And another thing…

YESTERDAY I poked fun at right-wing and Tory blogs for their refusal to criticise Philip Davies MP for his green-inked rants against political correctness.

Today it may be the other side’s turn for criticism. This story in the Mail on Sunday may not be entirely accurate. There may be some details left out. But for the moment, it’s all we have, and the facts appear to be that a Christian teacher has been sacked after offering to pray for a sick child’s recovery. This, apparently, could have been interpreted as bullying (hat-tip to Iain Dale).

So the question I want to ask is: what do the left-wing and Labour-supporting blogs have to say about this apparently appalling example of moronic discrimination against Christians? What is the left-wing saying? There is no left-wing intellectual analysis that would justify this chain of events as they have been reported this morning. Are there any who are expressing indignation? Given that the overwhelming majority of voters – including a massive majority of traditional Labour voters – will share my own anger at this story, the Left risks looking utterly out of touch by remaining silent.

Why must we allow the right wing to claim that white, middle class Christians are the only minority group in the country that the Left don’t give a damn about?

Someone offering to pray to a God in whom you do not happen to believe is not bullying, even when you haven’t invited such intervention on your own behalf. I have prayed for lots of people who are not Christians and I will continue to do so, with or without their permission.

Christians are also accused of “bullying” whenever they seek to evangelise. “How dare a Christian tell me I should convert to their faith!” is the shrill, defensive nonsense we often hear. Well, I’ll tell you what: if you don’t want to become a Christian, don’t become one, okay? Problem solved. No bullying, just an exchange of views with no minds changed. Move on.

Christians are instructed by Jesus Christ to evangelise on His behalf. If non-Christians – and yes, that includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Seikhs and buddhists as well as atheists – feel offended by this form of outreach, well that’s a pity, but they’ll just have to deal with it as best they can.

UPDATE: Humble pie time for Harris, it seems, and rather than delete the above post (which was my first instinct, to save my blushes) I’ll simply add this: Bob Piper has done the rest of us a favour and has actually read to the very end of the article – which is what I should have done had the red mist not descended after the fourth paragraph and motivated me to open my laptop. Bob rightly accuses Ian Dale (and by inference, me) of a Pavlovian response to this story, and of failing to acknowledge that the (supply) teacher in question is simply under investigation – the normal procedure when a complaint is made.

Still, an object lesson in blogging to end the year on. Thanks to A Very Public Sociologist for alerting me to my mistake.

Still, I trust lots of left-wing bloggers (including Bob) will come out in support of this woman in the run-up to the internal investigation…

RONNIE, who started his primary education this year, will be appearing in his class’s nativity play soon.

He will not be playing Joseph. “Good!” said I to his mother. “Rubbish part. The best part is the innkeeper.”

“How so, oh wise husband of mine?” said Carolyn (okay, that’s not exactly what she said, but you get my drift).

So why does the innkeeper play such an important part in the whole First Christmas broo-haha?

Well, remember that part where the Imperial Star Destoyer captures the rebel blockade runner in its tractor beam at the very start of Episode IV? And then the droids escaped to the surface of Tatooine with the Death Star tapes in the escape pod? Well, remember the Imperial gunner who almost shoots the pod down? And then he doesn’t because “there are no life forms on board”?

Well that bloke is recognised among theologians Star Wars fans everywhere as the most crucial, pivotal character in the whole original trilogy. If he had followed his orignal instinct and blown the escape pod to bits, then the droids wouldn’t have made it to Tatooine or into the ownership of Luke Skywalker. Obi-Wan would have stayed in retirement, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru wouldn’t have been slaughtered by storm troopers and Princess Leia’s execution aboard the Death Star would have gone ahead as scheduled. The Death Star’s fatal weakness would not have been uncovered and would not have been destroyed, so, eventually, would have destroyed the Rebel Alliance.

All because that gunner opened fire on the escape pod. Which he didn’t.

“Are you drunk?”

So, anyway, back to Bethlehem 2000 years ago. The innkeeper could easily have gone that extra mile for his last-minute customers, Mary and Joseph. He could have found a room somewhere. Or he could have sent them packing with a warning not to use his stable or else he’ll get the centurions onto them. Where would the Nativity have been then?

Shepherds are rarely allowed into hotel lobbies, for a start. The Wise Men (the number of whom is not specified in Scripture) would have been hard pressed to track down the actual room number. So no Frankincense, gold or myrrh – and no tradition of prezzies at this time of year!!

