I have just written to my old school to ask them how they are tackling homophobic bullying.
To: info@bitterneparkschool.org.uk
Dear Ms Trigger,
As a former student at Bitterne Park Comprehensive School, I’d like to
raise an issue that’s very important to me. This will be the third time I
have written to the school to ask about this. I was very disappointed
that I did not receive a reply to my previous emails, but perhaps this
time it will be different.
I recently read Stonewall’s School
Report, research conducted by the University of Cambridge into the
experience of 1,600 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) young
people in Britain’s schools. I was concerned to discover that more than
half of LGBT young people are still experiencing homophobic bullying in
schools, and almost all of them regularly hear the use of homophobic
language. The study also found that this bullying not only negatively
impacts on young people’s happiness and attainment at school, but can
also have severe consequences for their mental health and well-being.
I remember that when I was a student at Bitterne Park, Section 28 was
still in force, and a close friend was on the receiving end of
homophobic bullying, and the teachers could not do anything to stop it. I
myself was also on the receiving end of homophobic bullying, and found
it demoralising.
Thankfully, the University of Cambridge
research showed that in those schools that take simple steps to tackle
homophobia, for instance by challenging homophobic language, levels of
homophobic bullying decrease markedly and young people report feeling
happier and more welcome in their schools.
In light of
Anti-Bullying Week, which is coming up on 19-23 November, I thought you
might like to know about Stonewall’s School Champions programme, which
has been specifically designed to help schools develop strategies for
tackling homophobic bullying. The programme is already working with
schools across Britain and if you’d like to find out how to become one
of them just visit: www.stonewall.org.uk/schoolchampions.
Stonewall also has a wide range of education resources available on
their website to help teachers reduce and tackle homophobic bullying –
available at www.stonewall.org.uk/resources.
Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration and I look forward
to hearing back from you. If you’d like more details about what
Stonewall is doing during Anti-Bullying Week, you can visit www.stonewall.org.uk/antibullying
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_school/antibullying_week/default.asp
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Charitable giving
I think we need to move away from a human-centric view of the world towards a deep ecology view, that is what has got our species into so much trouble. Social and environmental justice are part and parcel of the same thing. If you care for the environment, you are also caring for its inhabitants, which include people. And animals are people, in my book. They are sentient, they feel compassion and love, they have distinct personalities. Yet another reason why I am a Pagan.
I know some people who only give to charities that help people in the UK, because they seem unable to see that we are all part of the same world, and that if people in other countries are suffering, then it will eventually have an impact on us - indeed, already is, what with the number of asylum seekers (who are very welcome as far as I am concerned).
Other species' suffering, because it impacts the ecosystem, will eventually have an impact on humans anyway. Not that I think giving to animal and environment charities needs justifying on the grounds of the effect on humans, any more than I think giving to non-UK-helping charities needs justifying on the grounds of how it will help people in the UK.
My regular charitable giving goes to Survival International, RSPCA, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam, Stonewall, and Sight Savers. I also buy the Big Issue and shop in charity shops. I used to give to Greenpeace but recently I have become concerned about their campaigning methods.
I need to do a charity audit and decide which charities I will donate to, and why. I think I need to increase my giving to animal and environmental ones.
I know some people who only give to charities that help people in the UK, because they seem unable to see that we are all part of the same world, and that if people in other countries are suffering, then it will eventually have an impact on us - indeed, already is, what with the number of asylum seekers (who are very welcome as far as I am concerned).
Other species' suffering, because it impacts the ecosystem, will eventually have an impact on humans anyway. Not that I think giving to animal and environment charities needs justifying on the grounds of the effect on humans, any more than I think giving to non-UK-helping charities needs justifying on the grounds of how it will help people in the UK.
My regular charitable giving goes to Survival International, RSPCA, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam, Stonewall, and Sight Savers. I also buy the Big Issue and shop in charity shops. I used to give to Greenpeace but recently I have become concerned about their campaigning methods.
I need to do a charity audit and decide which charities I will donate to, and why. I think I need to increase my giving to animal and environmental ones.
Friday, September 28, 2012
What is a Christian?
Unitarian Christians (and others) have been trying to broaden the
definition of Christianity since the 1830s, when the publication of
Rammohun Roy's The Precepts of Jesus caused a furore among conventional Christians of the day. Rammohun
Roy could not accept the doctrines of mainstream Christianity.
He also called into question what is meant by Christianity in his
writings, which were published in England by the Unitarian Society.
Roy's story also raises the issue of what religion is – is it the
original form or impulse, or the "accretions" which subsequently
accumulate, or a combination of these? Is it about values, beliefs, or
practices, or a combination of these? All of these issues were raised by
Roy and his contemporaries over his views and those of the Unitarians,
and the issues are still being debated today in many contexts. There was
considerable dispute (between the Baptist missionaries of Serampore and
the Unitarian Thomas Aspland) over whether Unitarians were Christians,
and whether Roy himself was one; this depended on whether Christianity
was defined according to values and monotheism, or by belief in the
divinity of Christ. In declaring Roy to be a Christian, early nineteenth
century Unitarians perhaps sought to broaden the definition of
Christianity to include themselves. Roy used the same techniques and
sources as the Unitarians to answer his critics: German biblical
criticism, the history of the Arian controversy, the discourse of
radical dissenters, and rational scepticism.
In the 1950s, apparently, it looked for a while as if Christianity was going to be defined as a broad movement of people who subscribe to the values of Jesus - but then two things happened: an upsurge of secularism, and an upsurge of evangelicalism. After that, it became increasingly difficult to define Christianity as anything other than conservative evangelical fundamentalism, belief in Jeeesus as your Personal SaviorTM, and belief in penal substitution theology (the idea that he died for your sins).
James Martineau once famously wrote that he didn't want to describe himself as a Unitarian, because that was the name of a doctrine; instead, he wanted to be called a Free Christian.
