A New Home!

So ladies and gentlemen, I have decided to move my blog to a new home. My fascinating insights and ramblings can now be found here: http://cleoconnolly.wordpress.com/

So please update your bookmarks and all that jazz, as this shall be my last post here! Thank you, you have been a wonderful audience! :)

Tis the season...for what?

Sitting on one's bed munching on a mince pie and sipping a glass of some sort of sparkling berry juice type thing from Aldi (tis lovely actually), whilst staring down the dog and telling him there's no way in hell he's getting some of aforementioned pie, all to the tune of one of the best versions of one's favourite Christmas carol : recipe for bliss, don't you think? I have had a marvellous Christmas, I am happy to say. All out war with my brother was successfully avoided, and we made it to his mother-in-law's for dinner with minimum disaster ensuing. The dinner was sublime, the desserts were even more so, and Santa was very generous to all the good boys and girls, both young and old. The only thing to go wrong was that everyone managed to forget to buy Christmas crackers. I think this is my first Christmas in living memory without them. It's...bizarre!

I love Christmas, I have to admit. However, anyone that knows me is sure to dread this time of year with me, as it invariably leads to several grumpy outbursts on the topic. Words like "commercialisation" and "ruined" tend to come up a lot. Yes folks, I am one of those people who goes around grumbling about the true meaning of Christmas being lost in this modern world. I also have the gall to suggest that the main point, the most important thing, about Christmas is the birth of Jesus Christ. (Christ-mas? Geddit? Clever eh?) I had the interesting experience this year of being accused not once but twice of "indoctrinating" my six year old nephew by telling him that the birth of Jesus was the most important thing about Christmas. The first was by a good friend taking the piss, and wasn't serious. But the second guy was. He is what I would affectionately dub an Atheist Fundamentalist. He seemed quite annoyed at my suggestion to an "impressionable child" that Jesus ranked slightly ahead of Santa on the Christmas Top Ten. I didn't say Santa wasn't an extremely important individual. He's like the Vice President of Christmas Inc, and Jesus is the CEO. I mentioned this once to the child. His reluctant attendance at Mass was his (not overly religious, I might add) mother's doing, not his apparently over zealous aunt. Now does that count as indoctrination? Perhaps the chap should get the benefit of the doubt for not actually knowing me that well, being more of a friend-of-a-friend. I politely pointed out that seeing as Jesus is as much of a fairy-tale as Santa in his eyes, where's the harm?

Anyone who does know me on a slightly personal level would know that I am far from the indoctrinating type. I would make a positively useless fundamentalist, to be frank. I follow the line of a good priest friend and spiritual mentor of mine that Christianity is something you're attracted to, not persuaded by. I have no interest whatsoever to converting my numerous atheistic and agnostic friends to Christianity. I'm sure in the eyes of fundamentalists and some conservatives this makes me a horrendously uncaring individual, and only serves to prove my own degeneracy and lack of true faith. I'm not saying spreading the good news is a bad thing. Chasing people down the road and battering them over the head with it isn't right though. I have no problem bearing witness to the faith. I have no shame admitting I believe in God and that I love Him. I love talking at length about faith and spiritual matters. I just know how to respect when others don't. Unfortunately this leads to me being accused of being too sympathetic to non-believers and people of other faiths, which compromises my commitment to the faith. Which is odd, because several others accuse me of pandering too much to conservative elements in Christianity, even though I say I don't agree with their positions. I guess that leaves me somewhere in the middle-of-the-road then?

What others see as pandering I see as respect and objectivity. As I've tirelessly argued, this does not amount to acquiescence or lack of conviction. The whole Christmas thing is an example of this. I am unwavering in my conviction that the Nativity is the central theme and most important aspect of Christmas. I baulk at this PC American "Happy Holidays" rubbish. I'm sorry, Christmas is a Christian holiday (queue smart arse pointing out it was originally pagan. Well pagans are free to celebrate the original if they want!). And the Nativity is an irrevoccable part of it. I am all for respecting other faiths and traditions, but I'm not going to water down my own religious festivals. And I am interested to know how many Jews or Muslims or whoever are actually that horrendously offended by the sight of a Christmas tree and a few decorations in public, anyway? Our neighbour is an Iraqi Muslim and I didn't see him keeling over in disgust at the sight of my sis in law's lights outside. He wished me a happy Christmas this morning, just like I wished him Eid Mubarak a few months ago. Fair enough, if someone's not Christian then maybe refrain from wishing them a Merry Christmas, but if you slip up I'm sure it won't cause mortal offence.