Theologically speaking, the Lord being born in a manger provided a powerful message about the humility of His beginnings; a Travelodge doesn’t quite have the same impact.

So, to sum up: the innkeeper’s the part you want to go for, son.

“He’s playing a king,” said Carolyn. “And I fell asleep during Star Wars.”

Right.

♫ "... and a Happy New Year!" ♫

CRANMER reckons there are many reasons why Christians should vote Conservative. Well, of course he does: he’s a Christian, he’s a Tory, ergo, all Christians should be Tories.

I’ve come across this nonsense before, of course, many times, within the church. Shortly after the 1987 general election, I was visiting a friend who had been a member of the same “house church” as me back in our Ayshire days. She had now settled in Sale, Cheshire, with her husband. A Christian friend came round in the evening (with his guitar, natch; wouldn’t want to avoid any evangelical Christian clichés, now, would we?). “Did you vote for our man?” he asked my friend. “Our man”, it turned out, had been the local SDP/Liberal Alliance candidate a few weeks previously, who was also a member of my friend’s local church. Never mind the policies — so long as the person voting for them in the Commons shares your faith. Apparently.

Cranmer’s argument, naturally, is slightly more sophisticated, and it centres on abortion. If you’re a Christian, you’ll oppose abortion, and since David Cameron has apparently offered a free vote on reducing the upper limit, then Christians should vote for a Conservative government. Now, I don’t deny that this argument has a certain logic: more Tory MPs and candidates than Labour tend to be pro-life, so if that’s the most important issue for you, you’ll be tempted to vote accordingly.

But as I’ve argued before, abortion has always been decided on a free vote, and I assume always will be. My biggest problem with Cranmer’s argument (apart from the fact that he refers to himself in the third person; Tom has never been comfortable with that style of writing, which is why he gave up on Facebook) is that he’s trying to accomplish what others —such as Nadine — have tried to do before: make abortion a party political issue along the same lines as in the US.

This would be very bad for British politics and even worse, in the long term, for the Conservative Party. Yes, there was a time when the Republican Party successfully exploited the prejudices and intolerance of the Christian Right for electoral gain. But they paid the price for their 4G strategy (God, guns, gays and gynecology) at the last election and look as if they’ll ditch their fundamentalist allies in order to gain a foothold in the mid-terms next year.

There’s nothing wrong in promoting your own party to those of your own faith, of course. In 1988 I made an impassioned plea to my own church members that the poll tax should be resisted on the basis that a flat tax, with everyone paying the same amount regardless of income, was incompatible with the Biblical principle of tithing. Most members agreed, but it didn’t mean they voted Labour afterwards; I suspect most of them continued to vote Tory.

Tory-voting Christians all too often try to make this specious argument, that a single party (theirs, of course) most accurately represents “Christian values”. Labour-voting Christians, in my experience, tend not to, or at least, they do it less often. Perhaps that’s because they look across at the American political system and are repulsed by the stranglehold that the Christian Right have over Republican policy and don’t want to see the same thing happen here.

More likely, however, they simply recognise that it’s far too simplistic to claim any one party for God, that individuals should be trusted to make their own choice, and those choices respected.

The problem is that there are some vocal Tories out there who look across the Atlantic and actually like what they see. They see the intolerance and ignorance of the likes of Sarah Palin and think: “Yes, let’s have some of that over here!”

Very worrying indeed.

SOCIALISM.

There, I’ve said it.

But what is a socialist? Believe it or not, in the 1980s, when I first joined the Labour Party, this was a question that comrades actually used to discuss seriously, earnestly and regularly. And in every local party there was never a shortage of individuals who took it upon themselves to judge which of their colleagues were and were not socialists.

Tony Benn, the font of all knowledge when it came to judging other people’s principles, once said that the Labour Party wasn’t a socialist party, although there were socialists in it, just as the church wasn’t Christian, although there were Christians in it. This struck a chord with me, because, as a young Christian in an evangelical church, I had all too often fallen into the trap of deciding whether others were “proper” born-again Christians or, as my friends and I very patronisingly caled them, “nominal” Christians. Essentially, if other people hadn’t shared in exactly the same spiritual experience that we had, then their faith was inferior to ours.

So yes — in response to that muffled comment from the back — I was even more arrogant and insufferable then than I am now.

I’ve since reconciled myself to the truth that it’s not up to anyone else to judge my own relationship with God, just as it’s not up to me to judge anyone else’s. As I’ve said on this blog before, I’ve always been a rubbish Christian anyway.

