|
›› Guided Tour of the Wardman Wire ›› Our Feeds and Websites ›› Buttons and Banners |
›› MPs' Expenses - House Rules
›› Ad Agency Slogans + Blog Slogans ›› Watching You: Surveillance Society |
Archive for Ethics - Religion
A Clash of Symbols II: What is the Sound of One Symbol Clashing?
What, if anything, do the 5 designs for the Ebbsfleet sculpture say about us?
Early favourite, Mark Wallingers giant horse, is the only one of the 5 designs which is recognisable, compared to cubes, piles of recycling, or the wing of Mercury (or was it a spare one from the Angel of the North?)
Less obvious than a 33xscale horse, is the point of it. Not content with the St. Pancras facelift, the aim of the Ebbsfleet Landmark is to provide something big and striking as people enter England on the Eurostar. After all, Kent only has Canterbury Cathedral, the White Cliffs of Dover, and Leeds Castle - the place is clearly a bit of a let-down.
So is the sculpture supposed to represent England? Or confer identity on the brownfield development of 10,000 houses happening beneath the equine shadow? Bizarrely, the Highways Agency seems to be providing the parameters for the sculpture, not an organisation known for it’s artistic pedigree.
Hole in the Soul
Two related stories have popped up this week:
1. Some new research, widely disputed, which forsees the final implosion of Christianity in the UK, from 5m churchgoers today to less than 900,000 in 2050. On the way there, the ancient faith of Britain is overtaken by Islam in the 2030’s, and Hinduism 15-20 years later. Writes Ruth Gledhill “it feels as if the soul of Britain is dying”.
2. The publication of the latest Rough Guide to Britain, which observes:
“Of the two hundred-plus destinations across the world that Rough Guide covers, there is none so fascinating, beautiful and culturally diverse, yet as insular, self-important and irritating, as England,”
The guide also calls us quarrelsome, obsessed with minor celebrities, a ‘nation of overweight, binge-drinking reality TV addicts… (as well as) animal-loving, tea-drinking charity donors,’ which may be having a national identity crisis.
Papal authority and human rights: Thinking Aloud by Simon Barrow
Simon Barrow has been thinking about the tensions within the Roman Catholic Church between a traditional vision of authority, and a desire to engage with human rights and the modern world.
Whose rights, whose wrongs?
Benedict XVI’s recent, high profile visit to the United States highlighted the coincidence of two anniversaries. The first was his own inauguration on 24 April 2005 as 265th reigning Pope, Bishop of Rome, spiritual head of the 1.2 billion strong Roman Catholic Church, and Sovereign of the Vatican City State. The second, to be marked fully later this year, was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by UN General Assembly in resolution 217 A (III) on 10 December 1948.
The pontiff embodies three kinds of combined headship – the ecclesiastical, the spiritual and the political. As such, his office is the supreme expression of a Christendom vision of the relation of heavenly and temporal authority in one inherited throne, invested in locus Christi. Here is a universal claim to supervening moral authority, one that causes considerable controversy within and without.
The United Nations declaration, by contrast, is the result of an agreement among states and their peoples (what is somewhat vaguely deemed “the international community”) arising from a long historical struggle, involving people of many faiths and none. Its aim is to give practical expression to an inalienable sense of human dignity, worth and mutual obligation which can be seen to be grounded (though not without disputation) in significant strands of Jewish, Christian, humanist, secular and Muslim thought.
Global ethics and institutional inquisitions
For some, the UN declaration is part of the quest for a truly global ethic arising from major points of inter-religious, inter-cultural and cross-political convergence among those “of good faith”, believers and otherwise. Such an ethic invites cooperation through consent, self-limitation and relationship (covenant) as well as regulation (contract).
One of the key figures in this quest is Professor Hans Kung, the prominent Catholic intellectual. There is, of course, an irony here; one which points to the underlying tension between some institutional religious interests and the search for universal human goods within a plural framework. For this is the same Hans Kung who, after forming a collegial academic relationship with one Josef Ratzinger (they shared a reforming agenda as advisers at the great Vatican II Council) ended up being stripped of his official teaching office by the Church in 1979, after he questioned the doctrine of papal infallibility and the functioning of the magesterium. Meanwhile, the man he had known for nearly 35 years (at that stage) went on to become the Vatican’s prime theological ‘enforcer’.
In that capacity Cardinal Ratzinger denounced not only Hans Kung. He also disciplined and condemned a range of creative thinkers ranging from Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff (for his advocacy of a grassroots church) through to the late Jacques Dupuis (who wrote with enormous depth and humanity on the theology of religions) and Roger Haight (whose Jesus, Symbol of God seeks to express concerns conceived through ancient metaphysics in terms of modern thought).