I am thankfully less self-righteous than I used to be though. There was a time when I quite annoyed at non-religious people celebrating Christmas. I saw this as a disgraceful, hypocritical, and just plain wrong. I (wrongly) assumed that these people were all just interested in the consumerist element of Christmas if they weren't religious. (Hey what can I say, I was a teenager suffering a spiritual crisis and exposed to a lot of American televangelism.) This view was challenged by a good friend a few years ago, who got quite angry at me for saying people who didn't believe in God shouldn't celebrate Christmas. I think he calls himself an atheist these days, but anyway, he isn't a religious person. His mother is and I think they do the Mass thing at Christmas, but let's say they don't, and take it from his perspective. He is rather fond of Christmas, and he explained to me why. He told me of how much it meant to him to spend time with his family at Christmas. They have lots of "silly" little traditions, including an adorable one involving their dad reading "The Night Before Christmas" to them on the upstairs landing, despite them being bone fide adults now. I grabbed him on gchat for a soundbite update for 2009 just now:

"it's a chance to catch up with the family. Something that I've only realised the true importance of since escaping to college. It gives you the chance to spend a week or two of just hanging out with the people who mean most to you. And then there are presents. The presents help you block out the not so pleasant family moments."

So after that my self-righteous attitude to Christmas and those who celebrate it were suitably humbled. In fact most of my righteous indignation these days is directed towards fellow Christians rather than the unbelieving. I have since acquired more heathen friends, and have observed more deeply family-centred thought around Christmas celebrations. And I have no objection whatsoever to these people celebrating Christmas anymore. They may not give the Nativity the central importance it deserves, but they celebrate the second most important part of Christmas: love and family. Christmas is a time for family and friends to gather together and celebrate. Quite a few Christians I know fail on that one, no matter how long they spend in Church on the day.

So I guess my main gripe with modern Christmas is correctly identified as the rampant commercialism rather than the spiritual orientation of those who chose to celebrate it. Like I said earlier, I love Christmas, but I love it from about December 20th onwards. I do not love being bombarded by Christmas in the shopping centres from about five minutes after the Hallowe'en decorations are back in the box. I do not like being run over by some poor stressed out mother with a crazed look in her eyes trying to run around the shops trying to find the latest ridiculously overpriced toy that Nickelodeon has brainwashed her child into wanting (seriously-there is a post in me somewhere on advertising on children's networks). Which she has probably left to the last minute to but because she only successfully managed to secure herself a massive debt to pay for now. It may sound employing hyperbole for effect, but believe me, I've known mothers who've had to get loans to keep up with the demands of Christmas expense these days. And they're not particularly materialistic people, they just want to give their children as good as everyone else. And much as people like me might "indoctrinate" the young ones, Santa still has massive sway with them. Not that I'm blaming the kids for one minute! Santa and presents are a hugely important part of Christmas. I'm blaming the media and "gimme gimme gimme" culture they live in. Christmas has become "what can I get" day. Children can be forgiven, but adults should know better. The amount of people I have heard bitching because they got presents they didn't like, or weren't good enough. This positively infuriates me. What happened to the thought counting? I know, you're probably scoffing at my naivety at this point. What can I say, I'm very traditional about some things at heart. We all know getting gifts for even those we know can be a horrendously difficult experience that would drag the most sturdy to drink. I nearly went bald from tearing my hair out over my brother, and I've known him the entire twenty four years on the planet. I'm not saying we all have to like all our gifts. I hold my hand up and say I have returned something in the past. However, I appreciated the fact I was given a gift in the first place. And I did not make it blatantly obvious to the person that I had no interest in the thing whatsoever. I'm sorry, but to display displeasure to someone with the gift they have just given you is plain rude.

You know what present I am most excited about this year? My friend sent his old 30gb ipod classic away to be repaired so he could give it to me. He's bought a new one and doesn't need it. I am like any six year old waiting for Santa, I can't wait! He said he felt bad giving me a second hand gift, as he's ok for money and could afford to buy me one, but I had expressed interest in buying it off him so would it be ok for him to give it as a gift, as he thought it's what I would like most. I am ecstatic! Not least because my current MP3 player is in such a state of wreckage that it's a wonder I haven't been electrocuted, even though it's battery operated. What most struck me is the fact he thought of me. I know people personally who would be horrifed; who would think he is a cheap so-and-so to give me his "cast offs". I think it's a wonderful idea, and have demanded he visit me tomorrow to give it to me. I'm not trying to make myself out to be some sort of saint. I've been disappointed with gifts (though not this year I must say!). But a gift is not an estimation of your worth to the person. No matter how well they know you, they might not be able to think of what you really, truly, would-sell-your-mother-for want. They were thinking of you all the while they were sweating blood to get it, doesn't that bloody matter?

I probably sound like some sort of pious twat of a grinch by now. Well, I'm not. I do love Christmas, secular warts and all. I just wish people would reorganise their priorities. Tis the season for what? For celebrating the birth of our Lord, first and foremost. Many won't agree with me on that, but just bear with me. It's not often I have an unshifting position on matters religious. Well actually I have many, but I just handle myself better than many Christians. Anyway, tis the season to celebrate the Nativity. And tis also the season for love, family and friends. Even if they drive you bonkers and you want to kill them, there is nothing more lovely than sitting across from your brother Christmas day trying to resist the urge to dump bread sauce over his head as he takes the piss out of you for going to Mass.