So what is it with the church and the political Left that it attracts people only too keen to judge others’ beliefs? I guess it comes from the fact that both Christianity (and any other religion) and socialism are based on faith — faith in God or, in socialism’s case, faith in the basic good of mankind, in moral absolutes and in economic concepts.  Once those beliefs are codified and acknowledged as The Truth, it becomes easy to identify those who stray from the One True Path.

The political Right is blissfully unencumbered by such rule books, preferring a more pragmatic approach to politics.

And even today, 15 years after the advent of New Labour, there are still those in my party who like to obsess about the “socialist” label. Among some, it is undoubtedly a cause of some resentment that it was Tony Blair who first inserted the word “socialist” in the party’s constitution, thereby redefining it in a broader, vaguer but more inclusive sense.

So the question is: do I consider myself a socialist? Yes, I suppose I do, but there are plenty of others who wouldn’t agree with that description of me. And maybe they’re right. Whatever.

Same goes for me describing myself as a Christian.

But if judging others’ definitions of themselves is your “thing”, who am I to tell you what to do?

THE ADVERTISING Standards Authority (ASA) has received more than 1000 complaints about the Christian party’s “There is definitely a God” advertising campaign.

Some of the complainers have claimed that the ad was “offensive” to atheists, although I guess the decision by the ASA not to launch an investigation indicates that that claim was treated with the seriousness it deserved. My, you must be a delicate little flower indeed if the mere affirmation of faith by others is “offensive” to you!

I don’t believe for a second that a single atheist was remotely offended, and even if that were the case, it’s hardly a reason to ban an advert. Unfortunately, what seems to be happening is that individuals and organisations are using complaints procedures, not necessarily to maintain standards of decency or whatever, but to stymie an opposing point of view.

Politicians are at it too. In the past, any MP accused of dodgy practices could be exposed to the media glare and held to account. Now, if you don’t like a particular public figure, make a complaint to the police. Yes, it will waste police time and resources, but you’ll get a headline or two out of it and it’s not as if the police have got anything better to do (oh, and it’s also useful to have at least a shadow of an actual complaint to level against him). 

I don’t suppose New Scotland Yard are entirely enthusiastic about being drawn into political fights in this way. But if a complaint is made then obviously they have to act upon it.

I just can’t shake the feeling that some recent complaints have been mischevious at best and vexatious at worst.

Just like the complaints against the Christian party ads. 

The ruling by the ASA, although the right one, concerns me. It said that the ad fell outside its remit because it was election material. Does that mean that if a non-party political organisation — a church, for instance — wanted to proclaim the Gospel along the lines of: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that all who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life”, then that would be investigated on the grounds that the church could not substantiate the claims behind that statement?

This from “Alex” is in response to an earlier comment by Auntie Flo, and sums up the creationist/evolution debate better than I could:

Auntie Flo, it’s interesting that you say “In my view we need healthy sceptism towards both creationism and evolution. Thankfully, my faith in God doesn’t rely on either creed.”, because you seem to have a good grasp of creationist lies (if that word offends you substitute “pretence”) on the subject, and not a lot of grasp of science, or of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by random mutation and and natural selection.

Starting with “Both Creationism and Darwin’s theory of evolution are flawed.”

There is no equivalence, although creationists like to petend thre is. Creationism is a literal belief in bible stories, Darwin’s ToE is a scientific Theory. Science accepts that any Theory can be challenged, improved and, if superseded by a more complete explanation, abandoned altogether. Creationists think that creationism describes timeless truth, regardless of the evidence.

“even biology ‘O’ level students were taught that when I was at school.”

????? !!!! What school did you attend? Was it in the US Deep South? Or Northern Ireland?

“Darwin probably grasped part of the mechanism by which the rich diversity of life on our planet came into being, yet his evolutionary theory contains too many contradictions and leaves too many questions unanswered to be the whole truth”. Does it now? and which questions and conradictions would that be? Care to enumerate?

“I find it odd that Darwin’s theory is embraced with near religious fervour by evolutionists.”

You probably find it “odd” because it isn’t true. “Evolutionists”, as creationist call them, are merely scientists and other rational thinkers who observe and evaluate the evidence before reaching a conclusion. As I said above, if the evidence changes, the Theory can be changed or even abandoned for a new Theory. That is the opposite of religion, where “truths” are received from a higher authority and are immutable, regardless of the evidence.

