What is a Pope to do?

 Bless him.  Look at the frail old man waving to the crowd.  Awwww - it's good that he's allowed to come out and play every now and then.

There has been lots of hand wringing about an overly secularist media attacking the Pope and his visit to Britain.  And while the fact that his visit gives pleasure and spiritual support to UK Catholics is not in doubt for a moment the actions of the Vatican party are not immune to critcism.

Even before the Pope had arrived, aide Canon Walter Kaspar had caused controversy by declaring that the UK is like the Third World.  The Vatican then compounded the offence of this admittedly off-hand and flippant comment by suggesting that he was referrring to the multi-cultural nature of modern Britain.  The blatantly racist undertones of the defence of Kaspar seem to have gone almost completely unremarked upon in the media.

But never mind, everyone has to deal with a dodgy assistant from time to time (no doubt Benedict has an admirably arcane method of wholly inadequate punishment to hand when he gets back to Rome), let's hear from the man himself.  In a speech in Edinburgh today he appeared to liken 'aggressive forms of secularism' to the ideologies of Nazi Germany.  I'm aware that the media has taken a couple of lines of his address out of the overall context but the the fact is he should have known that juxtaposing the alleged secularism of modern multi-cultural Britain with the atrocities of Nazi Germany was bound to be controversial. 

Considering that some of the pillars of Catholic dogma (it's views on sexuality, contraception and women ministers for example) are quite reactionary, it's ironic in the extreme to compare modern atheists to Nazis - even obliquely.

As a Christian (admittedly at the more liberal end of Anglicanism) I am getting increasingly tired of religious figures attacking those airing atheistic or secularist views.  People are entitled to whatever beliefs they choose to hold, whether they be religious or not.  If you are secure in your religious beliefs, you have no need to fear the opinions of those without any.  However it seems that those at the more fundamentalist extremes of an ideology are more nervous and intolerant of differing philosophies.

What Would Jesus Vote? Probably not Tory...

As the zero hour approaches I have been thinking very hard about the election and who to cast my lot in with. For the first time, I have been very open about who I am planning to vote for and this has led to some very interesting and some very depressing conversations.
I personally think that this election is the most exciting I have ever experienced with a mainstream party I feel I have some ideological common ground with finally being worth voting for. The Liberal Democrats have a chance to effect genuine change. However, this has put me at odds with many of my fellow Christians. Many Christians are continuing to hold the belief that only the Conservatives have their best interests at heart.

This is not surprising as the automaton David Cameron (not all celebrity endorsements are good by the way - Simon Cowell and this guy? Oh dear) and his cronies talk about family values, marriage and crime in a way to make right wingers go weak at the knees. However, Christians should be considering the wider picture. Even a cursory glance at Jesus' teachings show that he was far more concerned with justice and with challenging hypocrisy than he was with sexual ethics or marriage (although he did have things to say there).

Therefore, the question we should be asking as Christians is - which party or outcome will lead to a more just and fair society? The Conservatives will definitely not lead our country to a fairer or more just path. For a taste of what Cameron's Britain will be like read this horrifying article on the Tories' flagship council in London. The cuts and ideology of the Tories will leave more and more of us on the scrapheap, it will not create jobs or stimulate the economy, it will not create more equality.

Ignore the propaganda that tells us a hung Parliament and a coalition will be dire for the economy. Germany still has the strongest economy in Europe and they have had coalition governments for years. Electoral reform that gives more weight to our votes and therefore increases our politician's accountability is essential. The Conservatives have openly said they will not pursue electoral reform that will make it harder for them to remain in power. In fact, Cameron's plan to reduce the number of MPs and redraw constituency boundaries will give him the opportunity to make the current system even worse.

I am not a fan of Labour, but even they are a better bet than the Tories. Barring a miracle the Lib Dems cannot win outright, but a coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrats is possibly the only way we can move forward as a society. The Conservatives will take us backwards and leave the most vulnerable without even basic safety nets.

So who would Jesus vote for?

Why I Won't Sign Westminster 2010 & Why You Should Read it Carefully Before You Sign

Now that Ol' Gordy has formalised what we've all known for months and set a date for the General Election we can expect nothing but political madness for the next month or so. Until recently all I have been worrying about is who to vote for. Do I stick with the status quo and vote Labour? Do I risk the all-new, shiny, fluffy, friendly Tories? Or will I be wondering if my bum looks big in the Lib Dems? Do I don my fairtrade yak hair shirt and vote Green again?

However, now things aren't that simple. The Westminster 2010: Declaration of Christian Conscience has muddied the waters. Apparently, what I should do is vote for the candidate who will do the most to ‘respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold and express Christian beliefs and act according to Christian conscience’.
35 Christian leaders ranging from the well known (Ex Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey) to the completely obscure (Jonathan Oloyede or Dennis Wrigley anyone?) have released a document of conscience that they are encouraging Christians of all denominations to sign.