This last bit is for the fellow Christians, so the rest of you might want to skip along. ;) Speaking of Mass, it happens to be my favourite part of Christmas. Especially as the church where I live now has a proper (read: traditional) choir. My favourite carols are the aforementioned O Holy Night and Adeste Fideles. However, the one carol which I always fail to finish singing every year because I choke up is this. It was the first one I remember learning as a child, but also I think the second half of the second verse and the third just sum it all up really. A simple, childlike request, untainted by the politics of "grown-up" religion. Beautiful.

And on that note folks, I shall end the rather long sermon and leave you to enjoy the rest of Christmas, whatever your take on it.

PS: Excellent article from one of my favourite blogs here

Supersize me...

As usual, I find myself procrastinating when I have important things to do. Despite having to be up early for a lecture at nine and then get on a bus for a four hour trip to the capital, am I settling down to sleep? Nah. I'm browsing around the BBC news site. I was about get ready to turn in, until I came across this article. The article concerns a rather appalling attack on an overweight woman on a train in Britain. The assailant referred to the lady as "a big fat pig" before punching and kicking her, because she was taking up two seats on the almost empty carriage. Now let me say first off, this attack was appalling, and there is no justification for it whatsoever. However, it's some of the points later in the article which cause my eyebrows to raise. Well eyebrow, singular. I can only do the one.

As I said, the abuse this woman was subjected to was wrong. Period. Name calling and physical violence against someone for any reason is wrong. However, the attititude of some "weight equality" campaigners in the article has me scratching my head a bit. The article states "The rise of what could be called "fattism" is being met with a backlash from those who are affected, triggering a nascent rights movement." Their campaigning against "fattism" strikes me as a little odd. They appear to be saying that "fattism" is as bad as other prejudices like racism. I find that a bit hard to get my head around. Now as I said, abusing or insulting people is wrong. But are these people saying that overweight or obese people are a particular group that is the same as black people, Asians, gays, etc? I don't quite agree with that.

Now before I get my head bitten off, I should point out that I, as a 5' 7" medium built female, am overweight. And up until two years ago, I was classed as obese. Either clinically or morbidly, I can't remember. Five years ago I weighed 17 stone and had a BMI of 37. Cut off for obesity for my height, weight and build is 30. I know BMI isn't considered the most accurate, but trust me, back then my bulk didn't come from muscle. I'm currently about 26. something, with considerably more muscle. Anyway, the point is I'm "entitled" to have an opinion on this (a friend of mine has his opinions on the cost of the obesity epidemic to the taxpayer dismissed on the grounds that he is a skinny fecker who couldn't put on weight if he ate deep fried lard). So while I feel an empathy with the sentiments expressed by people who are overweight in this article, I take issue with some of the ideas as well.

Trying to class being overweight as the same as being a different race or sexual orientation isn't right, and is actually a disservice to overweight people. The fact is, being black or gay (as much as many an evangelical says otherwise) is something innate and unchangeable in a person. Being overweight isn't, for the most part. Yes, some people may be more prone genetically. Both my mother and my sister are overweight. Not to the extent I was, but it could be seen as something that ran in the family. Another point is that being black or gay (again Bible Billy may want to interject here) isn't bad for you. It won't kill you, whereas being overweight could.

The article stresses the dispair felt by overweight people at their portrayal in the media and society. They argue they aren't necessessarily greedy or lazy; they have health problems, psychological problems, etc. I'm not trying to detract from this. Many friends point out to me that I had to start taking the pill more or less as soon as I hit puberty, and this is known to cause weight gain. Well, yes, that is possible. But there's no point ignoring the obvious truth: I overate and did not exercise. Again, you can say I overate because I suffered badly from depression. I don't disagree at all. Many people close to me turned to alcohol for comfort; I turned to food. That's the bare truth of it. I can cite as many reasons as I like to make me feel better, to make you think more favourably of me, but that's the practical cause of it.

I don't object to people pointing out the factors which can lead to a person becoming obese. I think this is very important. You can tell me I was just a greedy sod, but I know different. It was something bigger than I was, something I couldn't control. I didn't even realise I was doing it for years. For most obese people, it's about far more than greed and laziness. People need to be aware and more understanding of this. I find it not too disimilar to alcoholism. There needs to be an understanding of the underlying causes, rather than just dismissing people as greedy or lazy. There needs to be adequate services available to help people overcome the problem.

