Alistair Macdonald-Radcliff makes some perceptive points in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings in his comment piece for the Church Times:
'The real conflict is not between Islam and the West, but between Muslims themselves: it is an intra-Muslim fight for domination of the Islamic world, and for who defines Islam. The West is being sucked into this as a means of changing the balance. If Western nations can be provoked into more interventions in the Middle East, this can be used to urge all Muslims to make common cause with extremists against the infidel invaders.
If, on the other hand, the West holds aloof, it appears to be compromised morally by permitting humanitarian catastrophes; and new Islamist powerbases can arise in the vacuum of failed states, such as Libya and Syria. Either way, the Islamist's can play the West's role to their advantage.'
He continues that, 'Only Muslims themselves can resolve the question who defines Islam, and what being an authentic Muslim entails.' Therefore, 'those with religious authority in mainstream Islam must be enabled' to 'unite to invalidate the extremist interpretation' and 'be seen to do it definitively, for the wider good of all.'
Giles Fraser makes a similar point in his latest Comment is free piece for The Guardian. There he critiques the fateful decisions in France, based on their recent heritage of secularism, to pick 'a fight with Islam by banning the headscarf from schools in 2004 and the niqab from all public life back in 2010 – bans which closely echo the hostility of earlier generations to the veiling of nuns':
'But there is a huge difference between targeting grand bishops in Rome and a beleaguered, economically fragile Muslim community that has received a great many knocks at the hands of the French state and its colonial past. Rabelaisian derision aimed at the House of Saud or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is one thing. But aimed at the disaffected banlieues it is bullying and goading. You have to be suspicious that French secularism is not the neutral thing it purports to be when racists such as Le Pen start defending it so enthusiastically. And yet there is nothing the leaders of al-Qaida want more than the French state to be seen to declare war on its religious citizens once again. They know that many young, disaffected Arab immigrants on the sink estates outside Paris are itching for a fight. The French government must not give it to them. And that means re-thinking their precious laïcité.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Neville Brothers - With God On Our Side.
Showing posts with label comment is free. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comment is free. Show all posts
Sunday, 18 January 2015
Friday, 16 January 2015
Business is a religion ... secularism is a religion ...
Tim Lott makes some helpful comments about the nature of belief and faith (acknowledging that each of us, whether religious or not, are in reality 'believers') in his latest piece for The Guardian. Interestingly, he needs to refer to the New Testament and use language drawn from the Christian tradition in order to do so:
'We live in a world of unprecedented change and complexity, and this makes us more desperate than ever to cling to what we think we know. We need to believe that our purposes, those goals in which we invest meaning, are valid. On this definition, business is a religion, career is a religion, family is a religion, nation is a religion, secularism is a religion, and religion is a religion. There is no getting away from it. However, our values cannot be independently verified – other than by the reassuring support of the like-minded ...
The alternative to belief (“lief”, incidentally, comes from the root meaning “to wish”) is faith. Not religious faith, but faith that does not become brittle with its own projections of hatred against “the other”, which includes the apostates in our midst who do not share our view. Faith that we are all human souls struggling to keep our heads above water in floods of confusion. Faith in reason, faith in the idea of truth, however elusive the actuality. And faith, as any reading of the New Testament makes plain, is always hedged by doubt.
Doubt is nothing to fear – the doubt that all our ideas and precious beliefs are straws in the wind. There is meaning in meaninglessness, in the “cloud of unknowing” that we all live inside. There are real facts – there is love, there is our own consciousness, there is this day, this moment, the feeling of human connection.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Michael - Faith.
'We live in a world of unprecedented change and complexity, and this makes us more desperate than ever to cling to what we think we know. We need to believe that our purposes, those goals in which we invest meaning, are valid. On this definition, business is a religion, career is a religion, family is a religion, nation is a religion, secularism is a religion, and religion is a religion. There is no getting away from it. However, our values cannot be independently verified – other than by the reassuring support of the like-minded ...
The alternative to belief (“lief”, incidentally, comes from the root meaning “to wish”) is faith. Not religious faith, but faith that does not become brittle with its own projections of hatred against “the other”, which includes the apostates in our midst who do not share our view. Faith that we are all human souls struggling to keep our heads above water in floods of confusion. Faith in reason, faith in the idea of truth, however elusive the actuality. And faith, as any reading of the New Testament makes plain, is always hedged by doubt.