“In my view we need healthy sceptism towards both creationism and evolution.”

Scientists would agree. But a “healthy scepticism” with due regard to the evidence leads to the conclusion that Darwin’s ToE is the best and most powerful explanantion of the diversity of life on Earth, whereas a “healthy scepticism” with due regard to the evidence leads to the conclusion that creationism is a highly esoteric faith position, nowhere supported by the physical evidence or any rationale beyond “it says so in the bible”.

“Thankfully, my faith in God doesn’t rely on either creed.”

Creationism is a creed. Science is not, but religious apologists like to try to tar them with the same brush, because it absolves them of trying to understand science, and from trying to rationlaise religion, while appearing (at least to themselves) to remain rational.

The constant attempt by creationists to pretend that belief in science is a “faith position” is based on stupidity (either they do not understand the philosophy of science or they don’t understand their own religion. Possibly both) or on lying (they understand perfectly well, but are intent on trying to convince other by their lies).

These arguments are important because the modern world, with all of its technologicaland medical advances, is based on rationality and science. Rejection of science means rejection of many advances we have made in the scientific age. and that’s important beyond the scuffles between evolution and the bible.

So, Flo. There you have it. It is not a matter of “a plague on both your houses”. It’s a matter of, if you actually had the plague, who would you trust to save your life: creationists or scientists? Prayers or pills? Reason or religion? Medicine or mumbo-jumbo?

My bet: you would be “up the doctor’s” like a shot!

COVERAGE of Geert Wilders being refused access to the UK was explained today on the BBC News Channel in terms of Wilders’ own views on Islam.

Islam, according to Wilders (according to the BBC), when practised according to a strict interpretation of the Koran, is incompatible with western values.

I have no knowledge of the Koran, so I can’t verify if that proposal has any validity. I do know that the Muslims with whom I’m friendly seem to have no problem integrating with British society.

But at the risk of being accused of “appeasing” anyone, you could argue that Christianity, like Islam, is similarly incompatible with western values: the Bible teaches that women should be subservient to their husbands, that homosexuals and adulterers should be killed (or, in New Testament terms, at least condemned as sinful), that slavery can be tolerated and that a man whose testicles have been crushed can’t go to church (check out Deutoronomy if you don’t believe me, though I imagine that if you had just suffered that fate you might have concerns other than whether or not the kirk elders are going to let you into the 11.30 am service).

But most Christians, like most Muslims, manage to reconcile their personal faith with living in a westernised secular society. 

My immediate instinctive response to Wilders being declined UK entry was similar to Iain Dale’s. But I’ve supported government decisions in the past to exclude Islamist hate preachers, and complained when decisions to exclude them haven’t been made, so I probably couldn’t sustain a coherent argument in favour of Wilders’ admission.

THURSDAY will mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. It is a matter of profound disappointment on my part that the celebration of the achievements of such a great man is being overshadowed  (albeit only marginally) by creationists.

Much has been made of the recent survey which showed, apparently, that everyone thinks God created the universe in six days, from about the 3rd to the 9th of October 6,118 years ago. On a Wednesday. Or something.

Now, given that similar proportions of the Great British Public also believe that Princess Diana was murdered, that the moon landings were faked and that 9/11 was mostly special effects (seriously – that is actually a “genuine” conspiracy theory), I won’t lose too much sleep over it. Creationism is just the latest silly fad that’s been imported from America and one day it will fade away, just as previous fads – hula hoops, Baywatch and David Blaine, for example – have done.

Even for Christians, the literal truth, or otherwise, of the book of Genesis has no bearing on our faith. Or it shouldn’t have. Too often, a blind and unthinking adherance to this particular dogma is simply a way of establishing their assumed superiority over other Christians: “I’m courageous enough to believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, against all social convention and scientific fact. That means my faith is stronger than yours.” Or words to that effect. It’s the sin of pride (which, to many evangelical Christians I know, isn’t nearly as serious as any other sin involving sex).

As a student, my first (and only) Christian Union meeting was sullied by a meeting with an older student who was a member of an Elim Pentecostal Church and who was very loud and arrogant in his promotion of his own views, which included creationism. I had never met anyone like this before and I was fascinated, much as Victorians were fascinated and unnerved by travelling freak shows. At one point he said that Christians shouldn’t watch TV or listen to music unless it was Christian music. “But what about Genesis?” I asked in an ill-judged attempt at levity.