BUT. And here's the crux of my objection to some "weight equality" campaigners' ideas: people cannot be helped if they don't help themselves first. The notion of "weight equality" seems to me to add to the victim mentality many people in this position have (my former self included). Like alcoholics, or anyone else with a similar problem, you can bang your head off a brick wall trying to help them, but you cannot do the work for them. While people who are obese should not be abused or ridiculed, we can't sit back and tell them they will be fine if they continue being obese. Some statistics from the British Department of Health:

60% of adults are overweight and 26% are obese

28% of children are overweight and 15% are obese

Obesity surgery on NHS has risen by 40% in the last year

60% of men, 50% of women and 25% of children will be obese by 2050 if no action is taken

Now while I am aware about getting too histrionic about statistics, that is still something that ought not be ignored. Being seriously overweight is a health risk, and those who are should seriously consider trying to reach a healthier weight. I'm not suggesting bullying or insulting people. That will only have the opposite effect. Simply pointing out the health risks of obesity is not offensive. And if people think it is, the problem lies with them. Of course, I fully accept the media portrays a ridiculous image to live up to. I mean, if Catherine Zeta-Jones is the role model for the "larger woman", then I'm completely fucked. This post is aimed at those classed as obese, and is about health risks, not aesthetics. There is of course nothing wrong with being a little overweight. My current weight doesn't pose a health risk to me, but when I was five and a half stone heavier it certainly did. There are huge risks associated with obesity. And there is a huge burden looming for the healthcare systems as well. There's no point trying to deny it.

Overweight people should not be easy targets, or "the last acceptable prejudice" (is it just me, or is EVERYTHING the last acceptable prejudice at some stage?). Like I said, pointing out the dangers, and helping people identify and deal with the causes of their weight problem doesn't have to involve hurting anyone's feelings. However saying they are a special group who have absolutely no control over their lives simply makes them victims, and is the ultimate in political correctness gone stark staring mad. I'll leave the last word to Stephen from the comments section of the article, who sums it up nicely:

"To physically attack or verbally abuse someone for being overweight is self-evidently outrageous and unacceptable. On the other hand, I'm dubious about the increasing implication that over-weight is merely a terrible affliction visited upon some people at random, who have no responsibility whatever for their predicament. As usual the truth it seems to me is between these extremes: that genetic variability will indeed produce widely different weight outcomes in people with identical eating and exercise habits; and that taking personal control over the type and amount of food consumed, and ensuring proper exercise, will keep the vast majority of us safe from obesity."

To censor or not to censor?

I am a self-confessed Anglophile. I like Britain, and British things. So much so that had I been around 90 years ago when Ireland got her independence, I would have been shot as a traitor. Probably by my own brother, if our verbal punch-up over the Lisbon Treaty is anything to go by...

One of my favourite British things is its Broadcasting Corporation. I would gladly pay the TV licence fee for BBC rather than the crap RTE churns out. I much prefer Question Time to Questions and Answers. It is QT which prompts my latest musings. There is quite a furore erupting over the BBC's governing body ruling to uphold a decision to allow BNP leader Nick Griffin to appear on the programme. Opposition finds its leading voice in Welsh Secretary Peter Hain, who objects on the BNP being allowed to attend on legal grounds. He does this in light of the legal challenge taken against the BNP by the UK equalities watchdog. He argues that as the BNP has not yet amended the offending articles in its constitution, it is an illegal organisation and should not be allowed to participate on Question Time. This is the legal grounds on which Mr Hain bases his objection. Having a long history of fighting racial discrimination, he has many reasons to find the BNP "abhorrent".

The BBC trust, however, has upheld the decision to allow Griffin to attend. Director General Mark Thompson has said that the government would have to make the decision to proscribe the party, as Margaret Thatcher did with Sinn Fein in the 1980s. Speaking to the Guardian today, Thompson argued that the BNP's current level of support warrants their invitation: "It is a straightforward matter of fact that ... the BNP has demonstrated a level of support which would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time. It is for that reason alone ... that the invitation has been extended." He argues that the call to ban them from the programme is tantamount to a call for censorship, and that is in Westminster's hands, not the BBC's. Hain, however, argues that extending an invitation to the BNP legitimises both them and their policies.

I find myself torn on this one (as I do on most things. Midget, if you're reading this, I really do think 'Devil's Advocate' should be my epitaph). On the one hand, I wholeheartedly support free speech, and thus deplore censorship. I believe in certain guidelines, e.g strict enforcement of age classification etc, but you can shove the nanny state up your proverbial, mate. I'm a big girl, with my own mind. I don't need the cotton wool blanket you want to put on me. It's itchy, for a start. On the other hand, I can't stand the BNP. I don't care how slick and polished they may be, I don't care if they swapped the National Front's jackboots for snazzy suits, they are right wing, extremist bigots. Nick Griffin has clearly had some success modernising the party (to the chagrin of the extremists who are thankfully too thick to favour political expediency over showing their true colours). He is a fairly good speaker in interviews. At face value, they are almost credible. They avoid the more blatant white nationalist rhetoric of Stormfront et al, but I don't dount that it is there if you scratch the surface. Therefore, I personally wish they would just vanish off the face of the earth. Unfortunately, however, they do exist, and that is a sad but definite reality.

