Wednesday, October 04, 2006
[334.1] WHY ST FRANCIS SUBVERTS OUR LINEAR LOGIC
Heads up to David W. Critchley of Winslow, Buckinghamshire, for his letter in The Times yesterday, acutely undercutting the lastest version of various simplistic 'clash of civilization' theses. This stuff may sell airport books by the bucketload, but it doesn't help us to get to grips with the actual complexities of the world. Apart from setting up unhelpful self-fulfilling prophecies, that is... Anyway, Mr Critchley writes:
Anthony Gee argues that the world is witnessing a clash between moderates and extremists (letter, 28 September, 2006). Into which category would he place the rich young man of Assisi who took to wearing a beggar’s clothing and kissing the hands of lepers, driven on, according to his contemporaries, “by a very intoxication of the divine love”, St Francis?
Quite. As I often like to say: there are two kinds of people in the world; those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't. I count myself in the latter category. (I should note, for those who haven't, that today is the 'saints day' for Francis of Assisi. There is a free online biography courtesy of the Gutenberg Project to be found here.)
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Heads up to David W. Critchley of Winslow, Buckinghamshire, for his letter in The Times yesterday, acutely undercutting the lastest version of various simplistic 'clash of civilization' theses. This stuff may sell airport books by the bucketload, but it doesn't help us to get to grips with the actual complexities of the world. Apart from setting up unhelpful self-fulfilling prophecies, that is... Anyway, Mr Critchley writes:Anthony Gee argues that the world is witnessing a clash between moderates and extremists (letter, 28 September, 2006). Into which category would he place the rich young man of Assisi who took to wearing a beggar’s clothing and kissing the hands of lepers, driven on, according to his contemporaries, “by a very intoxication of the divine love”, St Francis?
Quite. As I often like to say: there are two kinds of people in the world; those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't. I count myself in the latter category. (I should note, for those who haven't, that today is the 'saints day' for Francis of Assisi. There is a free online biography courtesy of the Gutenberg Project to be found here.)
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
[333.1] A DEFINITE CASE OF SLOW LEARNING
In another fit of establishment condescension, the Church of England has put out an astonishingly disingenuous statement on church schools and their admissions policies. They seem to be counting on a small act of generosity detracting from a larger problem, and as usual will try to dismiss critics as 'bitter secularists'. But this is untrue and unfair. Faith schools have their religious critics too, and there are good theological (as well as sociological and educational) reasons for disliking the current mess.
The Church's stance remains wholly inadequate since it continues to use church-going as a way of assigning publicly-funded school places. This is not only wrong, it is also fundamentally un-Christian in principle, as far as I'm concerned.
The chair of the Church of England Board of Education, the Rt Rev Dr Kenneth Stevenson, Bishop of Portsmouth, has written to Education Secretary Alan Johnson to say that all new Church of England schools should have at least a quarter of admission places available to non-Christians but Parliament should not expect the same commitment from other faith Communities. But the heart of this policy remains discriminatory. It is nonsensical to claim that it promotes social cohesion and inclusivity, when a range of religious schools practice a variety of admissions policies with religious observance as a criterion.
The Church of England's latest announcement is simply a gesture towards social and educational inclusion in the face of an overall policy which is, at heart, designed to privilege church-goers over others in publicly funded schools. It is entirely inappropriate for Christians to seek to give themselves advantages of this kind. Self-interest stands in opposition to what the Christian Gospel is about. A truly "Christian school" would be one that seeks to be open to all and which pays particular attention to the needs of marginalized and poorer communities.
Remarkably, the C of E Board of Education does not even know how many of its schools actually operate discriminatory admissions policies.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
In another fit of establishment condescension, the Church of England has put out an astonishingly disingenuous statement on church schools and their admissions policies. They seem to be counting on a small act of generosity detracting from a larger problem, and as usual will try to dismiss critics as 'bitter secularists'. But this is untrue and unfair. Faith schools have their religious critics too, and there are good theological (as well as sociological and educational) reasons for disliking the current mess.The Church's stance remains wholly inadequate since it continues to use church-going as a way of assigning publicly-funded school places. This is not only wrong, it is also fundamentally un-Christian in principle, as far as I'm concerned.