Doubt is nothing to fear – the doubt that all our ideas and precious beliefs are straws in the wind. There is meaning in meaninglessness, in the “cloud of unknowing” that we all live inside. There are real facts – there is love, there is our own consciousness, there is this day, this moment, the feeling of human connection.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Michael - Faith.
Saturday, 20 December 2014
The buried message of Christianity: power is divested
Giles Fraser has a superb column in today's Guardian exploring the implications of the incarnation. He begins with the American theologian Thomas JJ Altizer's work on Christian atheism:
'Altizer’s account of the Christian God being in a gradual process of divesting himself of His God-ness is a pretty good way of recapturing some of the puzzlement and shock value of the original Christmas story. “He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,” is how St Paul described the incarnation in a letter to new Christians at Philippi ...
the astonishing assertion of the Christmas story is that the God who comes as a pathetic child is all the more God-like for the total evacuation of power. It’s a birth story at one with what would become the central message of His teaching: the first will be last and the last first. It sounds like a phrase from the French revolution, with the mighty being pulled off their thrones and the weak being held up high. But it’s the buried message of Christianity, extravagantly heralded in the festival we know as Christmas. At Christmas, God becomes a child. Power is divested. Might and right no longer nestle comfortably together.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Cockburn - Cry Of A Tiny Baby.
'Altizer’s account of the Christian God being in a gradual process of divesting himself of His God-ness is a pretty good way of recapturing some of the puzzlement and shock value of the original Christmas story. “He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,” is how St Paul described the incarnation in a letter to new Christians at Philippi ...
the astonishing assertion of the Christmas story is that the God who comes as a pathetic child is all the more God-like for the total evacuation of power. It’s a birth story at one with what would become the central message of His teaching: the first will be last and the last first. It sounds like a phrase from the French revolution, with the mighty being pulled off their thrones and the weak being held up high. But it’s the buried message of Christianity, extravagantly heralded in the festival we know as Christmas. At Christmas, God becomes a child. Power is divested. Might and right no longer nestle comfortably together.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Cockburn - Cry Of A Tiny Baby.
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Inequalities of wealth and power
Yesterday's Guardian had some excellent Comment pieces on the extent to which wealth and influence are unequally distributed as a result of the way political and market forces operate in the UK.
Polly Toynbee took on the Government's unthinking and unevidenced mantra that privatisation is always right and always best:
"There is no evidence about how well contracting and privatising work: the best experts can find is 1980s assessments of early contracts for simple local services. At the very least, there should always be a state comparator. NHS contracting is galloping ahead, with no centrally gathered monitoring for comparison. Other privatisations rush on – probation and the court fines collection service – while companies built by cashing in from the state, such as G4S, A4E and Serco, are in disgrace. While Serco is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office after overcharging on tagging, it emerges that its finance director sold £2.7m shares two months before the share price tanked on a profits warning.
This is the world David Cameron assumes always does better than public service, as a matter of unproven conviction. Laying out his Open Public Services policy, he said everything was up for sale, with "a new presumption" that "public services should be open to a range of providers competing to offer a better service". When he said: "The old narrow, closed state monopoly is dead," he forgot to say that services sold or contracted would become private monopolies making handsome profits at our expense. The dogma driving these privatisations wilfully ignores past experience."
George Monbiot calls Britain the new land of impunity because no matter what the criticisms made or damage done, fat cats and politicians seem able to cling on to the rewards of power and wealth:
"There has seldom, in the democratic era, been a better time to thrive by appeasing wealth and power, or to fail by sticking to your principles. Politicians who twist and turn on behalf of business are immune to attack. Those who resist are excoriated."