So should they be allowed to speak in political debates such as those on QT? While Hain makes many admirable points about the BNP being "a racist, fascist party in complete contradiction to the BBC's own equal opportunities and anti-racist policies", Thompson makes an unsettling but very valid point: "...It is unreasonable and inconsistent to take the position that a party like the BNP is acceptable enough for the public to vote for, but not acceptable enough to appear on democratic platforms like Question Time." That is the problem. The BNP are not a banned group. They are a legitimate (trust me, using that word hurts my sensibilities. It's purely in the legal sense) political party. They received a slight surge in popularity in the last elections, getting over 900,000 votes which landed them 2 MPs. This, Thompson argues, is why they were invited, because QT aims to include minor political groups from time to time, to balance the monopoly Labour and the Tories have. You can't really argue with that. Like I said, Griffin has successfully modernised the party to reach some kind of respectability. Of course, it is very easy to see that it's all a front, by scratching the surface just a little.

However, there are some people who don't have the time to scratch the surface; they are too busy worrying about things like unemployment. Many people in Britain (or insert any country here really) feel let down and even alienated by the mainstream parties in the current climate. They are in a sense vulnerable, and Griffin & Co are on hand to exploit that. Griffin in particular is no fool. He's a bigoted ignoramus, but not a fool when it comes to politics. He's learned that stomping around in big boots with shaved heads battering Pakis and Niggers around the place doesn't get you very far these days. Most of society has evolved beyond such things. Griffin realises that overt violence, verbal or physical, is not the way to go. You need political savvy. Funny, that sounds awfully familiar. I think remember hearing about some bloke in history class, he wanted to take over his government, so he organised a little revolution in a pub, or beer hall, I think they called it, back in 1923. It was a complete failure really, and when he was banged up for high treason, he got to thinking. He decided that to get political power, he needed to go by the book. Stick to legal means to achieve power. This would be popular with the people, because you can't be doing wrong if you're not doing anything illegal, can you? And it worked too! By 1939, he was the boss! Genius, really. Lucky that during his incarceration he wrote a fascinating book about his struggle to enlighten people about this great idea. I wonder if Nick has ever heard of this fella...

So what to do? Legally, they can't be kept off the air. They have some small endorsment from the electorate. While Hain and his supporters argue that this legitimises the BNP, others see censoring them as being more beneficial to their popularity. I would probably concur with the latter argument. The Britsh Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, puts it rather well: "I have always thought we have to take the BNP on. I have always thought they condemn themselves as soon as they open their mouths. In a democracy where they have elected representatives not just at European level but at local level it is very difficult for a broadcaster to exclude them and it also allows them to portray themselves as victims. We should not give these people the opportunity to claim they are being gagged." While some people may be vulnerable and sucked in by Griffin's slick "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Fascism" packaging, I have faith that the majority can see that they do indeed condemn themselves as soon as they open their mouths. Censorship lets them play the victim card, which will feed into the culture of fear and paranoia they are trying to promote. Nick Griffin's words before the debate give a flavour of things to come, I think. It is apparently his chance for "political bloodsport" to "take on the corrupt, treacherous swine destroying our beautiful island nation". Oh dear. Maybe we should censor him after all. I mean, how on earth can people like that "token Asian Muslim woman" Lady Warsi possibly counter such sound reasoning...

The benefits of a-la-carte versus set menu...

See, I told you I'd be a useless blogger. It's been about...er, six weeks since my last one? Can I possibly have gone six weeks with having nothing to moan/rant/give an informed opinion on? Nah. Much more likely that I've been busy and completely forgot. Plus that makes me sound all mysterious and interesting, so we'll go with that.

So I met up with my good friend and chaplain at UCC today. Having spent a few moments groaning and facepalming over the recent events at Knock, we indulged in some riveting theological discussions of the Bible. Well I find them riveting anyway. I love a good theological discussion, me. I particularly like theological discussions with sane, rational fellow Christians like this chap. That's one of the few things in life that disheartens me really. The surprisingly low levels of sanity, rationality and plain common sense exhibited by some in modern Christianity (and other faiths, I'm sure. I can only speak for my own lot). I'm currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I must admit I'm not too far into it, what with not being the best at time management and all that. I do find it a really good read. And I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points he makes. Don't get too excited now, all you atheists out there. You still can't claim me as your own. However Dawkins makes very valid points about the damage religion can do to society, which I agree with. I see religious fundamentalism as one of the greatest evils in the world. Where I would disagree is obviously a) the fact that there is no God and b) that the world would be better off without any religion or faith whatsoever.

Many modern atheists would argue that faith, science and reason are completely incompatible. I would disagree. I consider myself a (relatively) sane and sensible person. I have whopping great blonde moments at times, but I have a few brain cells huddling together up there somewhere. There is nothing in modern scientific teaching in areas such as evolution that I disagree with. Yet I am a card-carrying Christian, and not ashamed to say it. I believe in God, and that's it and all about it. I have no emperical or scientific way of proving His existance, so this will do absolutely nothing to persuade any atheists in the audience of either God's existance or my personal sanity. Furthermore, some tend to find it harder to understand how I can remain a believer when I outline my views. However, this isn't aimed at non-believers or agnostics, so you might want to look away now, maybe go get some tea. It's a plea to fellow Christians to stop for a few minutes and use the brains and common sense God gave them.

