A measure of God

However God is defined, fewer Americans are believing. The Pew Forum's groundbreaking report, which we cover today, shows a surprising decline in religious affiliation in this most God-fearing nation of all. God is on the public agenda here too. Britain's Charity Commission will tomorrow publish its consultation on religious charities. Religious charities will have to prove public benefit to justify their charitable status. But the Commission is also looking at how to define what followers or adherents of a religion must believe in. Clearly what we need in Britain is a US-style   God-o-Meter that could help the Commission with this eternal problem. The meter is currently looking at how Barack Obama is winning the faith vote. We must get one of these metrical devices for our own faith page! Today, Prince Harry would come out on top. I've no idea what his beliefs are, but he surely is showing 'divine principle' in action in taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan, a story broken today by America's Drudge Report.

Divine principle is how what religions people believe in might be defined in Britain in future.

The criteria set out by the Commission in 1999 used the term 'supreme being' to define what followers of a religion must believe in, but it is now accepted that this is too narrow. A possible alternative that has been suggested is 'a divine or transcendental being, entity or principle.' The consultation document itself uses the term 'supreme being or entity.'

It occured to me that the National Secular Society might qualify as a religious charity if it could argue that belief in secularism was a 'divine principle'. I asked President Terry Sanderson if this was the case. The NSS is not now a charity, but might now try and become one, he said. 'Secularism is simply a way of ordering society that keeps church and state separate. It is pragmatic, not divine or transcendental. It ensures that religion is free from political influence, and vice versa. God has nothing to do with it. The NSS is not a charity because of restrictions on campaigning that charities have to observe. This may change with the new charities act, and we might reconsider our position at that point.'

Comments

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Re Barack Obama's religion

nominally Christian, belonging to a black supremacist church in Chicago
see http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57059

and supported by Lewis Farrakhan, black Moslem bunco artist and bigot.

Whites will vote for him to "prove" they're not prejudiced. Jews will vote for him for the same reason plus we're terminally stupid ( as those South African Jews that supported the ANC )

[Peter Farrington]

Surely the problem is that this Government wants to tax anything and everything. If an organisation is not a business then why should it not receive a tax free status, whatever it is doing? Who has given the Charity Commission authority to decide that a religious charity, or an educational one, or any charity in fact, must have a public benefit? I certainly didn't!

The Charity Commission should restrict itself to making sure people are not scammed, and that businesses do not pretend to be charities. Beyond that they are just an arm of this high taxing and micro-controlling government.

I am a committed British Orthodox but if a Hindu charitable organisation, or a Muslim, or an Atheistic, exists to support Hindus, or Muslims or Atheists, then I have no problem with my being excluded from the aims of those groups.

Why can't this government and its agencies get on with what is important instead of trying to control everything in a more Stalinist manner than Stalin ever achieved?

[George Parr]

'Divine principle' my arse. I am horrified at the continuing militarism endorsed by the Royal Family. The Taliban is of no concern to us. If it were to become so, then we know we must act.

Successive generations of royals have allied themselves with the military, tacitly supporting arms sales and blindly normalising armed conflict. There is an increasing list of casualties, not just those who have been killed in these stupid American wars, but also the thousands who have had their lives changed forever through grave injuries.

Recruitment videos, in which mayhem and premature death are glamourised, take second place to recent superstar footage of Prince Harry feebly firing his machine gun. In doing so he paves the way for further generations of warmongering and justifies the blank spaces on the recently-constructed massive new national war memorial - with room for seventy thousand more names.

In a civilised world we would be urgently seeking to label war as unintelligent and barbaric. Reductions in conflict would be a priority. The involvement of super-rich, glorified celebrities ensures that we make the same mistakes from generation to generation.

The religious proclivities of successive bellicose American presidents and their allegedly pious satellites have made not one jot of difference.

[Tom Jackson]

"In a civilised world we would be urgently seeking to label war as unintelligent and barbaric."

Good point, George. Unfortunately, in this day and age, if our foreign policy was designed from this perspective, you and I would not continue to enjoy the freedoms we have for very much longer! It takes two to tango and it would appear that there are a considerable number of participants around the world who see the dance floor as a battlefield.

As far as the Royals are concerned, maybe we should organise a ticker-tape parade through London in thanksgiving for the safe return of Prince Harry after his lengthy 10 week tour of Afghanistan, albeit wrapped in cotton wool, surrounded by protection and, no doubt, wearing a flak jacket (unlike some of our soldiers, at least one of whom was killed as a result!)

Was the Prince actually on the front line or was that just a picture opportunity? Can we say we got our money's worth for all the expensive training he received to prepare him for this extensive deployment? We know the lad can party but the jury is still out on whether he can effectively perform his duties as any other soldier is expected to.

Let's save the real welcome for the men and women who perform successive six month tours, their lives on the line every day, with the objective (no matter how George views it) of preventing this world from being held to ransom by terrorists and Islamic fanatics.

[George Parr]

Tom, we agree on much over this. I also accept, in part, your point regarding foreign policy. I do believe however that there have few attempts to dilute the concept of war, wholly evinced precisely by our foreign policies in recent years and our shameful trade in arms. When lucrative contracts for warships, fighter bombers and missiles are met with unbridled joy in Britain, there is something deeply wrong. Past decades of supplying arms to unstable, middle eastern absolutist rulers, presiding over despotic regimes has been a factor if not a major cause of unrest. Allying ourselves with American foreign policy has created a terrible legacy of mistrust, revenge and instability.

The worst charge I level at this western culture of burgeoning military engagement is that through various means, we have been encouraged to internalise military action and war as inevitable, the status quo, and to regard our servicemen as heroic amid the pomp and circumstance. Brave they certainly are. Dead and injured they certainly are, in their thousands.

Many other aspects of life were, for centuries regarded as inevitable, even wholly justifiable, like slavery. I have seen very little effort from any British government to secure arms reductions or multilateral peace initiatives. The uniformed, medal-supplying, memorial service-attending royals support and encourage the view that militarism is glamorous, if not an integral part of Britishness and character building. Shame on them, and successive governments that do absolutely nothing for world peace.

