Category: Current Affairs

The righteous of the world aren't those who claim to be righteous, but those who do righteousness. That religiously motivated followers of God believe they act righteously, and in the name of their God, by murdering another human being is one of the tragic ironies of religion contaminated by the toxins of hate, greed, cruelty and self-validated violence.

But to brutally behead a Red Cross worker, qualified as a nurse, and working in the killers' own country to bring help and healing to the people, and under the auspices and for the medical and humanitarian ends of an organisation committed to humane and humanising behaviour – there are those who would say such blind hatred and religiously inspired cruelty is beyond words. But it is not beyond words, and must not be allowed to be.

Khalid Dale was a human being, whose humanitarian values and humane compassion, led him to a place of opportunity to help others, and knowingly putting himself in a place of personsal risk. But his presence as a Red Cross Worker, and the universal recognition of Red Cross neutrality and goodwill, should have been sufficient to guarantee his safety and dissuade opportunist or ideological kidnapping. It didn't, which is one of those events that corrodes the foundation pillars that enable the Red Cross to sustain and protect that most fragile but essential attributes of a human being – a humane humanity. That is not a tautology – it is an intensive adjective. Few things diminish the value of human life more rapidly and fatally than war, conflict, hatred, grievance, or any of these combined with religious or political ideology which eclipses all other moral concerns and itself becomes an idol.

We can guess at the motives of those who killed Khalid Dale – but it would illumine little. Some enactments of evil are beyond such explanatory analysis. They are best understood by the act and its consequences. Whole communities will suffer as a direct result of Khalid Dale's murder. People whose lives would have been saved by his experience and influence, his commitment and expertise; people struggling to survive and whose humanity is further diminished by the killing of a trusted and resourceful Red Cross Commission reprersentative. But above all that, a good man was killed by those who show little evidence of that humanity which Khalid Dale cherished, revered and died for in the name of his God – who, whatever the theological complexities, it is hard to believe is the same God as that owned so violently by his killers.

This was not an action beyond words – it was an action beyond understsanding, but not, and never, beyond condemnation. Such acts gave the original impetus to the magnificent work of the Red Cross, and they will not discourage that deeper and more resilient human motive of love, compassion and humanity. To believe otherwise is to give in to the darkness – and I for one believe "the Light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it". Khalid Dale converted to Islam, and therefore he, and not his killers, is the benchmark of that great monotheistic faith and its ethical imperatives.

Amongst the anomalies and curiosities of the recent Budget, is the decision to apply VAT to heated pies and pasties to bring them into line with cooked food as served for example in restaurants. The Chief Executive of Greggs the bakery company has dubbed this the Pie Tax. The  subsequent debate has covered issues such as the clientele who buy such hot food being those who can least afford a hiked price in food. But the most bizarre part of the debate focuses on what constitutes 'heated food'. It seems this is based on a comparison between the ambient temperature outside and the temperature of the food being heated! So on a sunny day in summer lukewarm food might not count, whereas in a snowbound winter…… Here's a quote from the debate:

"With the weather as it is today, a lukewarm pasty from Greggs is not VAT-able because the ambient temperature outside is the reference point, whereas if it is the middle of winter and freezing cold it is VAT," Mr Mann said. "It is an extraordinarily complex situation when you are having to check with the Meteorological Office on whether or not to add VAT on pasties in Greggs, which is what your consultation paper does."

Off course there are two sides to this debate – but I can't help wondering along with most sensible people, whether the leaders of the Coalition have any idea what the real world feels like, and whether they have the moral imagination to recognise the real and the symbolic impact of choosing to tax food at a time when austerity measures are supposed to be balanced by the mantra 'we're all in this together'. The tax-payer subsidised restaurants at Westminster versus the queue for taxed hot sausage rolls at Greggs. As an own goal it is as spectacular as Peter Crouch's real wonder goal against Manchester City at the weekend.

For that reason I'll resist submitting that particular Budget proposal to the more searching moral scrutiny that a prophet like Amos might have carried out. He had something to say about the luxuries of the the rich and the poor being ground into the dust for the price of a pair of slippers….for contemporary application read 'a hot pie'.

You can read more on this at the link below – and smile – but then reflect, because the title of this post is not entirely playful!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/osborne-touch-greggs-boss-060141772.html

Vengeance is a visceral and violent response to what is perceived as morally unacceptable. Those who say vengeance is itself ethically indefensible adopt a moral standpoint that sometimes overlooks the complex mixture of tragic loss, indescribable suffering, inexplicable wickedness and downright dehumanising violence that triggers the desire to pay back, to seek satisfaction, to punish, to lash out in rage at those who perpetrate violent cruelty and mindless slaughter on other human beings.