Yours truly over here tends to fall under the term "a-la-carte Catholic". I'm not sure what to make of this, as it is generally used as a derogatory term by conservatives. The very term implies picking and choosing what suits one's own personal tastes, right? Well, it's not that simple. I take it as sifting through the pile and picking out what makes the most sense, and, most importantly, is the most Christian. Here's the first major sticking point: Sola Scriptura: Yay or Nay? The answer is nay, folks. One thing I am keen to point out about the Roman Catholic Church (and Anglican Churches) is that they do not subscribe to this belief. The RCC fully accepts the scientific evolutionary explanation for creation. A literal interpretation of Genesis is, to quote my aforementioned priest friend, "completely ridiculous and flies in the face of all knowledge and reason". Apologies to any evangelical "Bible-believing" types out there, but that's the truth. "Blasphemy! How can you say this! The Bible is the infallible word of God!!" you screech, when the rage has subsided enough to allow for coherant speech. Er, is it? God wrote the Bible, did he? No, men wrote the Bible. The closest thing in the Bible which could claim to be directly dictated by God are the Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The rest are written by men, and God is generally not speaking to them at the time. The Bible can be called the inspired word of God, yes. It is not the infallible and inerrant word of God though, because God did not directly write, nor dictate and proofread it. Moreover, it has been translated and re-translated thousands of times, so even had He written it, it would not have come to us verbatum. Even Jesus Himself was quoting translation when He spoke of the Hebrew Scriptures, because His mother tongue was Aramaic. See where I'm going with this?

"How can you be a Christian if you admit the Bible isn't true?" Just because I don't believe in the literal reading of the Bible doesn't mean I don't believe the ethos of it. It doesn't mean I don't believe that Jesus was real. I most certainly do. Again however, Jesus did not write the Gospels. And they were not written while he was alive. Yes, Matthew and John were apostles, so they knew Him personally. Their Gospels were not written till at least 30 years later though. Luke and Mark were even later. Furthermore, they did not sit down to write verbatum, infallible gospels. They were writing a record of Jesus and His life and teachings to be used in the Christian communites of the time. They were also not the only ones writing about the subject. By the time of the Council of Nicea came around in 325AD, there were several types of Christianity floating around. The Council codified Christian orthodoxy to follow the "valid" teachings of Pauline Christianity, and compiled the Bible we know today, leaving many contempory Christian writings out. One could spend all day discussing/boring people to death with this, but my point is this: How can people today honestly claim that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God when it has clearly been subject to revision, editing and compilation by man since its inception?

The Bible is a blurry mixture of literature, history and folktale motifs. "So, if you don't believe the Bible should be read literally, and you're not an atheist, then what's your answer, smart alec?" Like I said, the Bible is a piece of literature. Like one of my English lecturers never tires of telling us: Reading should be an active, not passive endeavour. He talks of unpacking texts. That is what we Christians have to do with the Good Book. Read it actively, searching in between the lines. Think and pray while you're doing it. What fundamentalists do is the merely read it and the regurgitate what it says, without thinking about what it actually says, what it means. This is not proper spirituality. This is not true, living faith. It's like a parrot. It certainly seems like it is speaking, but it isn't. It's imitating speech, but it cannot think of words of its own. Why did Jesus speak in parables if He didn't want us to think about His teaching, hmm?

The biggest mistake they make is that they get so caught up in dogma and doctrine, that they tend to leave out a small little aspect: that Jesus of Nazereth bloke. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but He's kind of important in the whole Christianity gig right? What's He got to say for Himself then? Was He was running around giving out and making big lists of rules and regulations? Er, no actually. He seemed to be a bit too preoccupied with hanging out with all those beggars and tax collectors. He sometimes had a few kind words for widows and lepers, too. This one time though, He got mightily hacked off and smashed up the temple. Now what on earth would drive Jesus meek and mild to lose His temper like that! It was those awful gays, wasn't it. Darn perverts! Funnily enough, no. It was pious, upstanding religious leaders being financially immoral and corrupt in the temple. Hmm...Now I wonder...

