Viva la Revolutionaries?

From churchads.org.uk

I am in sympathy with revolutionaries. I know what you’re going to say: ‘revolutions so often birth cycles of violence and regimes just as brutal as those they replace.’ You and your concise political opinions. I understand. And I know that a Che Guevara T-shirt should be less encouraging to see on a youth than a Gandhi tee.

But the desire for revolution, the impetus behind it, pleases me. It suggests an impatience for positive change, a serious willingness to have one’s world turned upside down to see injustice overturned, and to see it soon enough to matter now.

I am in sympathy with revolutionaries because, even though, as a Christian, I can’t imagine Jesus shooting someone to bring about change, I think revolutionaries often get a rough ride in the media. Often it seems that if you wear uniforms, own fighter-jets and are able to call your military actions ‘restoring stability’ (ie: the status quo), you are often given automatic legitimacy in a conflict with those with makeshift weapons, decentralised leadership and no state to call their own (who are usually called terrorists, like Nelson Mandela).

But as I read last week of Che Guevara’s granddaughter, Lydia, posing semi-nude for PETA posters, promoting the ‘vegetarian revolution’, I had to wonder if the pendulum had swung the other way. Have people like me, with our bias towards underdogs fighting for change or resisting more powerful enemies, simply given a PR platform to anybody invoking the spirit of Che? After all, not every revolution, even if we can set aside the potential bloodshed in the ‘means’, has righteously-motivated ‘ends’.

How should I, a fan of the little guy fighting back, view Iran’s recent riots, still dominating last week’s news? Sure, the current leadership are not my kind of people and the violence they have used is deplorable. But if it were, say, white South Africans refusing to accept the results of an election in my homeland, would I not raise an eyebrow at an unwillingness to face electoral defeat without rioting? Please understand, I’m not equating that with Iran – but have we perhaps uncritically accepted the narrative that the Iranian people have not been heard? Is my romantic desire for revolution putting me in opposition to democracy and self-determination?

Last week in Honduras, President Manuel Zelaya was deposed in a military coup. Some demonstrators on the street were in favour of the action. Am I to support them as a ’spontaneous uprising of the people for freedom’? Or is it similar to the rioting of the middle classes in Bolivia over recent years, petulant (if violent) foot-stamping from the privileged who don’t like sharing their toys with the poor?

In this case, the sheer breadth of support Zelaya has received (Castro, Chavez and Obama) helps us identify who to back, but it is not always that easy, particularly when much of the middle-class church around the world finds itself praying for nothing more insightful than ’stability’ in conflicts where stability may just be another word for continued injustice.

We Christians believe that spontaneous, almost immediate change can be positive in human life. We should not fear repentance enacted on the social field. But we should always make sure that it really is repentance, not apostasy, and that it is not confession of faith gained on pain of Inquisitioners’ violence, if we are going to support it.

Can politics be redeemed?

Fascinating bit of audio here that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in politics and morality.

The last Reith Lecture on BBC Radio 4: A New Politics of the Common Good.

I have no idea how long it will be up, so listen soon! Superb.

Hondurance

The news from Honduras last week was grim. President Manuel Zelaya was ousted from office in a coup by a military that  has claimed it is worried about protecting democracy but that seems more likely to have been protecting the wealthy from future social reforms to help the poor and indiginous people of Honduras. It’s rare for a politician to get support from Castro, Chavez and Obama, however guarded, but he has.

Fascinating guy, is Manuel Zelaya. He was elected on a centre-right ticket (law! order!), he comes from a background in business and his change in political sympathies from safe pair of hands for the Honduran middle class to someone being praised by Bolivia’s Evo Morales has shocked some in Honduras.

Fidel Castro said this about him in an article: “Coming from a family of noble descent, he received a Catholic education and… like Hugo Chavez, he found the source of inspiration nourishing his sense of justice in the ideas of Jesus Christ.” And dash it all if that doesn’t fill my heart with warmth and love for the man.

Don’t get me wrong. If you’re worried he’s a scary pinko, Fidel himself says he ”cannot be accused of being either a Marxist or a Communist.’

So take a deep breath, and do pray for Zelaya. Not just that he gets back in (who knows? he may turn out to be terrible) but that if he does, he continues to be guided on a path that will benefit the poor and the weak.

Below is a news piece if you’re not up to speed on what’s been happening.