The Taliban have sworn vengeance on coalition forces in Afghanistan following the brutal murder of 16 Afghan civilians by one US soldier. Expressions of shock, regret, condolence and determined pursuit of explanation and justice are not likely to break the power circuits that trigger chain reaction violence. The tragic nihilism of cyclic hatred and self-perpetuating violence simply means more people will be maimed and murdered as a way of putting right what is universally recognised as wrong. Moral cliches like two wrongs don't make a right overlooks the all but irresistible urge, erupting from the molten core of human pain, to redress the balance of one community's grief by inflicting equivalent grief on the other. This isn't about reasoned calculation, but an instinctive scream of rage at the facelessness of fate, and the known human face of the enemy. There are no words I as a Christian can offer to the Afghan people, other than those of the penitent, the sorrowful and the heart diminished by the deaths of others.

Neither are there words I can use to comment on the deaths of seven young British soldiers, killed by that same vengeance seeking Taliban. The oscillation of rage and outrage, makes it impossible to speak words that would be heard. The desperate search to find some tenuous strands of hope that can somehow be woven together, requires not so much words spoken, as heart going out to heart. And the abyss of sorrow and loss into which relatives are plunged, place a finger over our lips, so that nothing is uttered that interrupts the necessary anguished work of grieving. Perhaps all we can say, and should say, and must say, are those words that must always be said with utmost honesty, sincerity and awareness of what goes on in our own hearts:

      Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison.

I have in my study a station of the cross panel, of Jesus being crucified, a gift from Professor Sandy Stoddart. It is a powerful statement through understatement, of the brutal banality of human cruelty. Not vengeance, but forgiveness, not hatred but love, not power but vulnerability, and not punishmment but mercy, are the springs that move the heart of God. At my best, I look out at our world, and pray "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". Other times I look at that same world filled with despair because, more often than I might think, they know exactly what they do, and I find it harder to pray for their forgiveness.

It's Monday morning but that's not why I'm taking issue with Radio Scotland. This morning at about 18 minutes to 8 there was a discussion about Fair Trade towns and shops, and the Chief Executive of Fair Trade was explaining how buying Fair Trade goods helps local farmers in the producing countries. Several times the Radio Scotland interviewer asked about fair trade goods being a bit more expensive. Each time he was given an answer that showed why his assertion wasn't true, or wasn't the whole truth.

Once the Fair Trade spokeswoman was off air, he came back saying he was still convinced that Fair Trade goods were a bit more expensive. Now apart from the unfairness of taking the last word to contradict the person interviewed, I have another complaint.

Health warning – long sentence looming. If something is called Fair Trade, and it does cost a bit more (I say this without conceding the point), but let's say for argument it is a bit more expensive – shouldn't it be rather obvious to someone who is supposed to be clued up on finance, business, trade, the market, and who is supposed to report on National Radio, news and not personal opinion unsupported by evidence other than his own anecdotal impressions, wouldn't it occur to such a person that in a market where there is unfairness, that to achieve cheap prices Fair Trade goods may well cost a bit more, and that is the acceptable premium for trading fairly, and is an ethical choice to be made by the buyer? Fair Trade is about the purchaser playing fair, not going for the cheapest and to hang with the consequences for the producer.

All of which is not to concede the point that Fair Trade bananas are more expensive than other commercial options. But even if they are more expensive to the buyer, me … isn't there an obvious, and morally significant explanation, and an ethical reason for paying a fair price, not the cheapest price? The idea that fair trade and cheapest price are always or ever compatible is an economic chimera out there in the market. 

But please, Radio Scotland, don't use the privilege of access to  my ears as an opportunity to contradict a guest once they've left the studio. That's not Fair either!

You can hear the interview for yourself on the BBC Iplayer, Good Morning Scotland at about 1 hour 43 minutes to 46 minutes

It has been open season on Journalists these past few months. Phone tapping, bribery, the ethics of protecting sources, intrusive surveillance and evasive non-co-operation with various Inquiries. And there's no doubt that some of the sharp edged criticism and public furore has been deserved, just and necessary to clean up a culture that is in danger of simply ignoring people's rights to privacy. protection and the weight of law to replace torn up boundaries and reinforce workable sanctions. That's all fine.