The chair of the Church of England Board of Education, the Rt Rev Dr Kenneth Stevenson, Bishop of Portsmouth, has written to Education Secretary Alan Johnson to say that all new Church of England schools should have at least a quarter of admission places available to non-Christians but Parliament should not expect the same commitment from other faith Communities. But the heart of this policy remains discriminatory. It is nonsensical to claim that it promotes social cohesion and inclusivity, when a range of religious schools practice a variety of admissions policies with religious observance as a criterion.
The Church of England's latest announcement is simply a gesture towards social and educational inclusion in the face of an overall policy which is, at heart, designed to privilege church-goers over others in publicly funded schools. It is entirely inappropriate for Christians to seek to give themselves advantages of this kind. Self-interest stands in opposition to what the Christian Gospel is about. A truly "Christian school" would be one that seeks to be open to all and which pays particular attention to the needs of marginalized and poorer communities.
Remarkably, the C of E Board of Education does not even know how many of its schools actually operate discriminatory admissions policies.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Monday, October 02, 2006
[332.1] BEYOND NATIONALISM AND CENTRALISM
[O]ur thinking about the nature of the European Union can be enriched by the kind of mutually nourishing pluralism [arising from] the theological language of our [Lutheran and Anglican]traditions. The society of states needs just the same balance between supposed autonomy and competing self-interests on the one hand and bureaucratic, rootless centralism on the other as we need in the life of the Church. And if we are to avoid centralising strategies for economic and social justice, we have to foster, as Christians, a vision of society within each state that will realise mutual responsibility and a vision of the community of states that will produce structures of co-operation and consultation, in economic life especially, capable of addressing the crises that no isolated state can cope with – the needs and rights of migrants, the control of the trade in arms, large and small, ecological pressures, the management of disease prevention as a cross-national concern and so on. If we believe in a common hope for humanity and in the possibility and imperative of mutuality in working towards this hope, we as people of faith are bound to be concerned with transnational structures in some degree, not out of utopian convictions about transnational government, but in order to discover how we specifically and concretely take responsibility for all the things that are beyond any definition of national interest alone. (Rowan Williams, from his recent Frieburg Lecture)
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[O]ur thinking about the nature of the European Union can be enriched by the kind of mutually nourishing pluralism [arising from] the theological language of our [Lutheran and Anglican]traditions. The society of states needs just the same balance between supposed autonomy and competing self-interests on the one hand and bureaucratic, rootless centralism on the other as we need in the life of the Church. And if we are to avoid centralising strategies for economic and social justice, we have to foster, as Christians, a vision of society within each state that will realise mutual responsibility and a vision of the community of states that will produce structures of co-operation and consultation, in economic life especially, capable of addressing the crises that no isolated state can cope with – the needs and rights of migrants, the control of the trade in arms, large and small, ecological pressures, the management of disease prevention as a cross-national concern and so on. If we believe in a common hope for humanity and in the possibility and imperative of mutuality in working towards this hope, we as people of faith are bound to be concerned with transnational structures in some degree, not out of utopian convictions about transnational government, but in order to discover how we specifically and concretely take responsibility for all the things that are beyond any definition of national interest alone. (Rowan Williams, from his recent Frieburg Lecture)
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Sunday, October 01, 2006
[331.1] ANOTHER PEST IN THE LOCALITY
Dealing with religion can certainly mean entering "the danger zone", one way or another. So the generally fabulous St-Matthew-in-the-City in Auckland, New Zealand, have put up the notice you see before you at their front entrance. Writes vicar Glynn Cardy: "This is our new billboard, put up in conjunction with the annual SPCA service. There is of course a deeper truth here, for the God we preach does not promise security or safety." St Matthew's is in the forefront of transformational Christianity, with an emphasis on peacemaking, inclusion (welcome for all), social justice, community life, and challenging abusive thought and behaviour that uses the name of God to justify itself. It calls itself "a progressive Anglican church with a heart for the city and an eye to the world."