Muslims are the New Jews

Antisemitic propaganda, 1936. www.ushmm.org

Like Jews in Germany, 1930, European Muslims are in danger. Germany at that point was a country that was too civilized, too great a culture, home of great thinkers and a great history to ever be suspected of an eventual descent into barbarism and animal hate that would result in the death of millions because of their race. Similarly, we assume, according to the cliché, that it ‘can’t happen here’. And in a narrow sense it can’t. But that’s because we only imagine ‘it’ happening to the same victims.

In 1930, when Hitler’s party started having more success, it was riding on a number of factors, but one of them was a rise in anti-semitism. There was a mood, spreading across Europe, of increasing intolerance for Jews as a race. Scapegoating, blatant racist lies (the global Jewish conspiracy, for one), suspicion of their insular culture and the unwillingness of the orthodox to fully integrate into European society all played a part.

From faithfreedom.org

Can you think of another racio-religious community in Europe that is also suspected, as a group, of plots and conspiracies to destroy our way of life, who are regularly and publicly criticized for failing to integrate culturally, whose insularity and zealous religious fervour are a source of fear and suspicion for even the politically moderate masses?

I’ll give you a clue: it’s not the Swedes.

Last week’s Daily Express ran a huge, front-page headline that demanded that the Muslim Burkha be banned in Britain, as some politicians are seeking in France. Not quite Kristallnacht, I admit, but the fact that there was no general outcry against such a vehemently anti-Muslim statement is telling of our culture’s mood.

The burkha issue is as silly as it is an example of anti-Islamic feeling. Why s

hould Muslim women not be allowed to choose whatever they wish to wear, in order to express their religious convictions? Are the Express (or the rest of the tabloids) brave enough to demand that orthodox Jews cut off their sideburns and take off their hats in order to integrate better into Britain? I didn’t think so. Xenophobes are, by definition,

cowards.

But it’s disconcerting that we can’t see their faces, you say. Diddums. Get over it. This point is made often on radio call-in shows and on internet comment sites, which kinda proves that it is stupid, no?

From www.mailwatch.co.uk

‘But what about the poor women who are pressured to wear the burkha by their husbands?’ some people ask. And that, I agree, is a terrible thing. And as soon as those champions of women’s rights find ways (or even bother trying) to prevent non-Muslim women from wearing (or, indeed not wearing) clothes in order to please husbands, boyfriends, potential mates or magazine style gurus, I’ll believe that they are motivated by something other than a dislike for Islam.

Am I saying Muslims are in danger of extermination within the decade? No. But as hateful, xenophobic rumours about the horrors of Islam ‘overrunning’ Britain (or France, or Germany) keep being perpetuated, I want you to see the similarity between these rumours (and the much-forwarded emails accompanying them) and those early German films, portraying Jews as vicious, subhuman, greedy and dangerous. I’m pointing this out so that when political decisions (be they to do with limitations on citizenship or wars against Muslim peoples) are made, you will know what you are doing when you do not speak out. So that you cannot say ‘I didn’t know.’

Update: Click here to read a story about the mood of intolerance spilling over.

Is Britain evil?

As Iran exploded, Spain experienced another terrorist attack and a Somali MP was executed by militants in his own capital last week, do you know what the three most popular stories on the BBC website were? ‘Duck charms restaurant customers’; ‘Squirrel nuts over builder friend’ and a medieval recipe for cooking porpoise that is now available online.

At the same time, Gordon Brown was objecting, in the strongest possible terms, to the Iranian supreme leader calling Britain ‘evil’. Evil we may not be, but shallow and indifferent we apparently are.

But does that justify the Iranian jibe? The easy response is to write it off as one of the ravings of a madman or to become offended at the unprovoked insult. Or, as some lefties and fundamentalist Christians might: agree with him. Personally, I do not. But,why is the Ayatollah being so rude? Is there any truth in his accusation?

t-shirt available at Zazzle.com

Britain’s actions towards Iran in the past could easily be filed under ‘evil’. Questionable acts do not an evil country make, but it understandably colours the Iranian view of Britain. Britain for years ‘owned’ and siphoned off Iran’s oil reserves (through the corporation that was to become BP), the proceeds never reaching the people of Iran. Britain propped up the oppressive regime of the Shah, and when a popularly elected Prime Minister nationalised oil revenues and started improving the position of ordinary people, Britain convinced the CIA to topple him and reinstate the dictator. When the United States designated Iran as part of the ‘axis of evil’ despite Iranian help in ‘defeating’ the Taleban, Britain was America’s greatest ally, with a foreign policy and attitude effectively indistinguishable on the matter. You see, we’ve called them evil too.