“Love the book, hate the band,” replied Mark (for thus was he named).

You can imagine it was quite a swinging night. I never returned to the Christian Union and, thankfully, never came across old Mark again. But a couple of years later I found myself, as a student journalist, attending a public lecture by an American scientist who, as a Christian, had revisited the science of evolution and found it wanting. He put up quite a plausible case, I seem to remember, but I left unconvinced. My view then, as now, was “Why does this matter to you so much that you’ve got to tell other people?”

Christianity is about faith, but it’s primarily about an individual’s relationship with God. If that relationship is stronger for believing in the literal truth of the whole Bible, well, knock yourself out, mate. But most people don’t need to believe in six-day creation to have faith in God.

As for the science, I’ve written on this site before that evolution remains a theory, not a fact, though it remains the most plausible scientific theory on offer to explain the development of life on this particular, small planet. Our good friend, Stewart Cowan, insists that his own arguments in favour of creationism are scientifically-based.

Two important points: if your interpretation of science is founded on faith, then no amount of empirical evidence to the contrary will ever change your mind.

Secondly, if a scientist had absolutely no knowledge whatever of any of the main religions’ creation stories, he would not, under any circumstances, conclude that the earth was a few thousand years old. That conclusion, in creationists’ minds, is reached first, with the appropriate “scientific” data subsequently arranged in a reverse process to justify the conclusion they want to reach.

Darwin’s life and work should be celebrated. It’s quite possible that much of his research and conclusions will be overtaken one day by other scientists with access to more information and resources than Darwin had. But his work remains the most solid foundation on which to base further expansion of our knowledge of the origin and development of species.

When it comes to matters of faith, the Bible can’t be beaten.

When it comes to science, I will trust the judgment of someone who prefers a sliderule over a Bible every time.

IN POLITE society, any debate about minorities, whether black or Asian people, homosexuals or (particularly in the west of Scotland) Roman Catholics, usually includes a sentence along the lines of “some of my best friends are…”

So before I say something mildly controversial and off-message, let me lay my pro-gay credentials on the table. 

I have always voted in the Commons for “gay-friendly” legislation, including civil partnerships, which I’m particularly proud of. A surprisingly large number of my closest friends when I was growing up in Ayrshire turned out to be gay. The best man at my wedding is gay and his partner regularly babysits for us.

So, to sum up: Tom Harris = not remotely homophobic. Got that? Good.

I also have a lot of Christian friends, one of whom writes the GadgetVicar blog. It does seem to me that the government’s plans to protect gay people from incitement to hatred might actually criminalise people like the Rev. David McCarthy, whose views on homosexuality I disagree with, but are well thought out and based on his interpretation of Scripture.

This is the amendment proposed to the legislation by Lord Waddington:

“for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”

Try as I might, I can see nothing there with which to disagree. If someone with too much time on his hands wants to distribute tracts to the general public advising people to desist from homosexual acts for religious reasons, that’s up to him. But he should be humoured – mocked, even – but surely not prosecuted?

The nutjobs who demonstrate at the funerals of US troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan holding placards which declare: “God hates fags” are revolting to any sane person. But they’re tolerated – by US law, if not by the many understandably infuriated members of the public who have been known to attack them.

Of course gay people deserve protection from those who would incite violence against them. But neither they nor I have any right to expect the law to protect them from being offended.

These are thoughts I’ve been mulling over for some time, but they were crystalised in far more eloquent form this morning by Graeme Archer at Conservative Home.

Hat-tip to Iain Dale.

THE five Church of England bishops who have attacked Labour as “immoral” should not be dismissed out of hand.

After all, these giants of Christian leadership are the very people who have presided over a colossal rise in church membership and attendance. Such has been their inspiration to the nation, few people fail to consult them on great matters of import before coming to a conclusion. 

So when these Five Wise Men choose to ignore the work of this government in combating poverty in the Third World, we have to assume they have good reason to do so (perhaps involvement in such causes might detract from their party political work?).

When they ignore the tax credit system, the historically large increases in child benefit, the minimum wage or pensioners’ winter heating allowances, we must assume that the Five Wise Men have prayed long and hard to seek Divine Inspiration for their pronouncement and that God agrees with them.

And when they, by implication, dismiss the record investment in the NHS under this government, we should perhaps ask if the Church of England’s runs a Bupa membership scheme for its clergy.

More than all of this, we should remember that the description of the Church of England as “the Tory Party at prayer” was never more true than when there is a Labour government.