Way to go St M's... though [small aside] I do hate the word 'progressive' (yes, I know, we use it on Ekklesia, too, and I belong to a blogging network with that name). It is meant to indicate openness to engagement with the world, and a questioning of reactionary approaches. Which is good. But, to many, it so easily suggests a dubious attachment to the post-19th century doctrine of 'progress' or to a particular kind of centrist political agenda. Whereas the Gospel is actually about the future God gives us beyond manipulation, and the much more radical impact that can make on our present polity as church and as a community of people engaged in the public square - if we will allow it. 'Transformative' is the alternative word I'm pitching. I'm told it isn't as 'sexy' in communications terms. Too bad, I say. Let's challenge the inherited labels.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Dealing with religion can certainly mean entering "the danger zone", one way or another. So the generally fabulous St-Matthew-in-the-City in Auckland, New Zealand, have put up the notice you see before you at their front entrance. Writes vicar Glynn Cardy: "This is our new billboard, put up in conjunction with the annual SPCA service. There is of course a deeper truth here, for the God we preach does not promise security or safety." St Matthew's is in the forefront of transformational Christianity, with an emphasis on peacemaking, inclusion (welcome for all), social justice, community life, and challenging abusive thought and behaviour that uses the name of God to justify itself. It calls itself "a progressive Anglican church with a heart for the city and an eye to the world."Way to go St M's... though [small aside] I do hate the word 'progressive' (yes, I know, we use it on Ekklesia, too, and I belong to a blogging network with that name). It is meant to indicate openness to engagement with the world, and a questioning of reactionary approaches. Which is good. But, to many, it so easily suggests a dubious attachment to the post-19th century doctrine of 'progress' or to a particular kind of centrist political agenda. Whereas the Gospel is actually about the future God gives us beyond manipulation, and the much more radical impact that can make on our present polity as church and as a community of people engaged in the public square - if we will allow it. 'Transformative' is the alternative word I'm pitching. I'm told it isn't as 'sexy' in communications terms. Too bad, I say. Let's challenge the inherited labels.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[330.1] SORRY, WHAT'S A NEIGHBOUR EXACTLY?
In the midst of the UK political party conference season's media blandishments, the Guardian's Simon Hoggart can be guaranteed to puncture pomposity and put the spinmeisters back on a wheel of their own making. But the columnist's mockery of Bill Clinton's reference to the African concept of ubuntu (during his recent Labour speech) suggests that he lives a very solitary existence. Or perhaps on another planet. Quoth Hoggart: "It turns out to mean 'I am, because you are.' No, I haven't a clue either. But the speech was a mighty success, certainly compared to Alan Johnson's." Que? The concept of inherent human interdependence is that difficult to grasp for the champagne-drinking commentariat? Or their dictionaries don't do U, only non-U? What is the liberal left coming to... Ah well, someone give the good man a copy of Paul E. Stroble's Reconciliation: The Ubuntu Theology of Desmond Tutu (Pilgrim Press). That'll really confuse him.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
In the midst of the UK political party conference season's media blandishments, the Guardian's Simon Hoggart can be guaranteed to puncture pomposity and put the spinmeisters back on a wheel of their own making. But the columnist's mockery of Bill Clinton's reference to the African concept of ubuntu (during his recent Labour speech) suggests that he lives a very solitary existence. Or perhaps on another planet. Quoth Hoggart: "It turns out to mean 'I am, because you are.' No, I haven't a clue either. But the speech was a mighty success, certainly compared to Alan Johnson's." Que? The concept of inherent human interdependence is that difficult to grasp for the champagne-drinking commentariat? Or their dictionaries don't do U, only non-U? What is the liberal left coming to... Ah well, someone give the good man a copy of Paul E. Stroble's Reconciliation: The Ubuntu Theology of Desmond Tutu (Pilgrim Press). That'll really confuse him.Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Saturday, September 30, 2006
[01.54 GMT] An article on the Department for Education and Skills' statement, and the excellent US Clergy project on religion and science: Government says creationism is off the agenda in UK school science (Ekkklesia).