This is at the root of the reason why the full name of the Unitarian tradition in the UK is the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. A bit of a mouthful, isn't it?
But what is a Free Christian, or a liberal Christian? They are usually people who are working out their theology for themselves, and consider Jesus' moral example, and his teachings, to be more important than doctrines about him as a Saviour who died for people's sins. (I am sure there are more complicated explanations than that, but that will suffice.) They are also usually inclusive of LGBT people and tolerant of other religions, seeing them as equally valid paths to God / the Divine.
A Unitarian Christian is a slightly different critter, as this is someone who is both Unitarian and Christian. Again, they are working out their own theology, inclusive towards LGBTs and consider other religions equally valid; but they are also likely to hold Unitarian views of God, meaning that Jesus is not viewed as the second person of the Trinity.
But the name "Christian" does encapsulate a doctrine: it expresses the view that Jesus was Christ.
But it depends what you think a "Christ" is, and whether you think he was the only Christ, or whether there are more of them. The word Christ just means "Anointed One" and is a Greek translation of the Jewish word Messiah, also meaning "Anointed One". Some Jewish thinkers have suggested that there may be a messiah in every generation.
James Martineau also famously said:
What if Christianity was a project to make more Christs? Well, funnily enough, there is a very ancient form of Christianity that is exactly that. In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the rite of baptism is called chrismation (anointing), and the aim of the Christian life is theosis (becoming divine).
Many, if not most, liberal Christians, Unitarian Christians, and Free Christians reject the notion that Jesus was "Very God of very God" and emphasise the human Jesus, his moral example, and his teachings.
But what if, as Martineau said, the Incarnation was true of humans universally? In Judaism, Isaac Luria taught that we all contain a divine spark; and Judaism has always taught that people are made in the image of God.
If the Incarnation is true of humans universally, then we must all develop our inner Christ (or Buddha, or Aradia).
If Christianity was a project to make more Christs, that might be interesting.
Further reading on liberal Christianity:
it would make a lot more sense if people talked about Christianities instead of Christianity. (And what about all those Christian churches that dissented at the Council of Chalcedon?)
In the 1950s, apparently, it looked for a while as if Christianity was going to be defined as a broad movement of people who subscribe to the values of Jesus - but then two things happened: an upsurge of secularism, and an upsurge of evangelicalism. After that, it became increasingly difficult to define Christianity as anything other than conservative evangelical fundamentalism, belief in Jeeesus as your Personal SaviorTM, and belief in penal substitution theology (the idea that he died for your sins).
James Martineau once famously wrote that he didn't want to describe himself as a Unitarian, because that was the name of a doctrine; instead, he wanted to be called a Free Christian.
This is at the root of the reason why the full name of the Unitarian tradition in the UK is the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. A bit of a mouthful, isn't it?
But what is a Free Christian, or a liberal Christian? They are usually people who are working out their theology for themselves, and consider Jesus' moral example, and his teachings, to be more important than doctrines about him as a Saviour who died for people's sins. (I am sure there are more complicated explanations than that, but that will suffice.) They are also usually inclusive of LGBT people and tolerant of other religions, seeing them as equally valid paths to God / the Divine.
A Unitarian Christian is a slightly different critter, as this is someone who is both Unitarian and Christian. Again, they are working out their own theology, inclusive towards LGBTs and consider other religions equally valid; but they are also likely to hold Unitarian views of God, meaning that Jesus is not viewed as the second person of the Trinity.
But the name "Christian" does encapsulate a doctrine: it expresses the view that Jesus was Christ.
But it depends what you think a "Christ" is, and whether you think he was the only Christ, or whether there are more of them. The word Christ just means "Anointed One" and is a Greek translation of the Jewish word Messiah, also meaning "Anointed One". Some Jewish thinkers have suggested that there may be a messiah in every generation.
James Martineau also famously said:
“The incarnation is true, not of Christ exclusively, but of Man universally, and God everlastingly. He bends into the human to dwell there; and humanity is the susceptible organ of the divine”Buddhism is a project to make more Buddhas. Buddhism does not claim that Buddha was the incarnation of a deity.
What if Christianity was a project to make more Christs? Well, funnily enough, there is a very ancient form of Christianity that is exactly that. In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the rite of baptism is called chrismation (anointing), and the aim of the Christian life is theosis (becoming divine).
Many, if not most, liberal Christians, Unitarian Christians, and Free Christians reject the notion that Jesus was "Very God of very God" and emphasise the human Jesus, his moral example, and his teachings.
But what if, as Martineau said, the Incarnation was true of humans universally? In Judaism, Isaac Luria taught that we all contain a divine spark; and Judaism has always taught that people are made in the image of God.
If the Incarnation is true of humans universally, then we must all develop our inner Christ (or Buddha, or Aradia).
If Christianity was a project to make more Christs, that might be interesting.
Further reading on liberal Christianity:
- Caute
- The Herald
- The Man they called the Christ by David Doel
- The Progressive Christianity Network
- Inclusive Church
- Changing Attitude
- Atheist Christians
it would make a lot more sense if people talked about Christianities instead of Christianity. (And what about all those Christian churches that dissented at the Council of Chalcedon?)
Friday, September 14, 2012
Science fiction religions
There have been several new religious movements based on science fictional religions.
Wikipedia has a list of fictional religions, not all of which come from science fiction.
The most famous example of a real-world recreation of a science fiction religion is the Jedi from Star Wars, but there is also the Church of All Worlds from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, Cullenism, based on Twilight.
Recently I came across a recreation of the Bene Gesserit from Dune with its own training manual (PDF). I have no idea how serious this actually is but it looks as if it is an attempt to create a serious BG order.
I think what all these new religious movements have in common (apart from the Church of All Worlds) is that they try to be too prescriptive about what people should practice and/or believe.