But the death of Marie Colvin shows Journalism at its very best as an essential vocation in a world where communication networks are now amongst the most potent social and political forces at work across the globe. Global politics are increasingly driven by global communications rapidly gaining in immediacy and pervasiveness. The facebook revolution is now a a widely available trigger for political revolution.

What Marie Colvin was doing was exposing the brutality and cruelty of Syria's President, government and military forces. Her last broadcast vibrated with barely restrained anger. Saint Exupery in Wind, Sand and Stars has a sentence which observes, sorrow and anger are the vibrations that remind us we are still alive. The bombardment of civilians is a war crime – there isn't even a debate about that. Pure and simple tanks, artillery and heavy machine guns turned on unarmed civilians is a violation of international law, a demonstration of inhumanity that must not go unchecked, and a clear signal for the international community to intervene.

To call the few hundred lightly armed militia an army, and justification for civilian slaughter is to use language in a way that exposes the moral bankruptcy of the Syrian Regime, and the equally shameful moral lethargy of the international community, including our own country. Just what has to happen in a country for the claims of humanity to supercede the interests of political expediency and the slow hand-wringing of sanctions and diplomatic toing and froing.

A Syrian besieged in the town of Homs spoke of Marie Colvin as a journalist who records and bears witness to the terrible happenings in the town. Fourteen shells landed in the first 30 seconds of the bombardment that started early morning and relentlessly continued throughout the day. But camera pictures, clear informed reporting, the courage and moral passion of the reporters, they are ways of documenting injustice, crimes against humanity, and will lead eventually to indictment. For such witness there is always a price.

Marie Colvin was killed along with several others, doing what was her calling – reporting, telling, bearing witness, calling power to account, and expressing the outrage of those who witness such unrestrained violence; appealing to those whose responsibility it is to uphold international law, to defend human rights, and maintain a world culture in which determined brutality meets an equally determined truth telling, and encounters a morally equipped opposition that represents the human face, human value, and the steadfast refusal to bystand.

Now and again we are treated to political statements that are genuinely constructive, considered and thoughtful, socially invigorating, morally courageous and a true reflection of what we should expect of those who represent us.

Baroness Warsi will later this week address the Pope in an address that affirms the importance in Europe of religious traditions, heritage and beliefs as essentials of cultural stability and integrity. Her argument is that firmly held convictions and intentional dialogue towards mutual understanding are more important than any falsely justified or mistakenly fumbled attempts to repress or marginalise faith traditions and their legitimate public expression.

Given the nonsense of last week's judgement about the legality of prayers before local government sessions, and the strident intolerance of secular humanists and populist atheists, it's time we had outspoken advocacy of religious freedom and liberty of conscience, not to mention mere toleration. The irony is the intolerant attack on religion per se by those who appeal to religious intolerance as a fundamental reason, on the basis of reason, to outlaw or ridicule or damn all religion.

My own Christian life has been spent within a small radically evangelical community which, sometimes to its embarrassment is reminded that religious toleration is in its DNA. Yes, Baptists emerged from religious persecution with a passionate commitment to liberty of conscience before God and freedom of worship and religious expression as that which the state has no right to promote for its own ends, or suppress in the interests of its own power.  And since I graduated in Moral Philosophy and Principles of Religion, followed by a theological formation for ministry, I have held just as passionately to those early Baptist instincts about freedom of conscience, religious toleration and humble respect for those whose faith tradition is different from mine, but whose integrity and identity I am called in Christ to respect, and whose person I am called to love.

So dialogue between faiths is not for me a concession to compromise, but a commitment to communication and understanding rooted in theological realities such as imago dei, the communicative nature of God, the work of the Holy Spirit in human expereince and culture, and the call of Christ to love our neighbour as ourselves. Likewise, Ecumenical openness is not a sign of woolly thinking and fluffy goodwill, but a serious theological, ethical and pastoral challenge to recognise and respond in the Spirit of Christ to those whose experience of God in Christ, and whose living expression of their faith is different from mine, and if we are both honest and humble, is often richer than what I have known. And in a polarised world where hostility and suspicion are often the default dispositions of opposing religious traditions and cultures, I welcome every encouragement to people of faith, whatever faith, to begin by recognising the humanity of the other, and then to respect the religious commitments and traditions of the other, and then to respond in friendship and sincere interest in this other person, tradition, culture, with whom I share this planet, and this time in human history.