On the surface, this isn't a bad idea at all. The segments about core historical beliefs, support of the poor and a commitment to social justice are all aims that we can all applaud. However, once you start to read the document itself in more detail there are some problematic areas.

Take the section on Marriage (follow the link for the full text). I realise that as a Christian at the more liberal end of the scale I know that my views on marriage are not necessarily those articulated in the declaration. However, the following sentence has disturbing and contradictory implications.

"We call on government to honour, promote and protect marriage and we refuse to submit to any edict forcing us to equate any other form of sexual partnership with marriage"

So unless 'marriage' is what the declaration says it is, Christians should refuse to submit to other interpretations? Even if those interpretations are legal? Like, for example, same sex civil partnerships. We don't have to agree with our nation's laws, but we do need to obey them, particularly if they do not lead us to do anything immoral. Simply accepting other viewpoints does not equate to an immoral act. This statement on marriage is even worse when juxtaposed with one from the section on Conscience.

"We will seek to ensure that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are unequivocally protected against interference by the state and other threats, not only to individuals but also to institutions including families, charities, schools and religious communities."

What about the freedom of people who disagree with evangelical Christian teaching? Is it referring merely to religious freedoms and conscience or is it referring to all freedoms and the conscience of all people? What about the freedom of those who believe its OK for two people of the same sex to get married? Will it uphold their freedom of conscience too?

Many Christians that I know have already signed the declaration, but I'm struggling to understand the ultimate purpose of the document. It's mildly militant language reflects the partisan rhetoric of the US Christian right and is directly influenced by the recent Manhattan Declaration. However, the UK doesn't have a political party gunning for the Christian vote like the US Republicans. In the end, it seems like a high-concept equivalent of a Facebook campaign/group. And like those campaigns, it does not represent the views of all those that it claims to.

Movies
Franklyn ***
Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull **
tHE Spiderwick Chronicles ****
Gran Torino ****
Let the Right One In *****
Titan AE ***
Hellboy 2 ****
In The Loop *****
Alien 3 **
Forgetting Sarah Marshall **
City of Ember ***
Jaws *****
Three Kings ***
Revolution **
Dead Snow ***

Church leader makes sense. Media spins it every which way but loose.

I have a confession to make. I'm not proud of it. It's one of my dirty little secrets.

I'm an Anglican. There I said it, it's out in the open now. I feel much better.

The Anglican Church has been trying to tear itself apart over the last 10 years in a self-destructive streak a mile wide. The man charged with trying to lead this unruly worldwide band of Christians that encompasses fanatical evangelicals to fervent liberals is Archbishop Rowan Williams.His Easter message is one of the few occasions when the media will actually listen to something he's saying. (Although his admirably frank comments about the Catholic abuse scandal got some attention). This year he chose to devote part of his sermon to the 'persecution' of Christians. He asserted that "wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness" combined with a "well-meaning and completely misplaced anxiety about giving offence to non-Christians" should not be mistaken for persecution.

Quite right too. Christians in Britain are not at risk of violence or imprisonment simply because of their faith. A quick look at Amnesty International's website shows that there are many people round the world who face actual threats to their freedom and safety. Set against the genuine suffering that many face elsewhere, the hand-wringing of the evangelical right as personified by Westminster 2010 is tasteless in the extreme.

However, one of the most interesting elements of this story is how it has been covered by the news media. Contrast these two headlines for the same story:

Rowan Williams condemns 'overheated language' used to describe Christian suffering. The Guardian

Hallelujah! Archbishop speaks up for Christians: This bias against us must stop, says Dr Rowan Williams. The Daily Mail

Now, the Guardian headline underplays the overall context of the sermon. However, the Daily Mail seems completely oblivious to the irony of using exactly the type of overheated language that Williams is criticising. But it isn't the Mail's irony that I have a problem with. Rather, it is their ongoing attempt to fanaticise issues in a way that is very reminiscent of the hysterical partisan language used by the US media.

The 'shining' example is the use of people like Peter Hitchens (a cut price Glenn Beck if you can imagine such a thing) to spout petty, spiteful and narrow-minded opinion pieces. It pains me to do this, but read this article about Rowan Williams in which Hitchens brands him 'Nice, furry, mild and useless'. Williams is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but he has many qualities lost on the partisan extremists. He is intelligent, reasoned and diplomatic. This of course, is abhorrent to the likes of Hitchens who exist simply to provoke fury. This they accomplish as they push more and more of us out of the centre and towards the extremes of Right and Left.

The Theatre of Noise is Dead - Long Live the Theatre of Noise

The more long-suffering visitors to this blog will know that for the last 6 years, I have been involved with a local RSL Christian radio station in Manchester called Refresh FM which broadcasts for 3-4 weeks at Easter time. This post is not for sympathy or for an agenda, but because the writing is a helpful expression of how I feel about what has happened over the last few months.

Over the years I have helped Refresh in a variety of roles although mainly as a presenter and producer. I have been part of the Scheduling Team and also helped set up the music playlist. They have been a big part of my volunteering life for over half a decade and I will always be grateful for the opportunities offered and the trust placed in me by Refresh FM.