On the other hand, the Bene Gesserit manual admonishes its readers:
“Beware of manuals! Manuals create habits!”Yes indeed - but then why write a manual at all?
Except for the preliminary teachings tailored to the acolytes and postulants, we try to avoid admonitory sayings, but since this is our first edition and we must break the virgin soil, you will forgive the many errors inherent in this work. Someone had to do the plowing. Do not argue over the possible meanings of the contents of this manual. Words are dead things. Truth changes. Facts are fragile. Be Warned. Understand nothing. All comprehension is temporary. We realize, however, that a foundation is necessary, no matter how impermanent it may be. This is a real manual for real Bene Gesserit. It is not a guide book for children and their role-playing games. This is a guidebook for strong women to do great things.
Why do we have manuals? Answer: To disprove them.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Some thoughts on Islam
Islam, like all religions, is a highly complex cultural phenomenon. People try to lump all Muslims together and assume they all think the same thing, as if they were some vast lumpen mass. If they actually took the trouble to get to know some Muslims, and get to know a bit about Muslim culture, it would help.
There are lots of things to admire about Islam. The 99 names of Allah reflect different aspects of the Divine, such as compassion, peace, forgiveness, and subtlety. Muslims recognise other religions of the book as worshipping the same deity. The coming of Islam brought peace and stability and prosperity to the warring Arabian peninsula.
The Muslim world (Dar al-Islam) has traditionally been much more tolerant towards religious minorities within it than was true of Christendom (which either expelled or forcibly converted Jews and Muslims, and then tortured them and burnt them if they reverted to their previous religions). Under the Ottoman Empire, and in al-Andalus (Muslim Spain before the reconquista), religious minorities were tolerated - they may have had certain restrictions, but they could practice their religions. When the Crusaders took over Jerusalem, they slaughtered most of the inhabitants, including Christians, Jews and Muslims, so that the streets were running knee-deep in blood. When Saladin (Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb) took over Jerusalem, anyone who wished to leave was allowed to do so without let or hindrance. Saladin's noble and chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, and he became a celebrated exponent of the principles of chivalry.
The Renaissance in Europe happened because of the art, culture and science that came from the Muslim world. Muslim scholars had been gathered together in a group called the House of Wisdom under the Abbasid Empire to translate classical texts into Arabic. Muslim scholars not only translated texts but also wrote treatises on science, astronomy, astrology, medicine, mathematics, the arts, and so on. The names of many scientific instruments and areas of knowledge come from Arabic. Alchemy, chemistry, algorithm, alcohol, almagest, and so on. Many star-names are Arabic, or come from Arabic, and very beautiful they are too. The poetry and literature of the Arabs was also outstanding. There are still many Muslim scientists today. And also, Ibn Battutah, a medieval Muslim traveller from Morocco went all the way to China and wrote down what he saw on the way - he travelled much further and more widely than Marco Polo, and stayed longer in the places he visited.
The Arab world also had very advanced ceramic techniques - probably because of the emphasis on geometric designs in mosques, because of the ban on graven images.
Fairly early on in the history of Islam, there developed a difference in emphasis between two groups: the Sufis, whose emphasis was more mystical; and those who preferred the more legalistic side of Islam. Indeed, Islamic jurisprudence is complex and subtle. There are several different forms of Islamic law - so it would actually be very difficult to impose sharia on Muslim communities in the UK, because they all come from different places where Islamic law has developed differently.
Two major groups in Islam are the Sunni and the Shia. The Sunni derive all authority from the Prophet Mohammed; the Shia recognise a line of holy men who are descended from the Prophet.
The word "Sunni" comes from the term Sunnah, which refers to the sayings and actions of Muhammad that are recorded in hadiths (collections of oral testimony regarding Muhammad, collected not long after his death).
"Shia" is the short form of the historic phrase Shīʻatu ʻAlī, meaning "followers", "faction", or "party" of Muhammad's son-in-law Ali, whom the Shia believe to be Muhammad's successor.
Sufism or taṣawwuf is defined by its adherents as the inner, mystical dimension of Islam. A practitioner of this tradition is generally known as a ṣūfī. Sufis believe they are practicing Ihsan (perfection of worship) as revealed by Gabriel to Muhammad. The Sufis have produced a lot of really amazing mystic poetry, such as the poetry of Rumi and Hafiz; and many inspiring saints, such as Al Hallaj and Rabia. Their worship services (zikr or dikr, meaning remembering the name of Allah) are very beautiful.
Wahhabism is a conservative and fundamentalism form of Sunni Islam. It is particularly strong in Saudi Arabia. It has gained influence for various reasons over the rest of the Muslim world, partly because its adherents are very wealthy, and partly because of the rising hostility between the West and Islam, which creates a vicious downward spiral. Wahhabis also distribute a version of the Holy Qu'ran annotated with their interpretations of it.
There are aspects of Islamic practice which don't appeal to me. I believe the body is sacred, and sexuality is sacred, so the idea of modesty does not appeal to me. I support the right of Muslims to wear hijab (modest dress for both men and women; although in many Islamic countries it has been the modesty of women that has been the most policed and commented on). I disagree with extra emphasis being placed on hijab for women, which is the case in some Islamic countries, especially Saudi Arabia; but there are hijab codes for both men and women. If people want to indicate their devotion to their deity, good for them. I don't think it qualifies them for extra respect, but they should be accorded as much respect as anyone else, and I absolutely and unequivocally condemn violence against people observing hijab codes.
I also dislike the anti-gay rhetoric coming from some Muslims - but I also dislike the anti-gay rhetoric coming from senior figures in Christianity, which is currently considerably louder, or at least getting more media attention. I abhor the fact that in many Islamic countries, being gay carries the death penalty, and sincerely hope that this will change.
[Update: There are also advocacy groups for LGBT Muslims, and a prominent Muslim spokesperson who stands up for LGBT rights.]