[Tom Jackson]

"Allying ourselves with American foreign policy has created a terrible legacy of mistrust, revenge and instability."

Let's be honest, George; the whole concept of an arms trade is abhorrent to any civilised person.

And Britain with the USA has been at the forefront of supplying weapons of war to despot leaders of countries where the money could have been put to better use easing the problems of starvation, a poor economy and all the other characteristics of an underdeveloped nation.

The corruption that surrounds the arms trade could not be more clearly illustrated by the sales we make to Saudi Arabia, a country which is dominated by the most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism, the supporter and banker for many of the terrorist atrocities that occur in our world and a major force when it comes to investing in Western countries and influencing the economy and way of life in those countries.

But we cannot live in a fantasy world, George. The reality is that unless 100% of the nations of the world share your desire for "arms reductions or multilateral peace initiatives", there will always be someone, somewhere ready to use violence once you have let your guard down.

I personally believe that unless there was a threat from outside our world - the science fiction alien invasion - world peace is an idealist impossibility; such is the nature of Man.

So, we need our military and everything that supports them, and ensure they are they as effective, efficient and committed as possible. And some will die and some will be heroes. Mistakes will be made; innocent people will be caught up in conflicts, some of which may prove to be unnecessary or ill-conceived. But, not all because sadly, not everyone shares the desire for a peaceful coexistence that the majority of people here in the UK have.

There are still major conflicts to come in the future. Some will be due to religious beliefs and cultural differences; many will be concerned with resources and living space. Again, sadly, this means aligning ourselves with powerful allies - who share a significant degree of common purpose and objectives - if everything that we value for ourselves, our children and the children that come after them is to survive. And that means, maintaining a strong relationship with the United States.

Pessimistic you might say. I wish it was; but experience and history makes such an outcome an almost certainty.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Tom Jackson

Re "arms trade and alliances"

It's nice that you take a mild tone with idealistic fools who think that a world without weapons is possible or desirable. I'm sure some thought the same in the late 1930's when an embargo on arm sales was put on Spain - the Republic turned to Russia and the nationalists to Hitler. So much for idealism.

Is it time for you to disband Nato and the American relationship? Some of you don't like us. Ok. I don't see Russia as a threat to Western Europe. So what's the point?

I see NATO more of a structure living on inertia. Certainly, it's only used by the US as a diplomatic lightining rod when it wants to act in faraway places but we're paying most of the military bills. For example, Canada and Australia have been praised to the skies for providing abut 1,500 men each to Iraq and Afghanistan, It's a silly joke. If we need them that badly, then America might as well pack up and go home.

[Chris Gillibrand]

He twice voted for partial birth abortion which is an odd position for a Christian to hold.

[Tom Jackson]

"Some of you don't like us."

And some of us do; well .... most of you.

America is the dominant power in the world and that status automatically results in a reaction from certain people. I used to support any team against Manchester United; now, it's any team against Chelsea (even in Europe!)

Organisations such as NATO and the UN do become top-heavy with bureaucrats and procedures that diminish their effectiveness; member nations start to pull in different directions once the threat for which they were originally established, fades.

However, the UK and the USA should always maintain a strong relationship. You gave us John Wayne; we gave you the Beatles. For the most part, we share common objectives including, a strong Christian ethos. Without labouring the point, this is going to become even more important in the future.

No-one suggests that the contribution that the UK can practically make to any relationship is significant when it comes to military units or economic factors. But politically, America needs the UK in order to maintain some degree of credibility when claiming to act in the interests of the world community at large.

Although there is much to admire where the culture of nations such as France, Germany, Spain and Italy are concerned, it would be a foolish American who placed their faith in such relationships when the chips are down! There is still enough backbone in the British Isles to support policies such as taking the fight against terrorism into the Islamic heartlands rather than waiting for them to deliver their explosives into Western backyards.

As for the "idealist fools" that voice concerns about military action; they mean well. As a young man, I anticipated a world community where we all pulled together, banished war and poverty, put human beings before possessions and ensured peace and prosperity for all. But then, I was a "idealistic fool" myself before experience and reality made me wake up and smell the bacon.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

There are plenty of "Christians" who are indifferent to "partial birth abortion" if the term is used in a cultural-historical fashion. Certainly, Protestants vary greatly re their attitude as well as "thinking Catholics".

Catholic attitudes in America coming from the clergy and "hot under the collar" true believers is that even the "morning after" pill or the abortion pill should be forbidden. This is nothing but attempted tyranny over the whole nation. You might as well be in Iran and be forced to wear black if a woman.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Tom Jackson,

I agree with you re the relationship but I get irritated with the snide little witches on your side of the media/ govt wall re foreign affairs.

Frankly, I'm more of a reactionary than you because I feel the true Common Market for you is the White Commonwealth. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that no one on your side ever thought of a Federal Union with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa ( the last one touchy but it could have worked by retreating to Cape Province and Natal, leaving the Dutch to themselves). If they did, I'm ignorant of it. That type of union would have made you the equal of the US and Russia. With a little more effort in the bedroom, you would have matched them in population.

[andrew holden]

"This is nothing but attempted tyranny over the whole nation."

Unless you are an anarchist that's apparently how democracy works. People argue about which laws to make and then the majority view is imposed on everyone.

UK law allows abortion but also allows medics who don't agree with abortion on moral grounds the right not to participate. That's a reasonable compromise which avoids real tyranny about a morally divisive issue and protects the consciences of both sides.

I don't suppose the anti-abortionists (hate that phrase because I don't believe anyone is actually pro-abortion just as I don't believe it is only the antis who are pro-life!) would be prepared to offer a similar conscience clause if they did manage to outlaw abortion. Nevertheless I think some element of conscience 'opt-out' is vital in a democracy. The real problem is deciding how far such opt-outs may extend.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Andrew Holden,

The tyranny of the majority is NOT how democracy works in a representative republic like the United States.

Over and above the simple votes in the legislature the individual has a set of game rules, called the Constitution, to safeguard his rights as supported by the Supreme Court. There the non Catholics can get relief from a tyrannical sect.