Is that too much to ask, of those who follow the one who is the Lamb slain, and before whose throne peoples of all tribes, nations, peoples and cultures will gather in the act of praise and worship? One of the missional essentials of today is a recovered sense of generosity that can only come from a faith tradition that stops being timid, protectionist and negative. Instead, with the courage of our convictions, and the exemplary generosity of God in Christ as our inspiration, and trusting the promised Counsellor who leads us into all truth, let us sit and think, and talk, and pray, and learn, and so come to understand, our neighbours, the strangers in our midst, and to greet and welcome others as God in Christ has welcomed us.

Some of what sparked these reflections can be read in the linked article below

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/stand-faith-says-peer-warsi-064447947.html

You don't have to be an avid trawler of online news, or a TV News addict, or a close reader of newspapers, Tabloid or Broadsheet, to be aware of the ironies that are darting around in the political rhetoric and economic pontificating and partially informed opinionating these past few days.

Let me begin with the word "fair". We all want a fairer society – that is an assumed given, stated with omniscient assurance by representatives of almost every political colour and position. Except each time it is repeated it sounds less like a moral given, and more like a vested interest mantra. Fairness is a matter of standpoint. Something is fair depending on which point I stand, my point of view. So even if fairness was an acceptable moral concept, it is such a subjectively loaded one that it isn't much use in social discourse, or discourse about society. 

Now – do I want a fairer society? Think about it. What relation does fairness bear to mercy? "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy", seems a reasonable and fair deal. If you care for troubled and suffering people, you'll be cared for when you are in trouble or suffering. But I'm not sure Jesus meant such a radical quid pro quo – mercy is precisely not giving someone what they deserve, but what compassion demands.

Do I want a fairer society? Well if everything is fair, then words like generosity and grudge become redundant because everyone gets what they get with no remainder. What is fair about giving a gift? What is fair about being given a gift? Where does generosity come on the spectrum of calculated entitlement we call fairness?

Do I want a fairer society? Does that mean everyone gets treated the same? But what about the ludicrously obvious fact that we are not the same? Doesn't the sheer diversity of opportunity, natural giftedness, circumstances of birth, socio – economic starting point, genetic inheritance, the happenstance of life's experience mean that, to put it in tautological terms, we are each very unique?

Do I want a fairer society? What does fairness look like for Stephen Lawrence's family. Justice isn't the same thing, though it is an essential aim of the moral and humane society. What was profoundly unfair, toxic and cruel was violence against a young man because of his colour. Justice does not put that right – it does however state the importance and uniqueness of each life, and the cost and consequence of violence, to victim and perpetrator. But the word fair is seen for what it is in this situation – facile and superficial. 

Which brings me to irony, the irony of elevating the word "fair" to the top of the political point scoring league. Yesterday we had Ian Duncan Smith promising he was not seeking to punish the poor by capping benefits. We had Vince Cable hand wringing about how to curb excessive board-room salaries, bonuses and other complex formulae for remunerative rip-offs. And various politicians speaking on my behalf as a taxpayer about what was and was not fair to me. It isn't fair that I work hard, earn money, pay taxers only to see these taxes fall into the benefits black hole. It isn't fair that I work hard, earn money and pay my taxes, and in a lifetime's work would not come close to earning a modest bank executive's annual package with bonuses.

Three comments more. First – to use the phrase "punish the poor" whether to deny it or recommend it, is to use the vocabulary of a welfare state suffering a serious case of semantic amnesia; it is also to reveal an unacceptable lack of emotional intelligence and social awareness.

Second to try to save some millions of pounds by capping benefits, while doing little of any real substance to curb excessive salaries and even less to deal with the problem of tax avoidance by the rich, is not only irony. It is a failure of nerve or perhaps more seriously, a deliberate evasion of moral principle by a coalition government surviving on expediency and compromise. These are not necessarily bad words, it depends what is compromised and to whom it is expedient.

And finally, I do not think it is fair the way politicians are using the word fair to justify policies, which should require criteria that look beyond the limited horizons of mere fairness. The cost of caring for the vulnerable and the poor, the old and the sick, the disadvantaged and marginalised, should not simply be lumped together with the admittedly expensive problem of welfare benefit dependency, and the exploitation of the welfare system. To do so is not fair – and nothing is solved if you replace one unfairness with another.

This is a ridiculously unfair question and I'm quite prepared to be laughed at for asking it – In the choice between capping benefits and curbing excessive salaries, what would Jesus do? I know – daft question. Fair enough!