As a vegetarian, I can't say I particularly like the slaughter of animals for festivals in some Islamic countries; but that's not really a core part of Islam. If you insist on eating meat, then I think dhabihah (the correct method of slaughtering meat so that it conforms with halal) is more humane. It says that you should bless the animal with the name of God before killing it, and the killing should be swift and humane. Muslims are taught throughout the Qur'an that all animals should be treated with respect and well cared for.
One of the interesting things about Islam is that it is all about the consensus of the ummah (the community); there is no Pope and no Archbishops. There is more than one imam. If you don't like the interpretation of the Qu'ran (a fatwa is an interpretation of the Qu'ran) that you get from one imam, you can go to a different one.
Just like any other holy book, the Qu'ran contains contradictory passages and bits that are confusing. There are many passages advocating peace, compassion and tolerance; there are also exhortations to violence. The same is true of the Bible. That is why exegesis is a delicate art and these books should be taken as a whole, not just quoted in bits taken out of context, and above all they should not be taken literally.
Like all other religions, there are fundamentalists in Islam. I don't like fundamentalism in any religion; but I have to say that Christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists, if not more dangerous, because they have access to power and influence and money in one of the most powerful countries in the world, i.e. America.
Most Muslims just want to live in peace with their neighbours. They are mostly peace-loving and compassionate people - something that news programmes consistently ignore.
So, for goodness' sake, people, get educated about Islam. I have only skimmed the surface here, but it is a very complicated topic, just like all other religions.
There are lots of things to admire about Islam. The 99 names of Allah reflect different aspects of the Divine, such as compassion, peace, forgiveness, and subtlety. Muslims recognise other religions of the book as worshipping the same deity. The coming of Islam brought peace and stability and prosperity to the warring Arabian peninsula.
The Muslim world (Dar al-Islam) has traditionally been much more tolerant towards religious minorities within it than was true of Christendom (which either expelled or forcibly converted Jews and Muslims, and then tortured them and burnt them if they reverted to their previous religions). Under the Ottoman Empire, and in al-Andalus (Muslim Spain before the reconquista), religious minorities were tolerated - they may have had certain restrictions, but they could practice their religions. When the Crusaders took over Jerusalem, they slaughtered most of the inhabitants, including Christians, Jews and Muslims, so that the streets were running knee-deep in blood. When Saladin (Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb) took over Jerusalem, anyone who wished to leave was allowed to do so without let or hindrance. Saladin's noble and chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, and he became a celebrated exponent of the principles of chivalry.
The Renaissance in Europe happened because of the art, culture and science that came from the Muslim world. Muslim scholars had been gathered together in a group called the House of Wisdom under the Abbasid Empire to translate classical texts into Arabic. Muslim scholars not only translated texts but also wrote treatises on science, astronomy, astrology, medicine, mathematics, the arts, and so on. The names of many scientific instruments and areas of knowledge come from Arabic. Alchemy, chemistry, algorithm, alcohol, almagest, and so on. Many star-names are Arabic, or come from Arabic, and very beautiful they are too. The poetry and literature of the Arabs was also outstanding. There are still many Muslim scientists today. And also, Ibn Battutah, a medieval Muslim traveller from Morocco went all the way to China and wrote down what he saw on the way - he travelled much further and more widely than Marco Polo, and stayed longer in the places he visited.
The Arab world also had very advanced ceramic techniques - probably because of the emphasis on geometric designs in mosques, because of the ban on graven images.
Fairly early on in the history of Islam, there developed a difference in emphasis between two groups: the Sufis, whose emphasis was more mystical; and those who preferred the more legalistic side of Islam. Indeed, Islamic jurisprudence is complex and subtle. There are several different forms of Islamic law - so it would actually be very difficult to impose sharia on Muslim communities in the UK, because they all come from different places where Islamic law has developed differently.
Two major groups in Islam are the Sunni and the Shia. The Sunni derive all authority from the Prophet Mohammed; the Shia recognise a line of holy men who are descended from the Prophet.
The word "Sunni" comes from the term Sunnah, which refers to the sayings and actions of Muhammad that are recorded in hadiths (collections of oral testimony regarding Muhammad, collected not long after his death).
"Shia" is the short form of the historic phrase Shīʻatu ʻAlī, meaning "followers", "faction", or "party" of Muhammad's son-in-law Ali, whom the Shia believe to be Muhammad's successor.
Sufism or taṣawwuf is defined by its adherents as the inner, mystical dimension of Islam. A practitioner of this tradition is generally known as a ṣūfī. Sufis believe they are practicing Ihsan (perfection of worship) as revealed by Gabriel to Muhammad. The Sufis have produced a lot of really amazing mystic poetry, such as the poetry of Rumi and Hafiz; and many inspiring saints, such as Al Hallaj and Rabia. Their worship services (zikr or dikr, meaning remembering the name of Allah) are very beautiful.
Wahhabism is a conservative and fundamentalism form of Sunni Islam. It is particularly strong in Saudi Arabia. It has gained influence for various reasons over the rest of the Muslim world, partly because its adherents are very wealthy, and partly because of the rising hostility between the West and Islam, which creates a vicious downward spiral. Wahhabis also distribute a version of the Holy Qu'ran annotated with their interpretations of it.
There are aspects of Islamic practice which don't appeal to me. I believe the body is sacred, and sexuality is sacred, so the idea of modesty does not appeal to me. I support the right of Muslims to wear hijab (modest dress for both men and women; although in many Islamic countries it has been the modesty of women that has been the most policed and commented on). I disagree with extra emphasis being placed on hijab for women, which is the case in some Islamic countries, especially Saudi Arabia; but there are hijab codes for both men and women. If people want to indicate their devotion to their deity, good for them. I don't think it qualifies them for extra respect, but they should be accorded as much respect as anyone else, and I absolutely and unequivocally condemn violence against people observing hijab codes.