Apologies for the descent into such irreverant humour. My devout a-la-cartism also firmly believes in the Divine Sense Of Humour. My point is, so many Christians spend so much time condemning this person and that person for breaking the "rules", without seeming to have any idea of who Jesus was or what He was about. He wasn't about rules and dogma. (I know some smart alec will inevitably quote the passage about Him coming not to destroy the law but to fulfill here). He was about love, compassion, justice, tolerance. The tempatations in Luke 4: 1-13 are seen as temptations to power, prestige and popularity. These are the things which Jesus rejects. This is what He is not about. He then tells us in 4: 18-30 what He is about: He came to bring good news to the poor, release the captives, free the oppressed, etc. How many religious leaders or fundamentalists could claim to do these things? He was about the ordinary people, the sinners. And He treated them with compassion and understanding, rather than lambasting them for their failings. He saw the bigger picture, saw the grey shades of human experience rather than the nice and neat black/white or religious dogma. And he did not say a bloody word about sex. Cue smart alec evangelical type again: 'Mt 5:28, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."' you declare smugly. Ok. In the literal sense, this means thinking about adultery is as bad as acting on it. Adultery is mentioned. Where does He mention the endless litany of other sexual sins you espouse? Using a small bit of brainpower to read between the lines, He tells us that our intentions are what matter, as well as our actions. When the Pharisees are criticising Him because the disciples are eating on the Sabbath when they should fast, He politely reminds them of the time David took the Priest's bread to feed his starving army. Ever wondered why Christians don't have dietary restrictions like other faiths? Because Jesus proceeded to tell these devout and pious men that it's not what enters a man's body that defiles him, but what comes out. In other words, it's what's in our hearts that matters. So the basic idea of Christianity is we are all human, we are all children of God, and we are all to love and treat each other well. Our attitude to our fellow man in our hearts is what matters, not what we eat, who we sleep with, what colour we are, or whatever other stupid reason we find for ostracising people. To all those who accuse me of being "a la carte", are you not doing the same in reverse when you ignore Jesus' teaching on compassion in favour of condemning everyone? Come here a sec, you seem to have a bit of a log in your eye there...

There endeth the lesson. Go in peace to get yourselves some coffee and curse my verbose rantings.

Free speech....or maybe a nominal fee?

"Life isn't black or white. It's a million shades of grey." I have no idea who first coined that phrase, but for me it's attributed to my father. Definitely one of his wiser musings I feel. That's where so much conflict arises these days, isn't it?So many people think that way. 'X' is either black or white, right or wrong. The end. For most of us, we have evolved far enough to realise that life has the unfortunate habit of just not being that damn simple. However, are there not some things which we all have to agree are of paramount importance, that are definitively 'right' or 'wrong'?

Such as the importance of free speech for example. Surely that's a black and white issue. Right? Er...well...maybe. Personally, free speech is one of the things I hold dear. We are all entitled to our own opinion. Some people's opinions are downright ridiculous, no doubt. They are entitled to them nonetheless. I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it. And that's where I often run into difficulty, unfortunately. I often get into trouble for having a habit of playin devil's advocate a bit too much. I see great importance in seeing all sides of an argument, that's all.

The most recent example to get me thinking on this is an incident in Greater Manchester recently, where a street preacher and his father were "threatened with arrest" for preaching the Bible in public. The particular verses he was citing included the passages Romans 1.27 and 1 Corinthians 6.9 from the King James Bible:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly..."

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."

Well you don't have to be a genius to work out what ol' preacher was getting at. More than likely it was the evils of homosexuality. Apparently he was threatened with arrest for "offensive" statements, which to some, amount to incitement to hatred. Now, see, that's were I get a bit stuck. I came across the story on a progressive Anglican blog, and one of my favourite blogs in general. The author, who I think is a brilliant man who writes very scholarly and articulate articles, takes this view. As someone advocating reform and inclusion in the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion, he believes the preacher's selective Bible quoting is incitement to hatred. I'm not so sure I agree on that. Oh I have been on the recieving end of many a fire-and-brimstone merchant, whose empassioned recital of the above Bible passages have certainly gotten on my nerves from time to time. That relentless evangelical zeal can be hard to escape (especially the American "missionaries" that seem to love Ireland so much). The guy in this article, as with many of them, has a preoccupation with the "sinfulness" of homosexuality. Which I disagree with, naturally enough. They are at best highly amusing and at worst downright annoying. But do they have a right to stand at the side of the street and tell I'm going to hell? Well, yes, I believe they do. I don't see it as incitement to hatred. They don't seem to be advocating harm against gay people. Now I know many will argue that they do untold psychological harm to vulnerable gay people, and I wholeheartedly agree. I was one of those people damaged for many years by negative ideas of homosexuality given by religion, so I know. That doesn't change my belief that religious conservatives or evangelicals such as this guy have a right to preach in public though. People are free to make up their own minds. I don't think some zealot screeching "REPENT! Lest the Devil shove a poker up your..." is incitement to hatred. Now, if it's a case of someone actively advocating harm against homosexuals (or anyone) then that's different. The likes of Fred Phelps and his WBC nutters or many extremist Islamic clerics advocating violence and death against gay people is completely wrong, and in that case, free speech is being violated to incite hatred. The current plight of gay men in Iraq is a sad example.

You can apply the same logic to racism, Islamophobia, sexism, etc. But there lies another question, which the author on the Changing Attitudes blog and many others would rightly raise: would the same rules apply to other groups apart from homosexuals? Would any form of racist sentiment be tolerated by free speech, for example? That's I good argument. I would refer to the "white nationalists" of Stormfront I mentioned in a previous post: are they entitled to espouse "white nationalism" as an ideology, once the don't advocate harm to ethnic minorities? I suppose, going on my own reasoning, that provided they don't advocate harm against ethnic minorities, then yes, they are entitled to believe white people are better than black people. However, the problem is, racism and Neo Nazism are rarely purely ideolgogical principles. They are based on hatred, rather like Fred Phelps and his attitude to gays, and require action. So they advocate harm to people, therefore are not entitled to propagate their opinion. But is someone who expresses concerns about immigration policy necessarily a racist? I don't think so.