However, unfortunately, that relationship has now had to come to an end. Every year I have presented a show called the Theatre of Noise with one of my friends. We have developed the show over the years and it has been a big part of the evening schedules. Eyan, my co-presenter, was asked in the summer if he was willing to take a larger role in the organising and leadership of the station.

At this stage, Eyan felt it was important to be open with Refresh and informed them that he was gay. Within a month, Eyan and I were invited to a meeting with the leaders of Refresh where Eyan was informed that it was no longer possible for him to continue as a presenter due to his sexuality and the incompatibility of his lifestyle choice with the core evangelical message of the church that runs Refresh FM. For Eyan's eloquent account of this incident visit his blog for the initial article and a follow up piece. There has also been an article in the Guardian CiF section on the wider issue of volunteer rights.

While Eyan was left with little choice as to whether he could carry on, it was made clear to me that because I am straight, I was welcome to continue with Refresh. In the end, I felt that I was unable to reconcile how my friend was treated due to the narrow evangelical views of Refresh's leadership and the core message of Christianity. Therefore, I took the decision to step down from presenting and my positions on the scheduling and playlist teams.

The whole situation has caused upset and soul-searching in all parties and I'm worried for Refresh's future. I have always had such high hopes for a station that has taken some very bold steps in the past (the moment they defied critics to broadcast a Catholic church service in the Sunday morning service slot made me very proud to be a part of the organisation), and I hoped they would react better in this situation. Sadly, it seems (as is the way with us Christians in general) sexuality proved a step too far. My worry is that Refresh will withdraw and look inwards and try to involve only those who share their core beliefs. Its biggest strength has always been the involvement of a wide range of Christians of all denominations, ages and backgrounds. My suspicion would be that a good number of key volunteers would not be willing or able to 'sign on' and that would only make the station poorer.

On a positive note, Eyan & I have already had a meeting with someone interested in perhaps giving the Theatre of Noise a new home. So the Theatre of Noise is dead. Long Live the Theatre of Noise.

"You're a very nice tall man..."

Now I don't really talk about religion that much on this here blog, mainly because it bores most people to tears. But as an RE teacher and a (reasonably sane) Christian, I do have significant interest in that particular topic area. I was reading sarahcontrary's moving thoughts on her faith today (click here to go there) and it made me think about how people explore and communicate what they believe. However, not everyone does that in a positive way.

Sometimes you come across people so vile that you feel genuinely replused by them and by their beliefs. Fred Phelps and his cronies at the Westboro Baptist Church (you may find their site distasteful) in the US are just such people. You may have seen them on TV waving their 'God hates fags' and 'God hates cripple soldiers' banners around at funerals. They hate everyone; gay people, Jews, the Irish, Sweden(!) and many many others with such a frightening passion that it makes me deeply ashamed that I apply the same basic label of 'Christian' to myself.

However, Phelps would also hate me as the only people he doesn't hate are the 100 odd people who go to his church (intriguingly, most of whom are related to him by blood or marriage). These happy few are the only people going to heaven apparently.

As with any self-important, petty minded bigot; the best way to bring them down a peg or nine is not to engage in sensible argument with them. It has even been suggested by some of Phelp's estranged children, who have sensibly left their father's church, that Westboro exists solely to feed Phelp's addiction to hatred. Below is a video of Fred Phelp's Jnr being interviewed. The Australian interviewer take a novel approach to tackling the big questions....



"You're a very nice tall man..." Genius!

God bless that interviewer (in the proper sense of the word). If Phelps and his ilk make me ashamed to be a Christian sometimes, the reporter makes me feel proud to be a human being.

Best. Website. Ever.

There's nothing like religion to bring the crazy people out of the woodwork.

If you are familiar with certain wings of the Christian church, you will be aware that there can be an awful lot of interest in 'End Times'. In the US, the dreadful Left Behind book series (which seems to have at least 5000 different books in it) has stoked interest to unprecedented levels. Come to think of it they also did a Left Behind movie so bad, it transcended crapness into something quite extraordinary.

So, it was with great interest that I came across this website:

http://www.nonraptured.com/

tagline
Jesus will come for the
saints any day now...
Your odds of being among them are not good

The website tells you what to do in the event of you missing out on the Rapture. Rather than telling you to pray, cross your fingers and hope for the best, it gives some altogether more practical advice. This website will give you tips on everything; from what stocks will boom while commerce is controlled by the anti-Christ, to how you can minimize inheritance tax on gifts left by raptured relatives.

Absolute genius in every way. I think my personal favourite is the FAQ section, one highlight being this question:

The Mark of the Beast sounds unsightly. Will ordinary makeup conceal this if it is as unattractive as some believe?

If you are interested in finding out more about religious fruitcakes, you could do worse than visit www.ship-of-fools.com and click on the Fruitcake Zone.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to speak to my financial advisor