These specific and evidenced UK-related accusations are set against the background of debate regarding Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century with its powerful argument about wealth, democracy and why capitalism will always create inequality:
"When the maelstrom surrounding Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century dies down, as all such publicity storms do in the end, its lasting achievement may be to give economics back its sense of proportion. Diligently and unnoticed outside his field, Mr Piketty – together with Emmanuel Saez and Tony Atkinson – spent years mining international tax records to demonstrate how, in Britain and the US, the portion of the national output gobbled up by the richest had first fallen by two-thirds or more in the 60 years after the first world war, but had then, from the 1970s on, more than doubled again. Having settled one century-long story, in the new book the professor moves on from top incomes to (even larger) top wealth and traces this through more than 200 years of data, while discussing how population growth and the march of technology have shaped capital's place in society since antiquity. This long view discourages worry about passing matters such as individual elections, or for that matter recessions."
In one of it's leaders from yesterday, the Guardian suggests:
"Where mainstream culture had precious little to say about inequality during the long years in which the economic gap opened up, post-bust and post-bailout, a different mood has taken hold, and rage against the rich is now part of the zeitgeist. So fashion is playing its part here. But if the fashion is for finally facing up to a maldistribution of resources previously unnoticed, then that is all to the good."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clash - Working For The Clampdown.
Polly Toynbee took on the Government's unthinking and unevidenced mantra that privatisation is always right and always best:
"There is no evidence about how well contracting and privatising work: the best experts can find is 1980s assessments of early contracts for simple local services. At the very least, there should always be a state comparator. NHS contracting is galloping ahead, with no centrally gathered monitoring for comparison. Other privatisations rush on – probation and the court fines collection service – while companies built by cashing in from the state, such as G4S, A4E and Serco, are in disgrace. While Serco is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office after overcharging on tagging, it emerges that its finance director sold £2.7m shares two months before the share price tanked on a profits warning.
This is the world David Cameron assumes always does better than public service, as a matter of unproven conviction. Laying out his Open Public Services policy, he said everything was up for sale, with "a new presumption" that "public services should be open to a range of providers competing to offer a better service". When he said: "The old narrow, closed state monopoly is dead," he forgot to say that services sold or contracted would become private monopolies making handsome profits at our expense. The dogma driving these privatisations wilfully ignores past experience."
George Monbiot calls Britain the new land of impunity because no matter what the criticisms made or damage done, fat cats and politicians seem able to cling on to the rewards of power and wealth:
"There has seldom, in the democratic era, been a better time to thrive by appeasing wealth and power, or to fail by sticking to your principles. Politicians who twist and turn on behalf of business are immune to attack. Those who resist are excoriated."
These specific and evidenced UK-related accusations are set against the background of debate regarding Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century with its powerful argument about wealth, democracy and why capitalism will always create inequality:
"When the maelstrom surrounding Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century dies down, as all such publicity storms do in the end, its lasting achievement may be to give economics back its sense of proportion. Diligently and unnoticed outside his field, Mr Piketty – together with Emmanuel Saez and Tony Atkinson – spent years mining international tax records to demonstrate how, in Britain and the US, the portion of the national output gobbled up by the richest had first fallen by two-thirds or more in the 60 years after the first world war, but had then, from the 1970s on, more than doubled again. Having settled one century-long story, in the new book the professor moves on from top incomes to (even larger) top wealth and traces this through more than 200 years of data, while discussing how population growth and the march of technology have shaped capital's place in society since antiquity. This long view discourages worry about passing matters such as individual elections, or for that matter recessions."
In one of it's leaders from yesterday, the Guardian suggests:
"Where mainstream culture had precious little to say about inequality during the long years in which the economic gap opened up, post-bust and post-bailout, a different mood has taken hold, and rage against the rich is now part of the zeitgeist. So fashion is playing its part here. But if the fashion is for finally facing up to a maldistribution of resources previously unnoticed, then that is all to the good."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clash - Working For The Clampdown.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
The flip-side of consumerism
I thought Suzanne Moore made some telling points about the flipside of consumerism in her Guardian comment piece today reflecting on the August riots:
"... the eruption of mass shoplifting in public surely must tell us something about the closing down of political space.
Young people were perversely doing what we are all told to do. Get stuff. Stuff that is the meaning of life. They queued in the wasteland of retail parks for a bigger TV set. This is zombie shopping that made people feel alive.
I am not defending the mindless looting and burning but we cannot have it both ways: if all these people are criminals, why do they not do it more often and why did it stop? Yes, the police showed up eventually, but what about next time? If this is simply the flip-side of consumerism, as we sink into recession, are we to expect more unrest?