Image from bristol.indymedia.org

Ah, you say, but that is all just history. But what is the source of most Britons’ distrust of and antipathy towards Iran (an antipathy evident in media coverage and public feedback)? Is it really the (very real) political repression and human rights abuses in the Islamic republic? If it is, it is odd that we don’t have such strong opinions about Saudi Arabia or any number of other British allies with similar records. Or does it have more to do with images of hostage-taking and angry shouting from clerics that are also ‘history’? Is it really about Iran’s support for armed groups in Lebanon and Palestine? If so, that seems an uncharacteristic interest in the local affairs of foreign countries from a nation that seems in reality to be more concerned with squirrels and ducks than suicide bombers abroad.

As, last week, Britain tried to remedy the crisis born of rampant capitalism by trying to ensconce itself more deeply in that fatally flawed philosophy (evidenced in increasing cases of economic hardship being met with further emphasis on private profit as a ’solution’, at the expense of ordinary people in the museum, broadcasting or industrial sectors), the Ayatollah may have been wrong to call us evil. The beam in his own eye is, after all, great. But, then, he is not a Christian. And before we react indignantly we should examine how foolish, shallow, selfish and hypocritical we ourselves have become. We can focus on the falsehood in his one word, or choose to find the truth in the sentiment, repent, and be changed. Or we can surf the net for funny animals, eating slices of porpoise and pretending everything’s fine.

Save the minimum wage!

I recently signed a petition about saving the minimum wage. Yes, hard as it is to believe, in ‘the current economic climate’ (and there’s a phrase that just doesn’t get old, does it?) some Tory MPs ar putting forward legislation that would mean an end to the minmum wage. Visions of Dickensian working conditions and the lowest paid workers in society being paid even less spring to mind.

Christians can not accept this as a positive move. If you believe in justice, please read the message below and take some time to do what it asks. It will take a few minutes, but it will also probably never benefit you directly. With that kind of sales pitch, what Christian can refuse?

Messgae from John Prescott and Wage Concern:

Firstly, I want to thank you for all your help in our campaign to save the minimum wage.

Thanks to you, our Wage Concern shamed the Tories into pulling the Employment Opportunities Bill last month.

But it’s still not dead – it’s down on the order paper for this Friday, June 12th in the House of Commons.

That means the proposed legislation to effectively abolish the minimum wage is still very much alive.

We still need your help to raise awareness of this retrogressive and unfair bill.

So can you spare me five minutes to send an email to the 11 Tory MPs sponsoring this bill?

Step 1: Draft an email

Here’s a draft email you can use to send to the Tories:

“I am very concerned to hear about the Private Members Bill, Employment Opportunities, down for its second reading on Friday 10th June, that will seek to abolish the mandatory national minimum wage.

“You are listed as one of the Bill’s sponsors.

“The national minimum wage has benefitted more than a million people since it was introduced and your Bill would effectively undermine it by allowing unscrupulous bosses to pay what they like.

“Please could you let me know as a matter of urgency whether you still plan to support this Bill and if so, why you back it. I am respectfully asking you to withdraw your backing.

“Could you also let me know whether you believe it is right for paid MPs to call for the minimum wage to be effectively abolished whilst holding second jobs themselves as many of the Bill’s sponsors do.”

Step 2 – Send the email

You can send it to the 11 Tory MPs sponsoring the Bill. They are:

Christopher Chope (Christchurch) chopec@parliament.uk
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Northants) bonep@parliament.uk
Philip Davies (Shipley, West Yorkshire) daviesp@parliament.uk
Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley, Wales) evansn@parliament.uk
Greg Knight (Yorkshire East) knightg@parliament.uk
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Lincolnshire) leighe@parliament.uk
Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater, Somerset) liddelli@parliament.uk
Brian Binley (Northampton South, Northants) binleyb@parliament.uk
William Cash (Stone, Staffs) cashw@parliament.uk
Robert Syms (Poole, Dorset) symsr@parliament.uk
David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Surrey) wilshired@parliament.uk

Or you can cut and paste the email addresses and send it to them all

chopec@parliament.uk
bonep@parliament.uk
daviesp@parliament.uk
evansn@parliament.uk
knightg@parliament.uk
leighe@parliament.uk
liddelli@parliament.uk
binleyb@parliament.uk
cashw@parliament.uk
symsr@parliament.uk
wilshired@parliament.uk

Step 3 Get your friends to do it too

Forward on this email to your friends, asking them to do the same.

Let’s see if we can get the MPs to withdraw their support and send a message that though times are difficult, scrapping the minimum wage is not an option.