I don't understand why this abortion thing plus the various religious interpretations have to have government involved. If you're a Catholic and strongly believe the Firm's teachings, follow them! But don't presume to force your beliefs on my wife and family.

[George Parr]

Since you are stupidly paying the trillion dollar bills Mr Appel, I am astounded that you are not incandescent with rage at the arrogant negativity of your government which, in many of its pro-active campaigns, has achieved so little. Your young men and women continue to return home in body bags and I am appalled that the so-called 'war on terror' is leaking blood all over the cohortive fools that automatically rush to embrace confrontation rather than closely and realistically address the myriad of destructive foreign policies that played a part in causing it.

I accept that it IS an ideal world where war does not exist, but simply to daub the concept of foolish idealism all over those who are calling for more efforts on the part of world leaders to strive to achieve peace is naive, hopeless and uncivilised to a degree.

We are told that war is inevitable, and if we believe it we can look forward in perpetuity to a world where no-one is safe and our leaders follow the same groundhog day patterns of 'problem-solving' through violence. If you believe Tom's point that we are actually achieving something by taking the fight to the Islamic heartlands, or by doing so we are demonstrating 'backbone' you have failed to recognise the abject failure of militarism, historically.

It seems likely that we should seek to reduce cultures of violence and pointless wars. We might start by assessing just exactly what they have ever achieved. Since we arrive at precisely the same level of meaningless conflict generation upon generation, only a fool would conclude that attacking each other, with all of the collateral damage it involves, makes any difference whatsoever within a framework of resolving differences and preserving the values we claim to defend.

[Tom Jackson]

"Since we arrive at precisely the same level of meaningless conflict generation upon generation, only a fool would conclude that attacking each other ...."

It would seem, George, that as a man of great conviction and intelligence, you are failing to ask yourself a very basic question.

Is it possible to turn a world mainly populated by "fools" into men like yourself? If you come up with an effective method of getting people such as Hamas or those who support Al-Queda to reject violence in any form and to sit down and consider "a framework of resolving differences " that does not result in the need to take both defensive and proactive measures to protect ourselves, you have my support.

Those of us who have tried to live in a peaceful and civilised manner - cocooned in our world of comfort and plenty - lose sight of the mentality and motivation of those whose lives are far more simple and basic. I am honest and realistic enough to realise that given similar circumstances - where it was a question of survival, of providing my children with sufficient shelter and food - I cannot say with any certainty that I would not resort to desperate measures.

So, as I see it, there are just two courses of action that the world community can take.

Either, try to seriously and effectively tackle the problem of uneven and unfair distribution of wealth and resources that leave populations in poverty and provide breeding grounds for the discontent on which men of violence feed.

Or, accept that there is no consensus or willingness on the part of those that have the wealth and resources to share them out, accept the reality that this will not change to any significant degree and prepare to defend and protect the community in which you live.

You, George, obviously believe that the first course of action is possible and, as a Christian and a fellow human being, I share this hope. But as a realist and someone who has had a lifetime to witness the general inhumanity of Man when it comes to the suffering of fellow human beings, to recognise and evaluate the basic differences that exist between cultures and beliefs that prevent serious and honest co-operation between Nations, I believe that my only hope to an end to war and universal suffering lies, not with Man, but with my God.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear George Parr,

To reduce your political points to the bare minimum : you advocate the classic religious position of Israel. I expect to meet you next Saturday at our synagogue for services.

As a son of Israel, as a Jew, I accuse our religious leadership of hopeless woolheadedness. I accuse them of having poisoned the minds of our political leadership with stupid pacifism in the face of murderous Islam to the point of exposing the whole people to danger.

Re: America
A bunch of "Asian" thugs ( as you call them) entered the American house and killed 3000 of our people. It is the duty of any head of State to protect the country and make the killers pay. So far, the job is half finished,

I agree with you, Mr. Parr, that the job is expensive and half finished. The reason is simple: America's leadership thinks of post war Germany, Japan, and the Marshall Plan when it achieves military victory. This type of thinking does not fit Arabs/ Moslems especially when you have "safe havens" in Iran and Syria. It is classic guerilla warfare.

The way to handle guerillas hiding in the people's pond is to drain the pond.

[George Parr]

Tom, I accept many things you say in your post and I think that cause and effect is ably demonstrated regarding inequalities, differences in cultures, opportunity and distribution of wealth. You underplay the effects of religion of course, mentioning it only in terms of your god or in the context of evaluating the (presumed) religious beliefs of others.

In my view it is too simple to correlate inevitability with continal war, simply by demonstrating differences in wealth and an inability or unwillingness to redistribute it, but I accept to some extent your point about taking measures to protect ourselves.

But the cause and effect factor you were silent on was the continuing and disastrous foreign policies adopted by Britain, America and other western governments over time, a great many of which, together with an ingredient of religious hatred and arms sales has played a part in establishing the cultures of violence you speak of.

'The men of violence' applies to who exactly? The spectrum is wide. Do they comprise the Labour government, who in the years leading up to 1973 forcibly depopulated the atoll of Diego Garcia to facilitate an American Airbase? Or those responsible for killing an estimated 100,000 people in Iraq in the last four years? I agree that this is the sort of criteria which breeds resentment.

My point, criticised by some for being idealistic, is that the emphasis on futile wars might be replaced by dialogue. Securing arms reductions might be a start. Britain's budget for Iraq and Afghanistan next year is likely to exceed 3 Billion pounds, if you can believe anything they say. Do you think that the country's wealth is being properly re-distributed? Such a sum, year on year, shows a considerable willingness to spend; massively overhshadowed by billions of United States dollars.

My suggestion involves seeking to elect people who spend sums like these wisely, greatly favouring peace and winning hearts and minds rather than playing power games with heavily-armed tribesmen.

I refuse to believe that this is either an unworthy cause, or that I am alone in thinking that some positive achievements can be made as time passes. If we all assumed that the position was hopeless, we would still be living in caves. Realism can also include hope and masterful inactivity over attacking others.

[George Parr]

Dear Mr Appel,

Whilst I find I agree with some of your points I personally have not referred to anyone as an 'Asian thug'.