I also dislike the anti-gay rhetoric coming from some Muslims - but I also dislike the anti-gay rhetoric coming from senior figures in Christianity, which is currently considerably louder, or at least getting more media attention. I abhor the fact that in many Islamic countries, being gay carries the death penalty, and sincerely hope that this will change.
[Update: There are also advocacy groups for LGBT Muslims, and a prominent Muslim spokesperson who stands up for LGBT rights.]
As a vegetarian, I can't say I particularly like the slaughter of animals for festivals in some Islamic countries; but that's not really a core part of Islam. If you insist on eating meat, then I think dhabihah (the correct method of slaughtering meat so that it conforms with halal) is more humane. It says that you should bless the animal with the name of God before killing it, and the killing should be swift and humane. Muslims are taught throughout the Qur'an that all animals should be treated with respect and well cared for.
One of the interesting things about Islam is that it is all about the consensus of the ummah (the community); there is no Pope and no Archbishops. There is more than one imam. If you don't like the interpretation of the Qu'ran (a fatwa is an interpretation of the Qu'ran) that you get from one imam, you can go to a different one.
Just like any other holy book, the Qu'ran contains contradictory passages and bits that are confusing. There are many passages advocating peace, compassion and tolerance; there are also exhortations to violence. The same is true of the Bible. That is why exegesis is a delicate art and these books should be taken as a whole, not just quoted in bits taken out of context, and above all they should not be taken literally.
Like all other religions, there are fundamentalists in Islam. I don't like fundamentalism in any religion; but I have to say that Christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists, if not more dangerous, because they have access to power and influence and money in one of the most powerful countries in the world, i.e. America.
Most Muslims just want to live in peace with their neighbours. They are mostly peace-loving and compassionate people - something that news programmes consistently ignore.
So, for goodness' sake, people, get educated about Islam. I have only skimmed the surface here, but it is a very complicated topic, just like all other religions.
Friday, September 07, 2012
What's wrong with the Incarnation?
Many Christians think that other religions don't like the idea of the Incarnation because they're offended by the idea of God becoming human.
The thing that is specifically offensive about the idea that Jesus is the only way to God is the idea that stems from it that all other religions are wrong, and that unless you have "accepted Jesus as your personal Saviour" you will go to hell. So according to this insane and offensive theology, that means Gandhi and other great luminaries are in hell. (Then there's penal substitution theology, which is also offensive, but that is a separate issue.)
I don't have a problem with the idea of Jesus being divine. I do have a problem with the idea of his being the one and only incarnation of the godhead. As far as I'm concerned, we are all divine.
In polytheist religions, the idea of humans becoming divine, or the divine becoming human, crops up frequently. There's Krishna, who is an incarnation of Vishnu. There's Oðinn, who is either a deified human or a god who became human. There's Aradia, who was Diana's daughter and came to earth to teach Tuscan witches their craft, and how to resist oppression. There are many, many deities who became human, and humans who became deities. So the idea that other religions have a problem with the Incarnation because they don't like the idea of God becoming human is laughably ignorant.
In Judaism, the soul has three components - the nefesh (the animal soul, which disperses at death), the neshamah (the divine part, which returns to God at death), and the ruach (the breath of God, which gives life). The more spiritually developed you are, the greater the neshamah becomes. When Jesus told his disciples that he would send his ruach (his Holy Spirit) to be with the disciples at death, he meant he would send that component of his soul to be with them. This insight must have got lost in the early centuries of Christianity when the Judaic elements were eradicated from Christianity by opponents of "Judaizing". Anyway, the point here is, that in Judaism, everyone is a child of God, and has God within them. (For more on this, see my earlier post, The Trinity and Jewish theology).
In the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers), they say that everyone has "that of God" within them, and refer to the Inner Christ or the Inner Light. The idea is to uncover that light (not hiding it under a bushel) and let it shine.
In Unitarianism, which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity back in the 16th century, the view is usually that everyone has the Divine within them, too. James Martineau, a great 19th century member of the tradition (who actually identified as a Free Christian), said:
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, although they believe that Jesus is the one and only divine incarnation, they also have the concept of theosis, which means that because Jesus opened the way between the human and the divine, we can all become divine. Indeed, Jesus himself said, "I have said, ye are gods."
So, no, the thing that annoys people about the Incarnation is not the idea that God became human - it's the idea that it only happened once.
Everyone has "that of God" within them - the neshamah, the ruach, the seed of a Future Buddha, the potential for theosis.
The thing that is specifically offensive about the idea that Jesus is the only way to God is the idea that stems from it that all other religions are wrong, and that unless you have "accepted Jesus as your personal Saviour" you will go to hell. So according to this insane and offensive theology, that means Gandhi and other great luminaries are in hell. (Then there's penal substitution theology, which is also offensive, but that is a separate issue.)
I don't have a problem with the idea of Jesus being divine. I do have a problem with the idea of his being the one and only incarnation of the godhead. As far as I'm concerned, we are all divine.
In polytheist religions, the idea of humans becoming divine, or the divine becoming human, crops up frequently. There's Krishna, who is an incarnation of Vishnu. There's Oðinn, who is either a deified human or a god who became human. There's Aradia, who was Diana's daughter and came to earth to teach Tuscan witches their craft, and how to resist oppression. There are many, many deities who became human, and humans who became deities. So the idea that other religions have a problem with the Incarnation because they don't like the idea of God becoming human is laughably ignorant.
In Judaism, the soul has three components - the nefesh (the animal soul, which disperses at death), the neshamah (the divine part, which returns to God at death), and the ruach (the breath of God, which gives life). The more spiritually developed you are, the greater the neshamah becomes. When Jesus told his disciples that he would send his ruach (his Holy Spirit) to be with the disciples at death, he meant he would send that component of his soul to be with them. This insight must have got lost in the early centuries of Christianity when the Judaic elements were eradicated from Christianity by opponents of "Judaizing". Anyway, the point here is, that in Judaism, everyone is a child of God, and has God within them. (For more on this, see my earlier post, The Trinity and Jewish theology).