Thanks for your support and I’ll keep you updated. You can also find out more at www.wageconcern.com

Voices from Israel/Palestine: Rabbis for Human Rights

About a month ago I was in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, on what one might call an ‘awareness visit’ but was, if I’m honest, political tourism. The group I was with visited a number of Christian and non-Christian human rights, peace, passive resistance and Palestinian solidarity groups (as well as just one ideological Jewish settler) and heard them speak about the situation in Israel/Palestine, what they are doing about it and what we can do to help.

Over the next few months I will be putting up audio and and written material from that trip. This is the first one, a talk by a man whose views I don’t entirely agree with, but who is clearly a good (if not great) man, working for justice and peace.

His name is Arik Ascherman and he is Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights, an organisation that many right-wing supporters of Israel wish did not exist. Here, he addresses our group about who they are and why they do what they do. Inspiring stuff.

Click play to hear Rabbi Ascherman:

Download by right-clicking and ’saving as’:

arik_ascherman_rbbisfhr

Torturers versus nurses

From: http://z.about.com

‘Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,’ — that’s the advice of Colossians 3:23. It’s also the basis (with the very overworked 2 Thessalonians 3:10) many evangelicals use for our (at least theoretical) attitude to the (post)modern Protestant work ethic. It simplifies any vocational angst: it doesn’t matter what you do or what you achieve, as long as you’re doing it for Jesus.

But last week’s news of how Margaret Haywood lost her living as a nurse highlighted the fact that sometimes employment morality is not always easy. Ms. Haywood filmed undercover for a BBC programme that exposed negligence and poor conditions at Royal Sussex Hospital.

The painfully unconvincing ‘reason’ for her being struck off the register given by medical spokespeople was because she was filming terrible hospital conditions, she was not paying enough attention to her work and was therefore guilty of misconduct. Which, from a Biblical perspective, is kind of like giving the good Samaritan a ticket for stopping on a double yellow line on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. Yeah, you’re within your rights, but you’re also a bit of a pratt.

In terms of working for the Lord, it is clear that the moral and Godly decision was for the nurse to break rules, disobey orders and even neglect parts of her job description, in order to do the right thing. But what about other jobs? What about soldiers, who are taught and trained that the correct, if not the only way to do their dangerous and highly pressurised job is to obey orders automatically and without question? Alleged Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk rediscovered last week that history is reluctant to accept the ‘only following orders’ defence, after all.

From: Indybay.org -- click pic to see entire demonstration

Even more simplistic-theology-defying is the case of CIA agents who, last week, were essentially granted immunity from prosecution for participating in what the current US administration considers torture but which the Bush government sanctioned as legal. Critics were outraged that torturers would go unpunished. Righteous enough. But other commentators and the government pointed out that it would be unfair to punish someone for doing what they were assured was legal. And that, too, is fair.

But working for the Lord rather than man is not a simple command and it is not necessarily easy. And if your job makes it difficult to put righteousness, mercy and love first, then maybe you are in the wrong job.

The assumption we often draw from Colossians 3:23, that all jobs are equal as long as we do our best, is wrong. We don’t expect Christians to be the best slavers, drug dealers or hit-men they can be. We expect them to change jobs. We presume a conflict between aspects of the job and Godly values. Why, then, are we so squeamish about speaking out about other jobs where you might be expected to kill civilians, torture for information or take livelihood from the poor? I am not saying it is wrong to be a soldier, an intelligence operative, a banker. I am just wondering whether we are so conformed to the thinking of this world and the roles, values and outcomes it accepts and applauds, that we are incapable even starting a dialogue as to whether one can, in good conscience, work for the Lord in some of our most respected professions.

Here’s Bob Dylan singing about a dubious profession. I’m not sure about the theology, but the sentiments are good.

New review: Norma Jean vs The Anti Mother

Well hello there.

Norma Jean are a ridiculously talented and rather heavy band who released an album last year that is generally referred to as The Anti Mother.

To read a review that is not so steeped in the band’s scene and genre that it is impossible for non scenesters to understand, click this link.

new (for this blog anyway) review: Jon ‘Switchfooter’ Foreman

Me, I’m not a Switchfoot fan. All just that little bit too rawk for me. So, in the words of the letters pages of women’s magazines, imagine my surprise when I discovered that lead singer, Jon Foreman was a true artistic genius. He’s released a bunch of EPs of solo stuff and it is truly beautiful, gentle and Godly. This review is a little old but, dammit, it deserves to be out there, adding voice to the support for a truly unique and lovely artist.

Read the review by clicking here.