Friday, September 29, 2006
[329.1] CONFUSING MESSED-UP RELIGION WITH SCIENCE
It has been interesting to see the response to Ekklesia's teaming up with the British Humanist Association on the issue of ensuring that 'creationism' (what I think could fairly be termed a thought disorder within Christian and some Muslim and Jewish thinking) doesn't creep onto the science curriculum in our schools. The galvanising issue is the emergence of a well-funded group (misleadingly) called Truth in Science which has sent 'teaching packs' and DVDs to 5000 heads of science in UK secondary schools. This venture has been well critiqued by geologist and Anglican priest Michael Roberts. The Times Educational Supplement and The Times reported on our letter to the education secretary, Alan Johnson today, and the BBC has also run a story.
Meanwhile, my email inbox is stacking up. On the positive side, there's a letter from the Faraday Institute on Religion and Science in Cambridge, a 'thank-you' from a leading Christian scientist and a note of appreciation from a 'self-confessed secularist'. On the negative side there are abusive missives from people assigning me to the devil, and - this is the most interesting - puzzled letters from ordinary Christians who assume that to argue against 'creationism' (which, let's recall, is about denying 140 years of science in the name of a woefully simplistic misappropriation of ancient texts) is somehow to argue against seeing the world as God's good creation.
That otherwise educated people could be so poorly informed in thinking about God, the world, the Bible and the interaction of faith and science is a truly alarming indictment on the pedagogical failings of our churches. Christians are being ill-equipped to live in the real world, and are being cossetted in the assurance that their convictions need little intellectual effort beyond the reiteration of supposed verities - a viewpoint shared, ironically, by both secular and religious hard-liners.
Of course there's a wealth of good writing on science and theology - but most of it gets circulated among an intellectual elite removed from the pews. It's good to hear that a major science-religion education project may soon get off the ground in the UK, aimed at churches. But one also wonders why scientist-theologians and others seem so absent from the wider media discourse. I'm about to write an Ekklesia column on 'Misconstruing God and the world' - essentially why creationism and its cousin-in-a-lab-coat Intelligent Design are (no matter how gently one tries to put this) non-sense, non-science, non-biblical and theologically defective, basically. In the meantime, this from the coda to today's story:
Ekklesia points to the work of bodies such as the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion (University of Cambridge) and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (California) as among the major places where scientists, theologians and philosophers enjoy positive interaction.
A spokesperson for Faraday explained: “We don't prescribe a viewpoint, but we take the opportunity provided by these courses to critique ID and creationism as they come up in discussion. We also think that the education of church leaders is critical in this context, and in fact we have a course especially for them at Wolfson College, Cambridge, from 7-9 November 2006.”
Simon Barrow of Ekklesia commented: “People advocating creationism try to exploit legitimate arguments within science for their own entirely non-scientific ends, and they also mislead believers into thinking that Genesis offers a theory of origins. This is wrong on both counts. When Christian theology speaks of ‘creation’, it means that the whole world process, which we can now explore and understand through science, may be received as gift rather than as something to be manipulated or regarded as valueless.”
Ekklesia says that the job of the churches and of thinking Christians is to explore and develop such questions. “Exposing the falsity of ‘creationism’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ are issues the churches and religious communities should be confronting. But such arguments aren’t for science classrooms, where children are there to learn about findings and questions in the sciences thorough methodological investigation of natural phenomena.”
He continued: “Without doubt, ‘creationism’ is a serious religious problem. In essence, as the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has said, it’s a category mistake. Genesis wasn’t written to explain how the world comes into being, it was written to contradict other ideas in the Ancient Near East that regarded the world as bad. Also, it has no one ‘literal meaning’. That idea is nonsense. If you read it, you discover it has two main accounts which differ in detail, and several other poetic ways of inviting us to see the world as God's gift. To read it as a modern propositional account about how the universe unfolds is illegitimately to impose (very narrow) modern expectations on an ancient, figurative text."
Concluded the Ekklesia co-director: “In Christian history biblical texts about creation have been understood allegorically. In modern times careful theologians have understood the contingency of the evolutionary process as giving us the freedom to invest it with meaning and value – or not. Human beings are constantly confronted with life or death choices.”