Regards

[Tom Jackson]

"I refuse to believe that this is either an unworthy cause, or that I am alone ... "

George, you are not alone and your cause is certainly not unworthy. What you are dealing with, however, is a Western culture of consumerism and wealth, relative luxury and wellbeing.

I remember my parents reminiscing about the Second World War, the shortages, the comradeship of ordinary people, the sense of communal sharing etc. etc. Stripped back to basics, there is a such spirit of humanity in us which occasionally surfaces today in times of disaster or trouble, the Asian Tsunami being such an example, the annual BBC Children in Need Appeal being another.

But a revolution of culture along the lines and to the extent that you desire is a whole different ball-game.

While I may not agree with you on foreign policy issues - or accept national responsibility for 100,000 deaths in Iraq - I have a great deal of sympathy with your views. But arms reductions are only acceptable if everyone does it! You are extremely naive if you believe that if Western nations threw all their weapons into the sea, countries such as Russia, China and everywhere in the Middle East would reciprocate!

And how do you win hearts and minds? I often hear this approach suggested, the latest being in Basra where the forces made a serious attempt to "get on-side" with the inhabitants who, it turned out, would rather respond by laying land-mines in the path of oncoming vehicles or taking pot-shots at patrolling vessels.

Let's convince the Israeli's to disband their defence systems and open their "hearts and minds" to Hamas and the Palestinians. Now there's a bloodbath in the making if ever there was one! The massacre of Israeli's that would follow would rival that which occurred in India and Pakistan following partition! Which side there was trying to win the other's "hearts and minds"?

Have you identified anyone we can elect who you are confident will administer the "country's wealth" and "spend sums like these wisely"? Ken Livingstone spins a great policy!

The day may come, George, when your idealism is realised; I hope it does. What you don't seem to realise - and will never accept - is that such a change or attitude and approach is not going to materialise out of thin air.

Check your history and you will find it is great movements such as Christianity, where vast numbers of the population believe and have faith in a common idea or cause, that bring about change on a scale approaching that which is needed now.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr. Parr,

The English language is ambiguous when using the collective versus the simple "you". I apologize by giving the impression that you, Geo. Parr, ever, ever, used the term "Asian thug". Heaven forbid!

I was referring to the curious English usage of the word "Asian" when talking about Indians, Pakis, Indian Pakis, Paki Indians, Bangladeshis or little black Sambos.
Asian, in American usage, refers exclusively to very East Asians such as Chinese and other Mongoloids.

You know George, the problem with being so politically correct is that it puts you in the same camp with Vegetarians, Suffragettes, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and the Whale Huggers. You don't really want to mix with those people, do you?

[George Parr]

Tom, I cannot believe that I have given you the impression that I am proposing that western nations should disarm as an example to others.

'Getting on side' with the inhabitants of Basra, not all of whom are laying mines or firing on British convoys, might begin by 'getting out' of their country through a process of staged withdrawal, having created such a bloody mess.

In writing about Hamas and the Israelis, the logic of your words seems to be centred on immediacy, and based wholly on the situation as it prevails today. In citing India and Pakistan, you are describing a lament for the past, not a proposal for the future.
If you are suggesting that attempts to pursue peace will fail, based on instant change your argument is not one I recognize and it is little wonder you term the prospect as idealistic. Well, I propose a shift in emphasis and frankly I do not see it as helpful to roll over and invoke gods. Historically, Christianity has achieved absolutely no consensual attitudes and very little stability and peace. What periods are you referring to? There are no precendents for solving problems on a world stage through religion?

Politicians, including Ken Livingstone are the product of society's assumed values which, in turn, rely on a cultural ethic - a shifting concept. People will believe what they want to believe and truth also relies on how accurately they are informed. A large proportion believe that war is inevitable and arms sales are normal or necessary. Many more, possibly like you, believe that there is a status quo which is bound to prevail. For you seemingly, this includes political and cultural stalemates in which there are no grey areas or common goals. Russia is Russia and that's stereotypically it.

Some countries will not reduce armaments forseeably, because not enough people are talking about it. There is no profit in it. It is not at the top of any list. I sometimes wonder how the shareholders of arms companies live with themselves, as another clutch of flag-draped coffins emerges from the Hercules transport plane, amid the palpable grief of relatives. Opinion needs to be truthfully informed. Some sections of the media need to be seen for the divisive, unpricipled troublemakers they are.

I simply do not believe that 'leaders' like Bush are justified in squandering billions of dollars on futile conflicts. A large section of American society cannot even afford medical care.

The truth is Tom that to follow your philosophy means doing absolutely nothing. Leaving it to God ensures that you remain in the cosy world you spoke of, whilst those you define as undervalued anbd underprivileged remain in theirs.

For you, realism appears to mean allowing warmongering polticians and greedy businessmen to do whatever they like with you. There is no point in proposing humane differences politically because none will work. There can be no change. Everything is terrible, inevitable and hopeless.

[George Parr]

Well, Emmanuel, I certainly would not describe myself as 'politically correct' - quite the reverse. However, I stop short of stereotyping others, defining various factions as certain types or 'those people', as if they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to recommend them. And I will mix with anybody who has anything intelligent to say - even the religious. I do find however that some people seem to try to identify themselves through overt verbal posturing - and for some the importance of their message is overtaken by the perceived need to maintain the wrapping in which it is delivered: i.e. some call a spade a spade to such an extent all they are remembered for is their truculent delivery.

[Tom Jackson]

“Some countries will not reduce armaments forseeably, because not enough people are talking about it.”

So that’s the answer, is it George? As soon as we get people talking about it, arms reductions will follow? Where have you been for the past few decades? There has been plenty of talk amongst the major powers and the only result was capitulation by the Soviet Union – and it’s subsequent collapse – because they ran out of money to support the arms race!

And that left America as the only “super” power able to exploit the vacuum by building one of the most technologically efficient and effective military machines possible! So much for talk-talk!

It is not what comes out of people’s mouth that is important but what lies in their hearts. While there is a threat of someone, somewhere using a weapon against you, unless you want to commit suicide, you will want to make certain you can defend yourself.