In the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers), they say that everyone has "that of God" within them, and refer to the Inner Christ or the Inner Light. The idea is to uncover that light (not hiding it under a bushel) and let it shine.
In Unitarianism, which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity back in the 16th century, the view is usually that everyone has the Divine within them, too. James Martineau, a great 19th century member of the tradition (who actually identified as a Free Christian), said:
The incarnation is true, not of Christ exclusively, but of Man universally, and God everlastingly. He bends into the human to dwell there; and humanity is the susceptible organ of the divine.What a truly great concept - the incarnation is true of all humans. Or as Shakespeare (religious beliefs unknown) so memorably put it:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animalsIn Buddhism, we all contain the potential to become enlightened, to become a Buddha, to become divine. We are all Future Buddhas.
Hamlet, Act II, Scene II
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, although they believe that Jesus is the one and only divine incarnation, they also have the concept of theosis, which means that because Jesus opened the way between the human and the divine, we can all become divine. Indeed, Jesus himself said, "I have said, ye are gods."
So, no, the thing that annoys people about the Incarnation is not the idea that God became human - it's the idea that it only happened once.
Everyone has "that of God" within them - the neshamah, the ruach, the seed of a Future Buddha, the potential for theosis.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Belief-O-Matic update
I noticed that I haven't done the Belief-O-Matic questionnaire since 2010 - so here's an update. It's a pity they don't have a category for Wicca.
Unitarian Universalism 100%
Secular Humanism 98%
Liberal Quakerism 84%
Atheism 67%
Taoism 66%
Liberal Christian Protestantism 64%
New Age 62%
Theravada Buddhism 59%
Mahayana Buddhism 58%
Neo-Paganism 58%
Reformed Judaism 53%
Scientology 50%
Sikhism 48%
Jainism 47%
New Thought 47%
Church of Christ, Scientist 41%
Orthodox Quakerism 34%
Bahá'í Faith 28%
Hinduism 26%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 15%
Conservative Christian Protestant 14%
Islam 12%
Seventh-day Adventists 8%
Jehovah's Witnesses 5%
Orthodox Judaism 3%
Roman Catholicism 0%
Eastern Orthodox Christianity 0%
Unitarian Universalism 100%
Secular Humanism 98%
Liberal Quakerism 84%
Atheism 67%
Taoism 66%
Liberal Christian Protestantism 64%
New Age 62%
Theravada Buddhism 59%
Mahayana Buddhism 58%
Neo-Paganism 58%
Reformed Judaism 53%
Scientology 50%
Sikhism 48%
Jainism 47%
New Thought 47%
Church of Christ, Scientist 41%
Orthodox Quakerism 34%
Bahá'í Faith 28%
Hinduism 26%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 15%
Conservative Christian Protestant 14%
Islam 12%
Seventh-day Adventists 8%
Jehovah's Witnesses 5%
Orthodox Judaism 3%
Roman Catholicism 0%
Eastern Orthodox Christianity 0%
Friday, August 24, 2012
Letter to the book-burners
Dear Wearside Women in Need,
I am dismayed by the article that appeared on the BBC website today, describing how your charity plans to burn copies of Fifty Shades of Grey.
I am not planning to read Fifty Shades of Grey, and I agree that the character of Edward Grey is a stalker and potentially abusive. (Also, it is a very badly written book.)
However, Edward Grey is not abusive because he is into BDSM. He is abusive because he is a stalker who denies Anastasia's autonomy and consistently ignores her boundaries.
The book does not describe BDSM as it is practised by the majority of the BDSM community. BDSM practitioners generally abide by the ethos of "safe, sane and consensual".
There may be abusers who try to hide in the BDSM community, but they are no more numerous than abusers who engage in vanilla sex.
BDSM is not abuse. Please do not conflate the two.
May I refer you to a couple of articles and books which may help to clarify the difference for you:
Furthermore, book-burning is what fundamentalists do. It is profoundly against democracy and the free dissemination of ideas. I do not like Fifty Shades of Grey because it is a gross distortion of BDSM, but at least it has enabled a conversation in the public square about what BDSM is actually about.
I am dismayed by the article that appeared on the BBC website today, describing how your charity plans to burn copies of Fifty Shades of Grey.
I am not planning to read Fifty Shades of Grey, and I agree that the character of Edward Grey is a stalker and potentially abusive. (Also, it is a very badly written book.)
However, Edward Grey is not abusive because he is into BDSM. He is abusive because he is a stalker who denies Anastasia's autonomy and consistently ignores her boundaries.
The book does not describe BDSM as it is practised by the majority of the BDSM community. BDSM practitioners generally abide by the ethos of "safe, sane and consensual".
There may be abusers who try to hide in the BDSM community, but they are no more numerous than abusers who engage in vanilla sex.
BDSM is not abuse. Please do not conflate the two.
May I refer you to a couple of articles and books which may help to clarify the difference for you:
- "A kink in the process" by Su Connan, in Therapy Today
- "Fifty Shades of Grr" by Adele Haze
- "The SM feminist" by Clarisse Thorn
Furthermore, book-burning is what fundamentalists do. It is profoundly against democracy and the free dissemination of ideas. I do not like Fifty Shades of Grey because it is a gross distortion of BDSM, but at least it has enabled a conversation in the public square about what BDSM is actually about.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Endless Knot
Paperback, 49 Pages
Poetry of place, experience, the seasons, and the sacred.
Written over many years, these poems are the distillation of experiences of ritual, landscape and mythology.
Lovers of landscape and nature will enjoy this collection.