See also: Theologians and scientists welcome Intelligent Design ban; Schools minister says creationism has no place in classroom science; Exam Board rules out creationism in UK classrooms; Vatican astronomer says creationism is superstition; Archbishop of Canterbury criticises teaching of creationism; US churches celebrate 'Evolution Sunday'; Creationists target schools and universities in Britain; Dawkins attacks creationist plans; Faith schools may allow extremists in, say critics; Creationists plan six more schools; Christians to explore values in science and technology; New Christian academy rejects creationism as 'rubbish'.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
It has been interesting to see the response to Ekklesia's teaming up with the British Humanist Association on the issue of ensuring that 'creationism' (what I think could fairly be termed a thought disorder within Christian and some Muslim and Jewish thinking) doesn't creep onto the science curriculum in our schools. The galvanising issue is the emergence of a well-funded group (misleadingly) called Truth in Science which has sent 'teaching packs' and DVDs to 5000 heads of science in UK secondary schools. This venture has been well critiqued by geologist and Anglican priest Michael Roberts. The Times Educational Supplement and The Times reported on our letter to the education secretary, Alan Johnson today, and the BBC has also run a story.Meanwhile, my email inbox is stacking up. On the positive side, there's a letter from the Faraday Institute on Religion and Science in Cambridge, a 'thank-you' from a leading Christian scientist and a note of appreciation from a 'self-confessed secularist'. On the negative side there are abusive missives from people assigning me to the devil, and - this is the most interesting - puzzled letters from ordinary Christians who assume that to argue against 'creationism' (which, let's recall, is about denying 140 years of science in the name of a woefully simplistic misappropriation of ancient texts) is somehow to argue against seeing the world as God's good creation.
That otherwise educated people could be so poorly informed in thinking about God, the world, the Bible and the interaction of faith and science is a truly alarming indictment on the pedagogical failings of our churches. Christians are being ill-equipped to live in the real world, and are being cossetted in the assurance that their convictions need little intellectual effort beyond the reiteration of supposed verities - a viewpoint shared, ironically, by both secular and religious hard-liners.
Of course there's a wealth of good writing on science and theology - but most of it gets circulated among an intellectual elite removed from the pews. It's good to hear that a major science-religion education project may soon get off the ground in the UK, aimed at churches. But one also wonders why scientist-theologians and others seem so absent from the wider media discourse. I'm about to write an Ekklesia column on 'Misconstruing God and the world' - essentially why creationism and its cousin-in-a-lab-coat Intelligent Design are (no matter how gently one tries to put this) non-sense, non-science, non-biblical and theologically defective, basically. In the meantime, this from the coda to today's story:
Ekklesia points to the work of bodies such as the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion (University of Cambridge) and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (California) as among the major places where scientists, theologians and philosophers enjoy positive interaction.
A spokesperson for Faraday explained: “We don't prescribe a viewpoint, but we take the opportunity provided by these courses to critique ID and creationism as they come up in discussion. We also think that the education of church leaders is critical in this context, and in fact we have a course especially for them at Wolfson College, Cambridge, from 7-9 November 2006.”
Simon Barrow of Ekklesia commented: “People advocating creationism try to exploit legitimate arguments within science for their own entirely non-scientific ends, and they also mislead believers into thinking that Genesis offers a theory of origins. This is wrong on both counts. When Christian theology speaks of ‘creation’, it means that the whole world process, which we can now explore and understand through science, may be received as gift rather than as something to be manipulated or regarded as valueless.”
Ekklesia says that the job of the churches and of thinking Christians is to explore and develop such questions. “Exposing the falsity of ‘creationism’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ are issues the churches and religious communities should be confronting. But such arguments aren’t for science classrooms, where children are there to learn about findings and questions in the sciences thorough methodological investigation of natural phenomena.”
