Between: discrimination

Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 April 2026

Artlyst: The Art Diary April 2026

The April 2026 Art Diary examines several exhibitions related to spirituality. Kettle’s Yard recently commissioned an essay exploring their collection through the lens of spirituality, while an exhibition at ICA LA is currently examining art as a conduit to the spiritual. Performances and exhibitions involving Maurizio Cattelan, El Greco, William Blake, Henri Matisse and Lillian Delevoryas, among others, explore related themes.

Exhibitions by Mirna Bamieh and Theaster Gates engage with themes of discrimination, while several other exhibitions and a sculpture unveiling explore aspects of our relationship with our environment. These include ‘Gainsborough, Turner and Constable’, a Constable 250 exhibition at Gainsborough’s House that explores the emergence of landscape painting in Britain, led by three of its greatest exponents.

My other pieces for Artlyst are:

Interviews -

Monthly diary articles -

Articles/Reviews -

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Arthur - The Family.

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

Who is my neighbour? The Ethics of Global Relationships

Who is my neighbour? The Ethics of Global Relationships - September – November 2016

With the UK voting to leave the European Union and with realisation of increasing division, xenophobia, and confusion over future national and international relationships, the St Martin-in-the-Fields Autumn Lecture Series examines the crucial question: Who is my Neighbour?

What does the Christian commandment to love one’s neighbour as oneself actually means for us today. Lectures by renowned theologians and thinkers will reflect on this subject in relation to issues of ecology, immigration, fear and discrimination, the present political climate both in UK, Europe and the USA and how that the lives of our poorest neighbours may in fact be God’s gift to us as a Church and as a Nation.

Rowan Williams who gives the first lecture in this series writes:

“The way that our world works, as many people have said in recent years, seems to be a way in which the boundaries and barriers are rising higher between different parts of the human race. It is a world in which very few voices are saying that the death of a child in Africa or the suffering of a woman in Syria, diminishes the reality of the child or woman in Britain, or the other way round. And if the church is not saying that, God forgive us, and God help us. That’s unity. There is our calling to let the Son of God be revealed in us, to be a sign of a unity that brings alive that deep sense of connectedness in the human world…. Each person is diminished by the pain of another and each person is enriched by the holiness of another”

All lectures from 7.00pm-8.30pm at St Martin-in-the-Fields, and are free and open to all.

To ensure a place please book a free ticket on Eventbrite

Monday 19 September, 7.00pm
Rowan Williams: Who is my neighbour? The Ethics of Global Relationships

Monday 3 October, 7.00pm
Michael Northcott: My neighbour and the ecological crisis

Monday 17 October, 7.00pm
Sarah Teather: My neighbour the refugee

Monday 24 October, 7.00pm
Sarah Coakley: My neighbour beyond fear and discrimination

Monday 31 October, 7.00pm
Stanley Hauerwas: My neighbour, my nation and the presidential election

Monday 14 October, 7.00pm
Sam Wells: My neighbours, God’s gift

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Springsteen - How Can a Poor Man Stand Such Times and Live.

Friday, 15 April 2016

Mavis! merging spirituality and social comment

COURTESY OF MIIKKA SKAFFARI/FILM FIRST CO

In the latest edition of Church Times I have a review of Mavis! the first feature documentary on gospel/soul music legend and civil rights icon Mavis Staples and her family group, The Staple Singers. Featuring powerful live performances, rare archival footage, and conversations with friends and contemporaries including Bob Dylan, Prince, Bonnie Raitt, Levon Helm, Jeff Tweedy, Chuck D, and more, Mavis! reveals the struggles, successes, and intimate stories of her journey.

In the review, I say: "Jennifer Edwards’s documentary is an emotional tale and trip combining elation in the gospel with defiance of discrimination, as the group crosses boundaries — first, by combining blues, country, and gospel to create their unique sound, and then by merging spirituality and social comment at civil-rights marches and the Newport Folk Festival, before re-sacralising soul as Stax stars in the Black Power period characterised by the Wattstax Festival of 1972, a benefit after the Watts Riots in 1965."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Staple Singers - I'll Take You There.

Sunday, 18 October 2015

Removing barriers to inclusion

Here is my sermon from last Thursday's Eucharist at St Stephen Walbrook (as usual, this sermon can also be heard on the London Internet Church website):

‘Attitudes towards disability affect the way people think and behave towards disabled people and impact on outcomes for disabled people in the way they are treated and able to participate in society. There are two distinct models of disability: (i) the medical model; and (ii) the social model.

The medical model looks at a person’s impairment and focuses on the impairment as the cause of disabled people being unable to access goods and services or being able to participate fully in society. Statements such as ‘he can’t read that newspaper because he’s blind’ are an example of people being influenced by the medical model of disability.

The social model looks at the barriers erected by society in terms of disabled people being able to access goods and services. It seeks to remove unnecessary barriers which prevent disabled people participating in society, accessing work and living independently. The social model asks what can be done to remove barriers to inclusion. It also recognises that attitudes towards disabilities create unnecessary barriers to inclusion and requires people to take proactive action to remove these barriers.’ (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/equality/guidance-and-resources/disability_equality_toolkit/disability-models-and-attitudes.cfm)

Today’s Gospel reading (Matthew 9. 1 - 8) is about barriers faced by a paralyzed man in getting to and receiving from Jesus and is a story which, although the term did not then exist, uses the social model of disability.