... However disenfranchised they are, they are unable to escape the cultural bombardment that is consumerism. I can have whatever I want, not because work sets us free, but "because I am worth it". The sadness of those five days was also surely about how worthless someone feels, if worth can be achieved by mere branded goods or something nicked from Poundland.
... Now we have more important things to think about. We are too busy feeling our own pain to care about that of these opportunistic idiots. Not to take the opportunity to look at our own values in the face of riots or recession is ridiculous. We cannot have growth or endless stuff. We cannot permanently exclude the already excluded and expect no reaction.
If our only purchase into society is what we purchase, then looting is simply a shortcut in the grotesque spectacle. For five days in summer, some helped themselves and wrought havoc. The answer to this mass eruption of criminality is seen to be police, CCTV and prison."
Her conclusion bears repeating: "Not to take the opportunity to look at our own values in the face of riots or recession is ridiculous. We cannot have growth or endless stuff. We cannot permanently exclude the already excluded and expect no reaction."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jam - In The Crowd.
"... the eruption of mass shoplifting in public surely must tell us something about the closing down of political space.
Young people were perversely doing what we are all told to do. Get stuff. Stuff that is the meaning of life. They queued in the wasteland of retail parks for a bigger TV set. This is zombie shopping that made people feel alive.
I am not defending the mindless looting and burning but we cannot have it both ways: if all these people are criminals, why do they not do it more often and why did it stop? Yes, the police showed up eventually, but what about next time? If this is simply the flip-side of consumerism, as we sink into recession, are we to expect more unrest?
... However disenfranchised they are, they are unable to escape the cultural bombardment that is consumerism. I can have whatever I want, not because work sets us free, but "because I am worth it". The sadness of those five days was also surely about how worthless someone feels, if worth can be achieved by mere branded goods or something nicked from Poundland.
... Now we have more important things to think about. We are too busy feeling our own pain to care about that of these opportunistic idiots. Not to take the opportunity to look at our own values in the face of riots or recession is ridiculous. We cannot have growth or endless stuff. We cannot permanently exclude the already excluded and expect no reaction.
If our only purchase into society is what we purchase, then looting is simply a shortcut in the grotesque spectacle. For five days in summer, some helped themselves and wrought havoc. The answer to this mass eruption of criminality is seen to be police, CCTV and prison."
Her conclusion bears repeating: "Not to take the opportunity to look at our own values in the face of riots or recession is ridiculous. We cannot have growth or endless stuff. We cannot permanently exclude the already excluded and expect no reaction."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jam - In The Crowd.
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Morality in football?
In yesterday's Guardian and on Comment is Free, Peter Singer asked the question Why is cheating OK in football?
The nub of Singer's excellent piece was that after the England Germany match, the German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer gave this account of his actions:
"I tried not to react to the referee and just concentrate on what was happening. I realised it was over the line and I think the way I carried on so quickly fooled the referee into thinking it was not over."
To put it bluntly: Neuer cheated, and then boasted about it.
By any normal ethical standards, what Neuer did was wrong. But does the fact that Neuer was playing football mean that the only ethical rule is "win at all costs"? ...
Neuer missed a rare opportunity to do something noble in front of millions of people. He could have set a positive ethical example to people watching all over the world, including the many millions who are young and impressionable. Who knows what difference that example might have made to the lives of many of those watching. Neuer could have been a hero, standing up for what is right. Instead he is just another very skillful, cheating footballer."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Charlotte - Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous.
The nub of Singer's excellent piece was that after the England Germany match, the German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer gave this account of his actions:
"I tried not to react to the referee and just concentrate on what was happening. I realised it was over the line and I think the way I carried on so quickly fooled the referee into thinking it was not over."
To put it bluntly: Neuer cheated, and then boasted about it.
By any normal ethical standards, what Neuer did was wrong. But does the fact that Neuer was playing football mean that the only ethical rule is "win at all costs"? ...
Neuer missed a rare opportunity to do something noble in front of millions of people. He could have set a positive ethical example to people watching all over the world, including the many millions who are young and impressionable. Who knows what difference that example might have made to the lives of many of those watching. Neuer could have been a hero, standing up for what is right. Instead he is just another very skillful, cheating footballer."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Charlotte - Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)