He continued: “Without doubt, ‘creationism’ is a serious religious problem. In essence, as the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has said, it’s a category mistake. Genesis wasn’t written to explain how the world comes into being, it was written to contradict other ideas in the Ancient Near East that regarded the world as bad. Also, it has no one ‘literal meaning’. That idea is nonsense. If you read it, you discover it has two main accounts which differ in detail, and several other poetic ways of inviting us to see the world as God's gift. To read it as a modern propositional account about how the universe unfolds is illegitimately to impose (very narrow) modern expectations on an ancient, figurative text."
Concluded the Ekklesia co-director: “In Christian history biblical texts about creation have been understood allegorically. In modern times careful theologians have understood the contingency of the evolutionary process as giving us the freedom to invest it with meaning and value – or not. Human beings are constantly confronted with life or death choices.”
See also: Theologians and scientists welcome Intelligent Design ban; Schools minister says creationism has no place in classroom science; Exam Board rules out creationism in UK classrooms; Vatican astronomer says creationism is superstition; Archbishop of Canterbury criticises teaching of creationism; US churches celebrate 'Evolution Sunday'; Creationists target schools and universities in Britain; Dawkins attacks creationist plans; Faith schools may allow extremists in, say critics; Creationists plan six more schools; Christians to explore values in science and technology; New Christian academy rejects creationism as 'rubbish'.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Thursday, September 28, 2006
[328.1] THE DANGEROUS DESIRE FOR VICTORY
... is spread far and wide today, both among the faiths (many forms of Christianity included) and among the non-religious too. Christendom is about 'winning'. Calls for the Pope's humiliation are about 'winning'. Richard Dawkins' attempt in The God Delusion to traduce all religion (as if it was all the same kind of thing, and with more heat than light) is about 'winning'. Not necessarily about flourishing, enduring, and life-giving - which demand more of us than triumphant rightness. With regard to Islam, Rowan Williams put it well a few years ago (2001, to be precise). His final comment is not, I think, a hidden arrogance - it is saying that, if it means anything, trinitarian language is about endless divine dialogue, which (I'd add) can elude Christians as much as anyone else.
"Islam has a wonderful vision of divine majesty, generosity and glory,and its demand for unreserved loving obedience has great nobility. But it is a faith that cannot readily find room either for the idea that God longs to share his [sic] very life, or for the vision of a God who can only win through defeat. It is not intrinsically a violent faith, but it is one that sets high store by victory. And it is not able to pray to God in God's own 'voice', to say 'Father' in the Spirit of Jesus."
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
... is spread far and wide today, both among the faiths (many forms of Christianity included) and among the non-religious too. Christendom is about 'winning'. Calls for the Pope's humiliation are about 'winning'. Richard Dawkins' attempt in The God Delusion to traduce all religion (as if it was all the same kind of thing, and with more heat than light) is about 'winning'. Not necessarily about flourishing, enduring, and life-giving - which demand more of us than triumphant rightness. With regard to Islam, Rowan Williams put it well a few years ago (2001, to be precise). His final comment is not, I think, a hidden arrogance - it is saying that, if it means anything, trinitarian language is about endless divine dialogue, which (I'd add) can elude Christians as much as anyone else.
"Islam has a wonderful vision of divine majesty, generosity and glory,and its demand for unreserved loving obedience has great nobility. But it is a faith that cannot readily find room either for the idea that God longs to share his [sic] very life, or for the vision of a God who can only win through defeat. It is not intrinsically a violent faith, but it is one that sets high store by victory. And it is not able to pray to God in God's own 'voice', to say 'Father' in the Spirit of Jesus."
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
[327.1] WAGING HOPE ON TERROR
This from policy analyst Michael T. Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books) as well as Resource Wars, The New Landscape of Global Conflict:
"...[S]uccess in the global struggle against terrorist movements can only be achieved by a multilateral effort entailing the vigorous application of police-type investigative methods and a moral campaign designed to invalidate the legitimacy of indiscriminate violence against innocent people. The unilateralist, shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach of the Bush administration has demonstrably undermined such efforts. The upshot is bound to be but more terrorism and a greater risk to American lives. Only by cooperating with other countries on an equitable basis can we diminish this risk.