“Well, I propose a shift in emphasis” How do you achieve this, George?

“A large proportion believe that war is inevitable and arms sales are normal or necessary.” How do you change this perception, George?

“Many more, possibly like you, believe that there is a status quo which is bound to prevail.” Ditto for this, George.

“Opinion needs to be truthfully informed.” How, George?

“Some sections of the media need to be seen for the divisive, unpricipled troublemakers they are.” How, George?

“For you, realism appears to mean allowing warmongering polticians and greedy businessmen to do whatever they like with you.” How do you change this, George?

“The truth is Tom that to follow your philosophy means doing absolutely nothing. Leaving it to God ensures that you remain in the cosy world you spoke of, whilst those you define as undervalued anbd underprivileged remain in theirs.”

This just demonstrates how little you have understood about my perspective, George. If there is a way in which God enters into this situation, the last thing it will mean is a “cosy world” being allowed to remain or those people in need, the “undervalued and underprivileged” being allowed to continue in that state!

You appear to have no concept of the magnitude of the problem when it comes to creating a world where there is no war, no poverty, no violence, no hunger; where the wealth and resources are shared and used for everyone’s benefit, no matter what nationality, what colour, what beliefs.

Stick with your idealism, George. But try to relate your idealistic vision for the future of Mankind with a realistic evaluation of the state the world is in, the divergence of different cultures, the widespread suspicion that one nation has for another and the expectations (realistic or otherwise) that different communities have for their future.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear George Parr,

You may not think of yourself as "PC" but you certainly are nearsighted since you haven't noticed that my name has only one "M", not two. Perhaps your very generous health care system that you all can afford will spring for a new pair of glasses?

Re stereotyping

Oh dear, a whole generation of students has been ruined by teachers who don't have the courage to group a bundle of observations into a hypothesis ( thus, Islamic culture is put on the same plane as Western with only 10% of its achievement)
The process is called "inductive reasoning". The French are much better than you at playing with Ideas.

Not only is George Bush justified in spending the American people's money on defense and punitive expeditions, he'd be considered a damned traitor if he failed to do so. That's his job.

My criticism of American policy in the Moslem world is that, as the Spaniard says about a useles task, it's like washing your donkey's head with Pears soap. America is the Methodist minister to your Anglican vicar, a little bit too earnest.

Weapons and arms are as natural to a country's life as libraries or police. If one has a quality product, it's natural for others to buy it. To seriously argue that "militarism" must be abolished is very "Jewish". Funny but you'd never understand being brainwashed by the BBC about the "evil Zionists". What a load!

[George Parr]

There are no meaningful arms reduction talks Tom, because arms is big state business. Changing that is not achieved by ignoring it. Equally to emphasize peace through dialogue and consensus is not achieved through accepting the status quo or, to my mind, invoking absent gods.

You ask me on several counts the means by which change can be effected - and in doing so you imply that either you have no ideas or that to challenge anything is either futile or unachievable. I am expressing opinions Tom, just like you, and there are plenty like me who do not accept that war is inevitable, that selling weaponry is obscene and who are wholly unable to accept this culture of 'spectacle'. Read Guy Debord Tom, much of what he said applies in my view.

In actual fact I contribute towards all manner of liberal and humanitarian causes, through writing and dialogue, together with some charity work and I like to think that in doing so I might make a difference, however small. It seems more practical than sitting on my arse waiting for God.

I might ask you to explain precisely how turning to God will change anything, or to demonstrate how or when, historically, religion has achieved peace or solidarity, or has brought about change on a global or even local scale.

So who is the dreamer you or me? You claim to be a realist but, for you, a necessity is in placing your hope for world peace with the immaterial; code for accepting you are powerless. Why? Has your God given you nothing to work with? If necessity is socially dreamed, dreaming will remain a necessity.

I go back to the subject of truth. Here, in my view, is a beginning. If faith groups stopped erasing their collective memories (substituting a corrupted version of peace and tranquility where none actually exists) their undeniable relevance regarding the proliferation of world conflicts would be apparent. Equally, striving to elect governments on the basis of trust and probity must be seen as desirable, and even if this presents as seemingly unachievable, that is not a reason for denying the aim.

These things really are matters for urgent discussion and I accept your point that on one level they are ideals. However, woolly reliance on varying notions of gods appears seriously to deny any form of pragmatic problem-solving.

Fuerbach said 'sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness'.

I go for slow change not confrontation between cultures. It requires modifying expectations and I do not have an immediate recipe for that. This does not exclude defending yourself. The 'reality' of the world is an absolute spectacle, existing to serve itself, but the truth behind what is real and what we accept and actually present to ourselves as 'truth' is a different matter.

[George Parr]

Don't be so silly Emannuel!

(There's inductive, deductive and bullshit!)

[Tom Jackson]

"You claim to be a realist but, for you, a necessity is in placing your hope for world peace with the immaterial; code for accepting you are powerless."

There is much in this debate that we simply are not going to agree on, George.

You appear to have no grasp of the magnitude of the problem that faces you in trying to discover a path to your idealistic future. You certainly have no answer to the questions I posed except "These things really are matters for urgent discussion ".

I share your sense or urgency but while you might gather one or two influential people around the table, by far the majority of world leaders and governments are not prepared to sit down with you.

Take any subject today, from the proposed new runways at two of our major airports (in defiance of any logic if we are to embark on a process of tackling global warming) to some form of peaceful arrangement with Islamic fundamentalists. There is either an unwillingness by the parties concerned or outright deception by those in power to back up their "spin" with action that produces results! And I won't mention the Labour Party's promise of a referendum on European Constitutional or Treaty proposals.

As for your conclusion that I think we are powerless; you're absolutely right! We are powerless.

I believe in an all-powerful Being as the only means of bringing about change but you misread me if you think that translates into "sitting on my arse waiting for God."

The spiritual foundation of our Nation through Christianity has united and encouraged a people to great deeds in the past. Only through the ethos and the morality that Christian teaching has provided throughout modern history, have we been able to sustain the foundation and structures upon which our community exists and has been able to defend itself from outside aggression and natural disasters.