I think it is an incredibly tricky issue. A lot of common sense is needed. There is a glaring difference between expressing concern about Islamic fundamentalism, and inciting Islamophobia. With relation to religion, most religions believe that theirs is correct; therefore others must be "wrong". They seek to save the unbelievers, therefore must attempt to prosletyse them. This involves telling them that their religion, or lack thereof, is wrong. And they are entitled to do so. Most of us would have the common sense not to tell people of other faiths they will go to hell, even if we believed so. However some people feel it is their duty to save the world from itself. And however idiotic it may be, they do have a right to express their opinion. As a Christian, I do tend to get a bit annoyed when people deliberately say offensive things about Jesus to piss me off. The idea of living in a nanny state that tells them they can't "commit blasphemy", however, pisses me off a great deal more. As offensive a person's opinion may be, I think once they are not advocating harm, slandering or libeling anybody, then they are free to say what they like. There's no litmus test for offence, unfortunately. Some people have incredibly thick skins, others don't. I think another thing that often gets forgotten about free speech and other civil liberties is that they work both ways. Take Bible Billy and his holy rolling friends: we gays espouse our right to freely contradict his views, don't we? So doesn't he have that same right? "But he's in the wrong!" you say. Maybe. But to him we're in the wrong. So one of us is wrong, but who decides which one? That's why free speech and debate are vital.

Community Alert Area...

I am currently sitting in the garden with a nice cup of coffee, watching the brother's dog manically running around after her ball, while my cranky aul fella sits there eyeing her with the contempt and disdain only a 9-and-a-half year old Cavelier King cross could muster. The wind is whistling gently through the trees, and the clouds' threats appear to be empty thus far. It is a truly peaceful and zen-like experience. Well it would be, apart from the godforsaken alarm screeching at me from across the road, piercing my brain like a searing hot poker. It has been blaring for about thirty minutes now. It's not even a car alarm, it's one of those shrill burglar alarms. Listening to this infernal din has led me to ask myself: does anybody actually take a blind bit of notice of these things? Think about it. Anytime you hear a burglar alarm, or a car alarm, or even a fire alarm going off, do you think twice? Does anyone feel inclined to investigate if they hear the electronic wailing eminating from their neighbour's car/house? I don't think so. Now 9 times out of 10 it's a false alarm anyway. Just the other day, my friend somehow managed to set off a car alarm by sending a text message while walking past it. No seriously. The hypersensitivity of these things is perhaps necessary, but it does lead to a spot of cry wolf syndrome, which leaves them blatantly ignored.

Or is it that we just don't care? That's what I'm currently pondering, as I try in vain to concentrate hard enough on this post that I may enter a trance-like state, thus eliminating the painful racket (it's not working by the way). It brings me back to the individual versus community idea. Coming from a small enough town, where everybody knows everybody and 90% of the population can be traced back to the same two families, I have always tended to rail against the oppression of "community". The thought of small towns and the militant officials of the Curtain Twitching brigade repulses me. It's not so much Big Brother as Mrs Murphy is watching, but at least Big Brother is invisible, therefore can't tut disapprovingly at you while on her way to tell Bridie and Agnes all about your shenanigans. I love the idea of living in cities. I like the anonymity. I am a bit of a lone wolf by nature, valuing my own space and privacy. I like to be left alone to go about my business, and pay the same courtesy to others.

So privacy, anonymity and individualism are a good thing. Thing is, like all good things, you can have too much of it. Yeah we all need space and privacy, some more than others perhaps. However the general consensus about human beings is that we are social creatures, even cantankerous old sods like me. We need other people, a community, to survive. It goes beyond the social aspect. Back to the screeching alarms. Yes it's usually a false alarm, but what if it wasn't? The point is, we generally don't even bother to check. The drawback to being left to go about your business is that you're left to it all the time. Some social conservatives would happily tell us that the idea of community is well and truly dead, thanks to the evils of sex drugs and rock and roll. Nobody gives a damn about anyone else anymore, and we all gladly leave each other to rot, once it doesn't impact on us. While most extreme social conservatives are reactionary and slightly hysterical by their very nature, you have to admit they have a point.

We generally don't care anymore. If we walk down the street and see someone harassing somebody, will we stop to help? Not bloody likely. I remember being in Mass once and reading an article in the newsletter where the priest asked us to go and visit elderly people in the area who would be alone at Christmas. How many of us would actually bother to do such a thing? Very few. We're far too busy, of course. But how much time would it actually take? Even half an hour would probably make some old lady's entire day. Just calling to the door to check in on them would probably suffice. I hate small towns and interfering busybodies as much as, if not more than, the next person. But as with almost everything in life, we are generally in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It doesn't have to be individual versus community; it can be individual and community. We can have our privacy and freedom to live life without interference, and still have time to give five minutes to consider our fellow human beings, surely?