Firstly, things appear to be changing in such a way that, if the road is followed to its logical conclusion, my knowledge and experience will count for nothing, and I will be no more than a shelf-stacking, till operator.
Next, I had a dreadful row with my sister and for a while thought it would be irreconcilable.
Then the row over the BNP; should they or should they not be allowed to appear on BBC’s Question Time?
The last seems trivial but drives to the heart of tolerance. I wanted to review a book called The Atheist’s Guide To Christmas. It might seem daft to most of you, but to someone feeling unable to say they try to be a Christian without seeing the looks that pass between colleagues, or at worst, being ridiculed, it’s a difficult matter. Made worse by the feeling that others have a protection I don’t. I have seen Muslims preach their beliefs without hindrance, yet at another time Christians moved on for theirs – both were anti-gay.
Why would that happen? Both have the right to their beliefs.
I’m not going to go into a religious or theological discourse, but I can say
that I sometimes I believe in God, and sometimes I don’t. I do believe in Jesus; he did exist. Given that he said things like turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers, that we should help people regardless of who or what they are, I think his are pretty good principles to live by.
And that’s what I try to do. Not always successfully.
So why is it that of all the principles I hold dear, it is my Christian ones that people act to make me feel bad about. Would my review of the book been seen in any light other than an honest review? If I didn’t like it, would my beliefs be tabled as the reason why?
While I’m struggling with this dilemma, I read about the BNP and the row over whether or not they should be on Question Time, and I slammed into another principle; my belief in free speech. Generally attributed to Voltaire, but most likely a summation of his beliefs, at school I came across the quotation:
‘I may not like what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it’.
Much hot debate, over many, many hours, ensued at school over this. If we live in a democracy, if lives have been lost in wars fought over freedom and democracy, then the principle of free speech cannot be trifled with lightly; it cannot be applied to some and not others. Given that Sinn Fein and the IRA were given a voice (albeit by actors at one time) during the height of the Northern Ireland ‘troubles’, that we give a voice to all sorts of vile, obnoxious people, both at home and abroad, then we cannot be hypocritical and say no to the BNP, no matter how much we dislike or despise their views. Driving these people off the air feeds their ability to recruit people to their cause. Public debate, where they have to defend their views, can do them more damage.
I’m a human being with all the faults, foibles, and shortcomings that come with that condition. There is much I would like to speak out about, but I have a family to feed and a roof to keep over our heads. Such is the nature of our democracy, that a humble worker can be silenced by fear of retribution, so I feel beholden to fight the corner on behalf of free speech when I can.
Political correctness and the current move towards State control, curbs and hinders debate on a great many issues that are festering underneath the surface of society. The BNP should have their place on Question Time; all religious, political, and social issues should be aired. It is only through honest and open debate that we can eliminate misconceptions, present the facts, and get a fair picture of what the public think and want.
The review will be published here tomorrow.
My sister and I are fine – forgiveness is hard but worth the struggle - I have the chocolates to prove it! :)
1 comments:
I'm having a running debate with a militant atheist Steve over on his blog (http://borthwis.blogspot.com/). Maybe you could join in.
Steve makes a blanket arch-rationalist argument against 'faith' in all its' forms, while I say this is unsustainable as secularism is underscored by freedom of conscience. I also say the diverse range of beliefs encompasses far more than current knowledge levels, so atheism is self-limiting and contradictory.
Where I diverge from both sides is over the undefined nature of 'god'. Until an agreed definition can be found to discuss then any serious theological debate is impossible - it's just knocking down against straw men!
My own basic criticism is not with religion but with institutionalised religion which is typically centralising, dogmatic and authoritarian (cf the Nicene creed in Christianity).
The conservative politics which go into creating religious heirarchies and doctrines of 'infallibility' are in my view cult-like and dangerous - what's more these are not wholly consistent with the teachings in the gospels...
Anyway, that may be enough to start with. I'd quite like to get a debate going where there are more than two sides on show who are willing to make their case, as this creates the possibility of reconciliation...
Our local area has a peculiar history of being on the faultlines of many issues - including religion - so I'd really enjoy conversing about these things in a mature way. I hope you might be prepared to help moderate some of the more extreme anti-religious bile.
Post a Comment