God may well come and put everything right with one sweep of His hand but failing that, it will only be through the character and strength developed, not thorough the nebulous concerts of a secular society but through a sense of spiritual belief and wellbeing, that we stand any chance of change through our own actions.

That is the first and major challenge that we face, George. To restore some sense of purpose, values, standards of behaviour, closely followed by rejection of selfishness, insensitivity and a preoccupation with issues and shallow, meaningless people and events that simply dull our minds to that which really matters.

And that is not going to happen in an increasingly secular society. Because it requires direction, organisation, objectives, structure and a deep sense of duty, responsibility and accountability, the absence of which is a major characteristic of the secular society you would support.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

"Silly" is closing your eyes to a real, insidiuous invasion of your country by Moslem elements that openly state their goal. "Silly" is refusing to put 2+2 = 4 when the evidence is there because you might "stereotype". Yes, a police inspector "stereotypes" using the same process but we all know that law and order has been undermined by the Left for the sake of ideology.

"Silly" are rants against "militarism" when we see the result by looking at the period between the two world wars where this same nonsense was spouted. The result was that France and the UK were unprepared against Germany.

[George Parr]

A letter to America

Punitive measures? What, whacking the hell out of civilians from different cultures by shock and awe? Maintaining 'otherness' after years of applying disastrous foreign policies based on a (seemingly) vote-trawling warrior mentality, during which time Rumsfeldt publicly christened Muslims as simply 'mad'?

Whenever did the concept of 'punishment' ever succeed? In order for punishment to work it has to be generally agreed that one or other party has authority - global policing by consent? The reality is it achieves a monumental build-up of resentment, which separates nations, cultures and religions, as the last vestiges of tolerance dissolve.

Of course, killing every last one of your enemies might also prevent leaders from being regarded by some as traitors, but unfortunately not from being seen as unprincipled murderers in the eyes of the rational world.

If you think that weapons and arms are as natural as libraries, I urge you to read more! They really have got to you Emanuel - violence is a viable option. It's always worked before! Oh no...actually not.

You have no idea what I might understand! If you think that I believe every utterance from our government-sponsored, selective and sanitized media, you really do have me wrong! Or perhaps my assessment of your stereotyping does actually apply...

Much in your own idiom; if you bunch of self-reverential gunslingers believe in God ask yourself if, according to the scriptures you continually refer to, there is any mention of the Good Samaritan arming himself to the teeth, in order to connect with those from a different culture.

[Tom Jackson]

"Much in your own idiom; if you bunch of self-reverential gunslingers believe in God ask yourself if, according to the scriptures you continually refer to, there is any mention of the Good Samaritan arming himself to the teeth, in order to connect with those from a different culture."

George, George. The stranger from Samaria who happened to find a man lying beaten and bloody by the side of the road did not have to chose whether or not to confront the band of thieves responsible for the attack. They had already fled with the victim's possessions.

There is no indication if the Samaritan was armed or if he was prepared to fight off the attackers had they still been around. The story is about his compassion after the attack, his willingness and concern that the man was cared for and his wounds were attended to. Such was his concern, we might well suppose that had the attack still been in progress, he would have gone to the victim's aid and attempted to fight them off to prevent further injury to the man.

And, as I am sure you are aware, it is common practice amongst the Western military that enemy wounded are hospitalised and cared for in the same manner that their own injured are treated. Like the Good Samaritan, they are treated with compassion and concern.

There have always been isolated incidents where this has not been the case but I have no doubt that even in Iraq, when ambushed, our military do not just leave any wounded Iraqis lying by the road to die even though they were the ones responsible for the carnage resulting from the ambush!

[George Parr]

Tom, I know that we differ on many issues. Never mind. I also note some of the humanist points upon which we agree. I did attempt to cover some of your questions. Can you answer some from me? You haven't so far.

What 'great deeds' has our nation achieved, that can be attributed solely to having been unified through Christianity?

What evidence is there to suggest that only through the ethos and morality of Christian teaching have we sustained foundations and structures?

What evidence suggests that responses to aggressors and natural disasters are a direct result of structures attained through a Christian foundation and nothing else?

How does religion relate to notions of self-preservation and other aspects of human nature or is there evidence suggesting that neither can exist without religion?

What describes 'nebulous' best - a philosophy based on varying immaterial concepts that only some people subscribe to, or policies, aims and desires based on the agreed available evidence?

How do those who do not share your own personal religious view begin to restore a sense of purpose, value and improved standards of behaviour, or should they be made to be religious?

Can all selfish and insensitive or shallow and meaningless people be identified as non-religious or if not who defines who is?

What evidence could you provide which suggests that religion has ever been able, for sustained periods, to maintain a framework which achieves accountability, responsibility etc. etc?

How do non-religious successful, moral people achieve a sense of direction and duty without faith, or are there none?

We will probably agree to differ? I don't think you can support the idealistic issues you actually raise yourself. It may be that you have absolutely no grasp of the size of the task of convincing a secular country that religion solves their problems. If so, you are back to sitting on your arse waiting!

[George Parr]

So, the massive collateral damage that Allied forces inflicted on the civilian population of Iraq was, at best, unfortunate and resulted simply from their attempts to care for them in a Samaritan-like way, presumably whilst thoroughly punishing terrorists and effecting the regime change that not everyone wanted, 100,000 dead - if you believe the figures?

There is also plenty of evidence which supports the numerous allegations that not all Iraqis have been treated with compassion and concern - in fact quite the reverse.

The point is that armaments are far from being a civilised 'natural' component of compassion and dialogue, and in order to relate to other cultures in a humanitarian way the barbaric concepts of punishment and retribution is a non-starter.

[andrew holden]

"And, as I am sure you are aware, it is common practice amongst the Western military that enemy wounded are hospitalised and cared for in the same manner that their own injured are treated."

Indeed, routine business:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PeopleInDefence/MedicsWhoTreatedAfghanKnifeVictimReceiveMedals.htm

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear George

Really , get a hold on yourself. Hysterical writing is seldom convincing.