The medical model of disability would have us believe that the man’s paralysis was the main problem he faced in getting to Jesus. But, in the story, this isn’t his main issue. Although he is unable to move himself because of paralysis, he has friends who can carry him where he needs to get to. Personal assistants or supporters often enable those who have disabilities today to get around in ways which they may not have been able to manage otherwise.

The issue here is not the man’s paralysis. Instead it is people around Jesus – the size of the crowd was such that his friends couldn’t manoeuvre their way through and the crowd clearly had no intention of letting the man and his friends through. It is the crowd, and not the paralysis, which is the main barrier to the man reaching Jesus. As a result, we see the social model of disability in action here, rather than the medical. The man’s friends make a reasonable adjustment to ensure that the man can reach Jesus, by making a hole in the roof and lowering the man through.

Next, Jesus addresses attitudes which cause barriers towards those who have disabilities. As a result, he is again working with the social model of disability rather than the medical model. The attitude he addresses is the one which says that experience of disability is caused by sin. This is the attitude which says in order to suffer from his paralysis, this man must have sinned greatly because he is now being punished heavily by God.

In John 9 we see this stigmatising attitude being voiced by Jesus’ disciples when they ask Jesus whether a blind man is blind because of his own sins or those of his parents. Jesus says, ‘Neither’, because the onset of disability isn’t in any way to do with sin. If it were, why are we not all blind when the Bible tells us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?

Here Jesus challenges or subverts this disabling attitude by stating that the man’s sins are forgiven. In saying this, he is simply and clearly stating that sin is not a factor in causing this man’s paralysis.

It is only once these physical and attitudinal social barriers have been addressed and removed that Jesus then addresses the medical issue by healing the man of his paralysis. As a result, this story gives us a model to follow; a model which says, like the social model, that we achieve inclusion for disabled people when physical and attitudinal social barriers are removed. Whether the medical condition changes or alters is not the main issue because it is not the primary reason for the sense of exclusion that disabled people often experience.

The physical and attitudinal barriers which need to be removed in our day may well be different from those in Jesus’ day but they are just as significant in genuinely addressing exclusion and achieving real inclusion today, as for the paralysed man in this story from Matthew’s Gospel. Just like Jesus we need to be concerned about equality and inclusion, especially when that means (as it did for Jesus) working to bring change to the culture of our day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norman Barratt - Now I Know.

Sunday, 4 August 2013

Ramfel and the Home Office's offensive adverts

Sky News report that 'Users of the Refugee and Migrant Forum of East London (Ramfel) have told the Home Office it has until August 8 to ditch the "offensive" adverts.

If it refuses, they plan to apply for a judicial review.

The adverts are being displayed on billboards carried by vans in six London boroughs as part of a pilot scheme.

They tell illegal immigrants to "Go home, or you'll be picked up and deported" and could be extended nationwide.

Lawyers for Ramfel have written to the Home Office to warn it has broken its duty to cut discrimination and harassment and to foster good community relations.

"Our clients believe that although the Government says the campaign is aimed at migrants who are in the UK illegally, it will adversely affect attitudes towards people from migrant communities who are here lawfully," they said.

"We are instructed to apply for a judicial review after August 8 unless the Home Office agrees not to continue the campaign and to remove the offending literature from the communities."'

Ramfel does great work in this borough helping those who have fled persecution and terrible conditions in their native countries to seek refuge in the UK.

Rita Chadha, Ramfel's chief executive has quite rightly stated of the Home Office adverts: “It’s a travesty of justice, it incites racial hatred and it inflames community tension. It’s just going to scare people to think that immigration is a huge problem when it’s not ... The vans are reminiscent of the 1960s when public leaflets were telling those who were foreign that they were not welcome or to go back home.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Selector - Missing Words.

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Christendom is on the way out

Responding to the Ipsos-Mori survey of 'census Christians' commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science UK, Simon Barrow, co-director of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, has made what is in my view a very accurate and sensible response:

"This opinion survey makes interesting reading as part of a whole web of research on the changing shape and location of Christianity in Britain over the past thirty or more years.

"It shows that 'civic' and 'cultural' Christian self-identification is a very different thing to the deeply-rooted faith held by a much smaller number of people whose believing, belonging and behaving is strongly shaped by regular participation in active Christian communities.

"While we can argue over details, the broad outline of what this survey reveals should not come as any shock or threat to church leaders who have been paying attention to what has been happening in recent decades.

"Top-down and institutional religion is in decline. Trying to restore or maintain the cultural and political dominance of Established religious institutions in what is now a mixed-belief 'spiritual and secular' society is a backward-looking approach.

"Churches have a creative opportunity here. It is to rediscover a different, ground-up vision of Christianity based on practices like economic sharing, peacemaking, hospitality and restorative justice. These were among the distinguishing marks of the earliest followers of Jesus. They have always been part of the 'nonconformist' tradition shared in different ways by Anabaptists, Quakers, radical Catholics, Free Churches and faithful dissenters in all streams of Christian life.