Monday, August 20, 2012
"We", or "I and thou"?
So I went to read a (very long) blogpost about relationships, and how being in a relationship makes people want to refer to themselves as "we".
OK, I confess that I haven't read the whole paper (it was more of an academic paper than a blogpost), but my first thought on reading the author's tweet about it was, "no, I want to be 'I and thou' / 'me and thee' with a partner, and I want that to be reciprocated. In other words, I want to be intimate, but I want my autonomy respected. (I'm thinking of Martin Buber's ideas about "I/Thou" here, too, where the other, the Thou, is sacred and beloved and respected.)
So I tweeted in reply: "hmm, not sure about that, I'd rather be a me and a thee." (I then went off to read the article and posted the comment on which this blogpost is based.)
The author of the article tweeted back "I guess u dont think not wanting to be a 'we' makes u incapable of forming an ongoing romantic relationship? "
To which I replied: " No, I bloody well don't, and I find that insinuation offensive."
And he replied: "not meant as insinuation just clarification that you take the thesis to be wrong."
He then tweeted: "Is your objection to idea of forming a 'we' that you think such a notion undermines autonomy?"
To which I replied: Yes.
Harry Hay came up with the idea of Subject-Subject Consciousness to describe relationships where both partners are equal. He criticised most heterosexual relationships as being Subject-Object relationships, where the man gets to be the subject and the woman is the object.
Luce Irigaray came up with a similar concept, intersubjectivity. Pemberton (2004:252) writes:
The trouble with a heterosexual "we" is that it is all too likely that the woman's subjectivity and autonomy is subsumed in that of the man. Even if the man is trying to be feminist, trying to regard the woman as a subject in her own right. (Maybe this kind of subsumption can occur in same-sex relationships as well, but I do not have enough experience of them to be able to say.)
I am reminded of that advert from the mid-nineties where a couple is speaking to camera. She says "we want to be out painting the town red". He says "we want to be settling down and having a baby". Clearly there is a huge disconnect in their ideas, so that their use of "we" is completely meaningless - and you are left wondering whose agenda will win out. Will they settle down and have a baby, or will they be out partying all night?
Kahlil Gibran wrote a beautiful thing about marriage (I have boldened the bits that I think are particularly relevant to this discussion):
There is also a Celtic wedding vow:
I am not saying that being in a relationship that involves being "we" rather than I is necessarily a recipe for loss of autonomy and a subsumption of one person into the other, but there is a considerable risk of that happening.
Someone suggested to me a 40:40:20 rule for successful marriages. That is, you spend 40% of your leisure time doing stuff on your own, 40% with your partner, and the other 20% is variable depending on circumstances. I think that is an excellent idea.
I think that, all too often, what is described as "fear of commitment" is actually a fear of loss of autonomy. A guy once said to me, in all seriousness, that he didn't want a girlfriend because if he had one she would tell him that he couldn't have a hi-fi system. Presumably there are actually people out there who tell their partners that they can't have things, but it's not something I would ever do. I mean, I would expect to negotiate large purchases if they would impinge on necessary expenditure like rent and food, but otherwise I would not want to tell my partner how to spend his/her money (and certainly would not tell them what to do with their existing possessions), and I would not expect him/her to have jurisdiction over my expenditure or possessions, either.
The other problem is, if I am in a relationship with another person, and I say "We think x, y, and z" then I presume to speak for my partner. Unless I have consulted him or her about his/her opinions, and established that s/he really does think x, y, and z, then I have no right to include him/her in my expression of my opinion. Similarly, if someone invites us to dinner, or away for a weekend, I think that I can accept on my own behalf, but not necessarily on behalf of my partner (they might not want to attend for a variety of reasons). Despite best intentions at the outset of a relationship, it can become all too easy to assume that you know what your partner wants, accept things on their behalf, express opinions on their behalf, and so on.
It used to annoy me intensely when an ex of mine, who could not drive, referred to my car (which I always drove, had bought, paid for, insured, paid for the repairs and road-tax on, and so on), as "our car". In what sense was it "ours"? If he had contributed to its purchase, maintenance, tax, insurance, and been able to drive it, then it would have been "ours". But it was, in every sense, mine.
So no, my relationships will remain "I and thou", subject and subject, intersubjectival. I will respect my partner's autonomy, and will expect him or her to respect my autonomy. We will not grow in each other's shadow. And I expect that our relationship will be all the happier and healthier for it.
OK, I confess that I haven't read the whole paper (it was more of an academic paper than a blogpost), but my first thought on reading the author's tweet about it was, "no, I want to be 'I and thou' / 'me and thee' with a partner, and I want that to be reciprocated. In other words, I want to be intimate, but I want my autonomy respected. (I'm thinking of Martin Buber's ideas about "I/Thou" here, too, where the other, the Thou, is sacred and beloved and respected.)
So I tweeted in reply: "hmm, not sure about that, I'd rather be a me and a thee." (I then went off to read the article and posted the comment on which this blogpost is based.)
The author of the article tweeted back "I guess u dont think not wanting to be a 'we' makes u incapable of forming an ongoing romantic relationship? "
And he replied: "not meant as insinuation just clarification that you take the thesis to be wrong."
He then tweeted: "Is your objection to idea of forming a 'we' that you think such a notion undermines autonomy?"
To which I replied: Yes.
Luce Irigaray came up with a similar concept, intersubjectivity. Pemberton (2004:252) writes:
Of course the subject is always subject in her own eyes when not objectified and displaced by the gaze and the analytical grid of the other. Subjects speak, think, act, love, cry, scream, ululate, make love, feel fear, carry history, dream dreams. They do this best in a radical intersubjectivity[.](from a chapter in Juschka, D.M., ed. (2001) Feminism in the Study of Religion: a Reader. London and New York: Continuum.