You ask when did the concept of punishment ever succeed? Well, in 1945.

You urge pacifism on me yet you have nothing to say to the Jewish dead except die some more. You sit guarded by your police that have been infiltrated and handcuffed. You have an army which is part of NATO and don't have to worry about invasion and genocide. People in countries faced by Islam do.

Now, I could respect you if you went to the Finbury Park mosque and preached the Gospel as they came out. But you don't. You preach to victims of violence that they must stop defending themselves as you sit behind bolted doors.

America as "self- reverential gunslingers" is good. I have to add it to my repertoire.

You are in love with the idea of "the good Samaritans" but not real ones. These are people who live in Israel, they look like me and not Peter O"Toole as you English Bible perusers like to think. There aren't that many left because of your Moslem pets. Pacifism hasn't done them that much good.
See http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/People/SOCIETY-%20Religious%20Freedom

and http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

[Tom Jackson]

George, reading back through the questions I put to you and those that you reciprocated with demonstrates one thing; we will never find common ground.

The reason is simple; I believe that the foundation of the society which has existed in our country for so long, which has shaped the character of the indigenous population and is responsible for the unifying spirit which has held us together, for example, through the devastating wars of the 20th century, is built on a Christian heritage. You, on the other hand, do not. We have totally different perspectives.

This is illustrated by taking just one of the questions you ask; "What evidence is there to suggest that only through the ethos and morality of Christian teaching have we sustained foundations and structures?"

I would argue that the breakdown we are witnessing in nearly every area of our society, from lower standards of education to the inefficiencies of the health service, from political ineffectiveness to anti-social behaviour, illustrate the vacuum, the void that has been created by the rejection and dismissal of a spiritual dimension in our lives.

Yes, there are individuals who are organised and strong enough to lead very happy, successful and worthwhile lives without that spiritual centre in their Being; But, you only have to walk outside your front door, pick up a newspaper or turn on the television to see a parade of those who are not organised, who are not strong or focussed enough to live peaceful and productive lives.

That is a big mistake that people such as yourself make; you think everyone is as organised, competent and as able as yourself! They are not!

They - and I am referring to the majority of people - need to have a structure and organisation in their lives provided for them. Why? So they know who they are, what is expected of them, where they are going. Something to believe in.

You don't believe me? Just look at our young people. An increasing number act in a manner that is unacceptable in a civilised society, mindless violence, drunken and drug-ridden behaviour, floundering about with no purpose or direction in their lives. Society has failed them. Even wild animals teach their young how to behave and survive in their environment!

Taking the one example of education, what evidence can you possibly put forward to suggest that the secular society is up to the job? Every parent with a desire to achieve a decent education for their children and cannot afford to go private, is trying to get them a place in a Faith school!

And the CofE and Catholic schools have the best reputation of all! Why? Because they have the structure, the discipline and the motivation which comes from Christian teaching and beliefs.

Finally, it was you who invoked the Good Samaritan as an example of someone who did not need to arm "himself to the teeth, in order to connect with those from a different culture." I merely pointed out the context in which Jesus told that story and related the actions of the Samaritan - which followed the attack - to those of our military who, having performed their duty in proactively defending us against future terrorist aggression, then show a similar compassion and concern for which they are noted.

[J Pearce]

Tom,

Your argument against George is based on at least two implicit, but wholly implausible, assumptions:

A) that there existed in the UK at some undefined juncture during the past, a mythical Christian "golden age", whereby the majority of the population were card-carrying Christians, who dutifully followed the injunctions of the Bible to the letter; and

B) that Christianity has been the dominant and only cultural reference point for the UK population since the first missionaries arrived.

I'm sorry to put this so bluntly, but both assumptions are absolute bollocks - and any decent historian of the UK will give you any number of reasons why.

Consider first, that there never, ever, has been any Christian "utopia" in this country, at any given point in time. Quite the opposite, in fact - the majority of the population actually suffered the tyranny of a repressive Church for much of our past, which operated in conjuction with fuedal powers and royal assent. The "commoners" of the land - the majority of the population - have never behaved like "true Christians", otherwise we would not have the bloody history that we do. Only with the advent of universal education, has the majority decided to throw off the shackles of religious suffrage and make informed choices about what to believe in.

That isn't to say that Church attendance during the middle ages wasn't high. But lets be honest - not attending Church in those days amounted to a capital crime, did it not? The only reason the pews were stuffed and the populatiopn apparently pious, was entirely due to the mortal threat the Church presented to dissenters. "She's a witch" and all that, eh?

Your second assumption also ignores the unique Celtic influence on our isles. It is entirely spurious to claim we have had a "unifying spirit" over the past two thousand years (ask a Scot or a Welshman that question and see what answer you get). At the very least, it’s a pretty ignorant view of our history.

I think the truth is that the Church has been part of the ruling class in our country since the Romans. For most of that period until now, the ruling class has effectively enforced a quasi-dictatorship on the population. Religion has been rammed down our throats until the point it became accepted as "natural".

Only until the advent of participative democracy and universal education, have the majority population been able to reject the ideological and economic shackles placed upon them. With that freedom comes a period of re-adjustment, including the rejection of false religious premises. This is what we are seeing now.

[George Parr]

J Pearce,

You are absolutely right about religion having been employed as a form of elitist class distinction and with implications of moral superiority and human worth. Unfortunately Tom appears to see the dilution of his version of religion as a catalyst for social upheaval and moral decline. Doing so necessitates that the imaginary genie of 'secularism' be demonised and immediately placed back in the bottle. With typical Christian gloom and self-flagellation, born of always regarding oneself as scrutinised and unworthy, he seems to base his panacea for social healing solely on the hope that one day God will return and solve everything.

This ignores the death and disruption, rancour and division that religion continues to heap on the world and replaces it with a halcyon idyll stemming from candlelit chancels in safe 1950s shire towns. He is a humanist really however!

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear J Pearce and Geo. Parr

The way I read Tom Jackson's argument is that

1. There is something called "British culture", a bundle of elements, in which Christianity is a major factor.

2. Neither he nor I like modern times ( a factor of age )due to the failings of secular culture or social engineering. Things would be tolerable provided that bedlam be limited to your pasty white faces. Bringing in "exotics" into the population, shameless exotics who hate you AND take your welfare (dole) money, and corrupt your young is intolerable.