Dupuis, a deeply faithful scholar, died a broken man as a result of the harsh way he was treated. Meanwhile, the Catholic Theological Society of America, the European Society for Catholic Theology and committee members of the Catholic Theological Association of Great Britain went on to complain about what they called an “unjust, theologically questionable and unnecessary” 2007 notification against Fr. Jon Sobrino, whose writing and work has been done against a backdrop of poverty, violence and threat to his personal safety in Central America.
Critics of the Vatican, both within and without the Catholic community, often observe that the Church is in the habit of affirming human rights, fair treatment and intellectual and religious freedom in the world at large, while acting rather differently towards those inside its own institutions - using a hierarchical doctrine of the Church as a privileged instrument of God to justify this.
It’s Confession Time: Touching Base by David Keen
‘Bulimia’: the normal image conjured up is of an emaciated model or troubled teenager, not a rounded 69 year old Northern bloke with a taste for pies and official buffets. John Prescott’s revelation that he suffers from bulimia overturns most of our stereotypes about who suffers from what. Brave man. I was going to say you have to admire his guts, but that’s starting to conjure up some unpleasant pictures….
If I Tell You, I’ll Have to Kill You
It’s far easier to admit to a problem if you can do it anonymously. Like eating disorders, self harm, which up to 1/3 of teenagers have tried, is one of those private, secretive things which is hard to admit to. Jon Birch’s blog has given people space to do that this week online. This is one of the upsides of false identities on the internet, giving us space to admit to things we’d never share with people we know.
Having a safe space to admit to being wrong, or being in a mess, is a basic human need - both for ourselves, or, in the case of the 10p tax relief, admitting we are wrong for the benefit of others. We used to call it confession, a valuable practice which got tarnished by the fact that most people left their sins in the Tardis-shaped box in church, then went out and committed them again. Confession at its best is a place where we own up to what we are, to what we have done, and face unpleasant facts.
It’s made harder for public figures by the fact that the media pack pile in and cry ‘U-turn! U-turn!’, or ‘ner, ner ne-ner ner’ to use the school playground version. A culture of gloating and one-upmanship is an unforgiving place to confess. Media attitudes make it harder for politicians to admit to being wrong.
If Truth Be Told
Facing the truth about ourselves, and what we’ve done, is best done in a supportive community. This is a practice developed in a brilliant way by Alcoholics Anonymous. The 12 steps of AA, familiar more to pop stars and press officers than the general population, opens with this uncompromising statement:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.
it gets better:
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
It’s Alright Darling, I Know Where I’m Going
All the men reading this are now skim-reading frantically. We don’t do God, and we don’t do ‘getting it wrong’. If we’re lost, we just keep driving.
The idea of systematically writing down every character flaw we have, well, most of us would rather enjoy a sit down meal with John Prescott. But the fun is just starting:
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
As well as being the basic plot of My Name is Earl, this was also the process followed by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and is a principle of the Restorative Justice movement (see here for how this is working in one Taunton school). It’s a myth that sin is a solitary activity, most of us have a history of broken promises, disappointed friends, wasted chances and worse.
The Problem has a Face: Thinking Aloud
Simon Barrow reflects on conflict and confusion, and suggests that the place to focus is on the human beings in the middle - and work outwards from there. I am reminded of a quote that was current in interfaith and ecumenical dialogue some years ago: From meeting to encounter.
The Problem has a Face
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way.
Charles Dickens’ famous Tale of Two Cities remains the narrative of the world today, with voices of gloom and optimism seeking to colonise the complex reality of the post-modern condition for their own ruling purposes.
So we have apocalyptic movements addicted to religious violence and governments wedded to a righteous war against terror speaking of their own nirvana and the hell of the other as the defining characteristic of the age. Side with us and eliminate the infidel, they say.
Then heaven, or Nasdaq, will be on your vindicator. Then again, the evangelists of bio- and techno-science, like genomics magnate Craig Ventnor and superstring theorist Michio Kaku, believe that only our lack of imagination and trust in the the capacity to re-design life is holding humanity back from a future of unimagined prospering. Entrepreneurialism not politics is the key to the new era, they say.
Personally, I am inclined to disbelieve both the apostles of doom and the soothsayers of paradise – whether the garb they wear looks “religious” or “secular”. Indeed an endless rhetorical battle over what is religious and what is non-religious is liable to miss the real point – which is that false hopes and false promises usually dress themselves up in what you are tempted towards, not what you are inclined against. This should be a warning to all persons – Christian, Muslim, humanist, atheist or whatever – who want to think that if only their system could prevail and the others be confounded, all would be fine.