The trouble with a heterosexual "we" is that it is all too likely that the woman's subjectivity and autonomy is subsumed in that of the man. Even if the man is trying to be feminist, trying to regard the woman as a subject in her own right. (Maybe this kind of subsumption can occur in same-sex relationships as well, but I do not have enough experience of them to be able to say.)
I am reminded of that advert from the mid-nineties where a couple is speaking to camera. She says "we want to be out painting the town red". He says "we want to be settling down and having a baby". Clearly there is a huge disconnect in their ideas, so that their use of "we" is completely meaningless - and you are left wondering whose agenda will win out. Will they settle down and have a baby, or will they be out partying all night?
Kahlil Gibran wrote a beautiful thing about marriage (I have boldened the bits that I think are particularly relevant to this discussion):
You were born together, and together you shall be forevermore.Now that seems to me to be a recipe for happiness.
You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.
Ay, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.
But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.
Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.
And stand together yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow.
There is also a Celtic wedding vow:
You cannot possess me for I belong to myself. But while we both wish it, I give you that which is mine to give. You cannot command me for I am a free person.Another recipe for happiness.
I am not saying that being in a relationship that involves being "we" rather than I is necessarily a recipe for loss of autonomy and a subsumption of one person into the other, but there is a considerable risk of that happening.
Someone suggested to me a 40:40:20 rule for successful marriages. That is, you spend 40% of your leisure time doing stuff on your own, 40% with your partner, and the other 20% is variable depending on circumstances. I think that is an excellent idea.
I think that, all too often, what is described as "fear of commitment" is actually a fear of loss of autonomy. A guy once said to me, in all seriousness, that he didn't want a girlfriend because if he had one she would tell him that he couldn't have a hi-fi system. Presumably there are actually people out there who tell their partners that they can't have things, but it's not something I would ever do. I mean, I would expect to negotiate large purchases if they would impinge on necessary expenditure like rent and food, but otherwise I would not want to tell my partner how to spend his/her money (and certainly would not tell them what to do with their existing possessions), and I would not expect him/her to have jurisdiction over my expenditure or possessions, either.
The other problem is, if I am in a relationship with another person, and I say "We think x, y, and z" then I presume to speak for my partner. Unless I have consulted him or her about his/her opinions, and established that s/he really does think x, y, and z, then I have no right to include him/her in my expression of my opinion. Similarly, if someone invites us to dinner, or away for a weekend, I think that I can accept on my own behalf, but not necessarily on behalf of my partner (they might not want to attend for a variety of reasons). Despite best intentions at the outset of a relationship, it can become all too easy to assume that you know what your partner wants, accept things on their behalf, express opinions on their behalf, and so on.
It used to annoy me intensely when an ex of mine, who could not drive, referred to my car (which I always drove, had bought, paid for, insured, paid for the repairs and road-tax on, and so on), as "our car". In what sense was it "ours"? If he had contributed to its purchase, maintenance, tax, insurance, and been able to drive it, then it would have been "ours". But it was, in every sense, mine.
So no, my relationships will remain "I and thou", subject and subject, intersubjectival. I will respect my partner's autonomy, and will expect him or her to respect my autonomy. We will not grow in each other's shadow. And I expect that our relationship will be all the happier and healthier for it.
Friday, July 27, 2012
A simple guide to social media
How to market your brand / book / website on social media:
Set up a Facebook page and/or group where you will post regular news items (from your site and those of other relevant sites). Attract attention to it by posting it in other related Facebook groups (search in Groups for related keywords for your topic). Keep it updated regularly.
Set up a Twitter feed where you will post regular news items (from your site and those of other relevant sites). Attract attention to it by following other similar Twitter accounts (search for related keywords for your topic) and retweet and reply to their tweets. Keep it updated regularly.
Set up a blog where you will post regular blogposts about topical items in your subject area. Attract attention to it by adding other similar blogs to your blogroll (search for related keywords for your topic) and post comments on their blogs. Keep it updated regularly.
If you don't "get" Twitter, there's a remarkably succinct and clear summary of what it is and how it works in today's verdict on the Twitter joke trial. (PDF)
And remember, all publicity is good publicity - except the kind where you are caught trying to sweep your blunders under the carpet. If you do screw up, admit it and apologise. If you have not screwed up, apologise to anyone you may have offended, and point out why you chose to do the thing that you did.
Set up a Facebook page and/or group where you will post regular news items (from your site and those of other relevant sites). Attract attention to it by posting it in other related Facebook groups (search in Groups for related keywords for your topic). Keep it updated regularly.
Set up a Twitter feed where you will post regular news items (from your site and those of other relevant sites). Attract attention to it by following other similar Twitter accounts (search for related keywords for your topic) and retweet and reply to their tweets. Keep it updated regularly.
Set up a blog where you will post regular blogposts about topical items in your subject area. Attract attention to it by adding other similar blogs to your blogroll (search for related keywords for your topic) and post comments on their blogs. Keep it updated regularly.
If you don't "get" Twitter, there's a remarkably succinct and clear summary of what it is and how it works in today's verdict on the Twitter joke trial. (PDF)
And remember, all publicity is good publicity - except the kind where you are caught trying to sweep your blunders under the carpet. If you do screw up, admit it and apologise. If you have not screwed up, apologise to anyone you may have offended, and point out why you chose to do the thing that you did.
Monday, July 02, 2012
My UFO experience
So apparently it is World UFO Day today, so I thought I would celebrate by sharing my (one and only) UFO experience.When I was six years old, I saw a UFO. And I mean Unidentified Flying Object. I have no idea whether it was of terrestrial origin or not. It was late at night, and I looked out of my bedroom widow, and I saw this thing (a drawing is on the right) hovering over the trees in the park. It was glowing, but seemed curiously flat - not curved or anything. I was scared, so I got back into bed and hid under the covers. That was it - there were no other phenomena associated with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)