Of course, English Jews have a reputation for obscene dancing, drug taking, and senseless violence :). I can't blame you for disliking us but give the Jamaicans and Moslems a break.

[Tom Jackson]

"With typical Christian gloom and self-flagellation, born of always regarding oneself as scrutinised and unworthy, he seems to base his panacea for social healing solely on the hope that one day God will return and solve everything."

You shouldn't mistake a reality check on mankind's willingness or ability to put it's own house in order as an indication that we should all sit around waiting for the Hand of God to do the job for us, George.

In fact, when Paul sent Timothy back to the Thessalonians to report on the impact that his preaching had on that community, he was concerned to learn that some "people had stopped work and had abandoned all ordinary pursuits to await the Second Coming with a kind of hysterical expectancy".

The interpretation of Paul's response, 1 Thessalonians 4:11, has always been that, far from sitting around waiting for God, we should get on with our work and lives, demonstrating the power and Love of Christ, spreading the Gospel and, by implication, making the world we live in a better place.

No, George, I think we both want the world to be a better place but I argue that cannot be achieved without reaching inside ourselves and finding the deep rooted sense of spirituality that is both a motivating and cohesive force.

To paraphrase your comment, you seem to base your "panacea" for social healing solely on the hope that one day Mankind will wake up, reorganise and work effectively together and solve everything.

Not only is there a complete absence of any indication this will happen, (even on a national level), the threat of more conflict and disruption is increasing. You may interpret that as "Christian gloom" - I deny any attempts at self-flagellation. I call it a logical appraisal of the state we are in.

[George Parr]

a letter to America

What is it with you and this obsession with sundry attitudes towards Jews?

Arguably, debates with Tom are not about you or, specifically, Jews. The issue centres on a lament for what Tom sees as an ordered, focussed past he cannot actually define or locate, but one in which moral probity can apparently be directly linked to a structured foundation based on Christian values.

Others do not believe that religion has ever provided the holy utopia he reveres. In combatting this challenge Tom appears to rely on associating secularism with moral decline, endowing secularism, which is an attitude that both humanists and the religious the can embrace, with the inability to provide a framework to 'solve' the issues he gloomily defines.

Highlighting skin colour within the context of how you personally view Britain is hardly novel, helpful or correct. And the concept of 'modern times' is, for itself, actually unchanging and goes nowhere in the debate. Its only use is merely to illustrate personal likes and dislikes.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear George Parr,

I really detect a lot of humourlessness in your persona. Lighten up, will ya'?

Let's go from the general to the specific. When I see a common phenomenom in two diverse societies, I begin to see a pattern. Secularism of the Western European Fabian Socialist type has had a bad effect on both Israel and the UK. I can observe both societies, you can't. Therefore, I'm sympathetic to Tom Jackson's views. I don't share his religious views but I share his social ones on the effect of Left "social engineering". The same thing is happening in Israel but the danger is 10 times worse.

Now, to the specific question re my "obsession with Jews". Why shouldn't I be ? I'm a Jew and Israel is my blood. What I don't like is the assumption that there's something wrong with it. James Joyce ( you've heard of him?) had an obsession with Dublin and Ireland. He scribbled a few things about them.

Anyone in the UK have the courage to say to a Moslem or a Paki that they have an obsession? I haven't noticed them.

I mention Israel and Jews because English media neglects us, they don 't take us seriously in the religious sphere, the only thing that pops out are the weird things and modern reworkings of the Shylock and Fagin themes. This blog treats us only in the political sphere, Holocaust Denial or Jew Hatred and not in the religious field.

A couple of gay vicars in rural America get more attention than we do dealing with higher issues. And certainly English Jewry is not represented here, with the exception of Dr. Irene, because they may be busy working and making a living for their families.

[George Parr]

I'm sorry Emanuel. If the critical analysis of socialism and its effect on Britain and Israel is a shift from the general to the specific, then I missed something.

I am also certainly not implying that there is anything wrong with being Jewish. Moreover I didn't say that you have an obsession with Jews. I asked you why, in an exchange of views between Tom and I and on other threads, whatever the topic, you appear to feel the need to introduce issues surrounding the attitudes of others towards Jews. Perhaps you need to lighten up Emanuel! James Joyce? I have no idea who he might be of course.

Much in the same vein, you have assumed that I am British, white, live in England and am only capable of observing one society. By associating me with British foreign policy you also appear to assume that I somehow endorse the warrior mentality, and the attitudes surrounding it, that I spend much time criticising.

I agree that the English media probably neglects the religious concerns of Jews along with a lot of other things it has the patriarchal nerve to deem inappropiate, although I now see that the concept of stereotyping - Fagin, Shylock etc actually does apply when perceived to be aimed straight at you! Or are you preparing to bundle your obervations into a hypothesis! It looks like an indelible persecution complex that time and experience will not erase to me.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Geo. Parr and all,

Some us could do the basic thing and reread our statements.

"What is it with you and this obsession with sundry attitudes towards Jews?"
Geo. Parr

Now to deny them as in your previous post is rather silly. Perhaps Alzheimer's is beginning to set in?

Now, if I resemble Shylock or Fagin in your eyes, if the pattern is there, so be it. I write about what interests ME and if it doesn't fit your interests, please skip my posts. I won't feel hurt.

Returning to the original perceived topic re Barack Obama - he is facing a major scandal in his campaign because of his association with a black minister that pushes Black Theology. For those of you in the UK, it's a version of Liberation Theology originally from Latin America but used to justify American black dislike for the U.S.

Fair enough. Then , shouldn't self proclaimed African Americans return to Togo or Nigeria, or Cameroons?

[George Parr]

a letter to America

Ok, Emanuel either you appear unable to grasp what I am saying, you have no answer or you are deliberately spinning words around to suit yourself - I couldn't care less either way. Keep on with the 'one hit wonders' if it pleases you! Make no sense! Who cares?