talk in the news here about the possibility of more petrol protests. A few years ago there was a huge scandal when petrol reached 84p a litre. Petrol depots were blockaded and no-one could buy petrol. Then everyone started going to shops and panic buying bread and milk.

Personally I totally opposed the fuel protests: I totally object to the idea of a bunch of truckers holding the country to ransom. Moreover, I don't have a problem with paying 84p a litre or £1 a litre or more for petrol, and I strongly support increases in fuel tax. My car gets 10 miles to the litre (45 miles per UK gallon) and I drive less than six thousand miles a year. I know it's hard on people who drive 50 miles a day in 4x4s or luxury saloons, but that's their choice.

The few days of the blockades were a very interesting time. People started sharing lifts to work. Mothers started walking their children to school instead of driving them. With fewer cars on the street as well, it made walking into town a much more enjoyable experience.

So here's hoping that fuel duty will continue to rise.

Originally posted 2004-06-02

Thoughts on thought

2006-04-11T21:31:00.000-07:00

I did a short philosophy course at university. It covered the history of philosophical thought starting with ancient Greece up to the current century. What struck me about the course was that pretty much all of it came down to the argument between two Philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Their conflicting viewpoints were first expressed in classical Athens and the argument has raged ever since. The argument is about which is more important: reason or experience?

Plato's viewpoint was that the world of ideas and reason is "real", and that what we see is just a dim representation of those ideals.

Aristotle's opposing viewpoint was that the world you see and experience is "real", and that any expression of ideas is just an attempt to express reality in an inexact manner.

Before Plato (who predated Aristotle), the big debate in Philosophy was between Protagoras and Socrates. Protagoras suggested that right and wrong were not absolute but were subjective - that "man is the measure of all things". In other words, what's wrong for a Greek isn't necessarily wrong for a Persian. Protagoras had travelled extensively (for his day) and in particular commented on the Persian practice of eating dead relatives, which appalled the Greeks.

Sokrates in contrast felt that there were absolute standards of right and wrong, whether or not the Greeks or Persians understood them or chose to follow them. It occurred to me recently that this too is just the Plato versus Aristotle argument: Protagoras was arguing from experience, whereas Sokrates was arguing from logic.

I came across these two arguments on the philosophy course, but since then I've seen them more and more in everyday life. As an example, when I worked for the department of transport, I went to a conference on the "value of time". We discussed the question: what is the value of a small time saving? The argument split into two factions. One said that small time savings have no value, because if you ask people what it's worth to them getting home thirty seconds quicker, they say "nothing". The other said that obviously small time savings were proportionately less valuable than large time savings, so thirty seconds are 1/120th as valuable as an hour. During the debate it occurred to me that this was an example of Aristotelian versus Platonic argument.

Some more examples. Christianity is stronly Platonic. What's the point of "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" if really that just means "I am the truth for those who follow me, others have their own truth and that's ok?" Who'd die for that?

Democracy is inherently Aristotelian: it is based on the balance of individual perception, rather than searching for absolutes. That said, it's possible to argue for democracy from a platonic viewpoint, as given the nature of humanity it's a pretty good "least bad" political system in most situations. [Memo to self: Maybe I should write something about democracy?]

Modern postmodernist culture is similarly Aristotelian. Where once we had "any colour you like as long as it's black", we now have 57 varieties of everything, and everyone's viewpoint is equally valid - excepting of course paedophiles, islamic terrorists and illegal immigrants.

So it seems to me that pretty much the whole history of human thought hinges on these two Greek chaps from over two thousand years ago. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

Origially posted 2004-05-27