"The mutually reinforcing pact between big religion and top-down authority that we call 'Christendom' is on the way out.

"The kind of conservative religious aggression that claims 'anti-Christian discrimination' every time Christians are asked to treat others fairly and equally in the public square is a threatened response to the loss of top-down religion's social power. So is overbearing 'Christian nation' rhetoric, and the 'culture wars' that some hardline believers and non-believers sometimes seek to launch and win against each other.

"A positive, post-Christendom perspective suggests that Christianity can and should flourish beyond the demise of 'big religion', and that a level-playing field in public life can and should involve both religious and non-religious participants.
"Likewise, while Richard Dawkins may not be a subtle, unbiased or persuasive analyst of religion overall, it would be entirely unhelpful for believers to dismiss this survey because they disagree with its commissioner in other respects. Its content evidently needs further and deeper analysis, alongside other data, than the initial response to it has allowed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Green - Belle.

Saturday, 18 July 2009

One rule for you, one rule for me (2)

This is my response to comments left by Dolgwyn on the original post. There are too many characters, apparently, for them to be posted as a follow on comment so instead I am making them a new post:

Thanks Dolgwyn for your comments. As you might expect, I disagree with much of what you say.

You said, "it may well be worth your checking up on the purpose and mission statement of Anglican Mainstream, before making comments like "This approach makes clear the single issue nature of the Anglican Mainstream agenda". After all, it was established to support/promote/ defend (depending on your POV) traditional orthodox Christian thinking ona variety of issues including, but not exclusively, sexuality."

I am well aware of AM's aim and mission but think that its practice (i.e. its public statements and activities) reveal it to be a group that is primarily concerned with supporting/promoting/defending its views on sexuality (i.e. a single issue organisation).

You wrote, "At the same time,your comment "What she is saying then, is that this one issue, whether a person or organisation is perceived as being 'pro-gay' or supporting those who are 'pro-gay', trumps every other issue and activity including the vital work of mission and relief throughout the world." is, for many, simply a response to what they perceive as the gay agenda's trumping of the very same 'every other issue and vital work' of the church at large.

For several people in society - Christian or not - there is a growing feeling of fear for their safety as government bring in every more legislation that seeks to criminalise any expression of oposition to the shift towards the acdeptance of homosexual relationships."

The legislation that this Government (and previous Governments) have introduced outlaws discrimination and criminal offences motivated by hatred against people on the basis of disability, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. The only reason someone would have for "fearing for their safety" from such legislation would be if they were discriminating or committing a criminal offence, or intending to do so. I assume that neither are true of you, so have no idea on what evidence your fear is based.

Nevertheless, feeling such fear does not justify discouraging support for the vital work of mission and relief undertaken by organisations like CMS and Tear Fund. On what basis could it ever be right to say that because I feel afraid of changes regarding sexuality I am justified in trying to discourage support for mission and relief?

You wrote, "What is perhaps even more frightening for some - I know of several myself - is the double standards that soem homosexual campaigners seem to hold - using theology, science and/or socio-anthropological material to support their argument, yet referring to those who use the same disciplines to develop a perfectly rational, logical but opposing argument as bigotted, blinkered, homophobic, narrow-minded, etc.

The fact that some of these folk have spent years studying the evidence before coming to the conclusion they have is ignored or, at worst, dismissed as of no importance."

Pots and kettles come to mind. Lisa Nolland's post describes Gene Robinson as "gay bishop poster boy" with a "sadly amaturish biblical hermeneutic." We have to practice what we preach and much of so-called debate on these issues is sadly little more than the flinging of invective instead of there being a real engagement with the views of those we oppose.

"Finally, in case you haven't been following the AM forum over the years, there is a regular and largely well-balanced debate on this and other issues running most of the time."

This is the list of Recent Posts on the AM site as it stands tonight: 'To the Anglican Communion: Pray, Fast and Resist'; 'Canterbury in a Corner'; 'Episcopals’ First Openly Gay Bishop Speaks'; 'Homosexuality to Heterosexuality: Can the Transition Be Made?'; 'ACI: Committing to the Anglican Communion: Some Will, Others Won’t'; 'Roman Catholic marriage agency advocates gay and unmarried parents'; 'US vote ‘not a snub to Archbishop of Canterbury’'; 'Their Separate Ways'; 'GC2009: Clarity Attained at 76th Episcopal General Convention'; 'A Message from Bishop David Anderson'; 'Why FCA UK and Ireland?'; 'GC 2009: Statement from the deputation of the Diocese of South Carolina:'; 'West Texas bishop drafts ‘Anaheim Statement,’ reaffirms moratoria commitment'; 'Signatures on the Anaheim Statement'; 'Anglicans and Their Unwelcome House Guests'.

The overwhelming majority of these posts are to do with the issue of homosexuality. The AM forum may well debate other issues but issues of sexuality are consistently its dominant agenda. It would be an altogether healthier place if mission and relief work were its primary features, instead of its current preoccupation with sexuality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Athlete - Street Map.