Medical Ethics Tomorrow … Cartoon: Asbo Jesus
Ethical questions of the day…
A cartoon from ASBO Jesus.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster watches them watching you…
Following on from Simon Barrow’s column this morning, here’s something lighter but still related to Simon’s areas of free speech, religion, secularism and the public square.
Crossville, Tennessee, has a sculpture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster outside their Courthouse in an art exhibition space.
I wonder what the reaction would be if an artist put a crucifix in the exhibition space currently occupied by the Spaghetti Monster?
Would equality and Freedom of Speech prevail then? I’m actually not sure - because, even though everyone claims that the battle is about “free speech in the public space”, many have a side agenda to exclude their opponents.
[Update 10th April. Corrected, and me hoist by my own petard on this occasion, as Free Speech DID prevail and there had already been a chainsawed sculpture of Jesus carrying his cross displayed.
Another excerpt from the paper:
Another sculpture at the courthouse is of Jesus carrying the cross. Other displays include a memorial to soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a Statue of Liberty, historic farm implements and fundraising totals.
Background:
On her Web site, www.itlovesyou.blogspot.com, a blog explaining the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Crossville artist Ariel Safdie states, “We are lucky enough to live in a country that allows us, its citizens, the freedom of speech. I have chosen to put up a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to represent the discourse between people of all different beliefs. The many faiths, ethnicities and backgrounds of Cumberland County’s residents make our community a stronger richer place. I respect and am proud that on the people’s lawn, the county courthouse, all of these diverse beliefs can come together in a positive dialogue. Here, we are all able to share the issues close to our hearts whether it is through a memorial to the soldiers killed fighting for our country, the Statue of Liberty honoring our nations welcoming promise to all, a group’s fight to stop homelessness, or powerful symbols of faith. I greatly treasure this open forum between everyone in the community.”
Although it may seem silly to some, Safdie adds, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a pile of noodles and meatballs, but it is meant to open up discussion and provoke thought. Being able to put up a statue is a celebration of our freedom as Americans; a freedom to be different, to express those differences, and to do it amongst neighbors — even if it is in a noodley way.”
Safdie was not available for comment at press-time.
County Mayor Brock Hill said, “We are basically operating it as a freedom of speech venue. We don’t deny the constitutional rights of anyone, but we certainly don’t endorse all the displays. I feel the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an effort on the part of non-Christians to try and minimize Christianity and the images that have been placed there. I’ll go as far as to say that I think it’s an attempt to minimize and ridicule the good intentions of Christians in Cumberland County, but I don’t deny their right.”
Hill said there have been some requests for displays which have been turned down and each request is looked at on the merit of the display.
On Good Friday a chainsaw-carved statue of Jesus carrying the cross was placed on the lawn, along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a play of the Stations of the Cross was acted out by the Cumberland Countians for Peace and Justice.
Pleased to make the correction]
via Raincoaster.
Flexing the Faith Muscle: Thinking Aloud by Simon Barrow
[Editorial note: I have held Simon’s column over until today due to the urgent need to move the site - we’re getting there.]
Flexing the faith muscle
The vocal lobbying of Catholic leaders in Scotland over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has undoubtedly raised the hackles of many commentators concerning the place of organised religion in public life – specifically the political arena. As a result, the demanding task of creating a durable public discourse for discussing ethics and understanding science has been reduced to voter management and angry counter-assertion.
How to Engage?
There are a number of different strands to figuring out what might and might not be a constructive contribution to public decision-making from a religious perspective, but they all tend to get bundled together rather indiscriminately when people become over-agitated, resulting in negative polarisation rather than positive argument.
“The growing audibility of Christian voices in public affairs may partly be a reaction to the success of Muslims in aggressively using their religious identity as a political tool,” writes Ellis O’Hanlan, in the Irish Independent.
He continues: “If the imams can do it, goes the thinking, why not the bishops? Whatever the reason, after years in the shadows Christians are undoubtedly beginning to flex their collective muscles once more… But giving in to the demands of bearded men in frocks for the sake of a quiet life rarely results in a quieter life for anyone.”
Well, hold on a minute. I seriously doubt whether bishops are taking imams as their prime role model, though there is undoubtedly a feeling in sections of the church that Christianity attracts more hostility and criticism than other religions in the public square, on account of the need not to increase alienation among volatile minorities.