"A retreat from empire would also force us to use oil more sparingly and this, in turn, would enable us to address another critical threat to American security: the danger of catastrophic environmental damage caused by global climate change. As Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, our shores are highly vulnerable to powerful hurricanes; and higher ocean temperatures, caused by global warming, are producing increasingly violent ones. Global warming is also contributing to the extreme drought and susceptibility to voracious forest fires in many areas of the American West.
"By reducing our petroleum consumption and relying more on ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, solar, and other domestically-produced, alternative sources of energy - but especially by putting our money into the development of such alternatives rather than to imperial expansion around the globe - we can, in the long run, reduce our exposure to violence abroad and to environmental catastrophe at home." More here.
Some of us will remember Klare from back in the days of the Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
This from policy analyst Michael T. Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books) as well as Resource Wars, The New Landscape of Global Conflict:"...[S]uccess in the global struggle against terrorist movements can only be achieved by a multilateral effort entailing the vigorous application of police-type investigative methods and a moral campaign designed to invalidate the legitimacy of indiscriminate violence against innocent people. The unilateralist, shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach of the Bush administration has demonstrably undermined such efforts. The upshot is bound to be but more terrorism and a greater risk to American lives. Only by cooperating with other countries on an equitable basis can we diminish this risk.
"A retreat from empire would also force us to use oil more sparingly and this, in turn, would enable us to address another critical threat to American security: the danger of catastrophic environmental damage caused by global climate change. As Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, our shores are highly vulnerable to powerful hurricanes; and higher ocean temperatures, caused by global warming, are producing increasingly violent ones. Global warming is also contributing to the extreme drought and susceptibility to voracious forest fires in many areas of the American West.
"By reducing our petroleum consumption and relying more on ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, solar, and other domestically-produced, alternative sources of energy - but especially by putting our money into the development of such alternatives rather than to imperial expansion around the globe - we can, in the long run, reduce our exposure to violence abroad and to environmental catastrophe at home." More here.
Some of us will remember Klare from back in the days of the Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[00.47 GMT] Good piece called The death of debate, by Sunny Hundal from Pickled Politics, on the debilitating decline of sensible public discourse on the BBC (and elsewhere).
Saturday, September 23, 2006
[326.1] RISK, SECURITY AND THE FOOLISHNESS OF THE CROSS
I am very grateful to Johan Maurer for pointing me in the direction of Emmanuel Charles McCarthy's extraordinary booklet, The Stations of the Cross of Nonviolent Love, now available as a PDF file here. Here is a brief excerpt:
It is easy to find hope, security and a future in the GNP, a national anthem, a football team, military technology, Disneyland, drugs, fashion and alcohol. It is nearly impossible in a capitalist society to find hope in the patient, secret commitment to the omnipotence of Christic love. Such a use of life is incontestable folly by all standards except one—Jesus’ teaching that the cross of nonviolent love is the power and the wisdom and the will of The Source of all Reality.
To those who do not believe in Christ’s cross of nonviolent love, its truth is folly, a scandal, an unrealistic waste of life’s time. To those who believe, it is nails, thorns, spears and suffering for others until the blind can see, until the lame can walk, until the imprisoned are freed, until the hungry are fed, until the oppressed are liberated, until the naked are clothed, until the sick are healed, until the rich are saved, until the homeless are at home, until the unlovable are loved, until all sins are forgiven. The believer in Christ’s nonviolent cross breathes in deeply the sufferings of humanity and breathes out freely his or her happiness in order to spread the healing power of nonviolent love as Divine Yeast in the dough of humanity.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
I am very grateful to Johan Maurer for pointing me in the direction of Emmanuel Charles McCarthy's extraordinary booklet, The Stations of the Cross of Nonviolent Love, now available as a PDF file here. Here is a brief excerpt:It is easy to find hope, security and a future in the GNP, a national anthem, a football team, military technology, Disneyland, drugs, fashion and alcohol. It is nearly impossible in a capitalist society to find hope in the patient, secret commitment to the omnipotence of Christic love. Such a use of life is incontestable folly by all standards except one—Jesus’ teaching that the cross of nonviolent love is the power and the wisdom and the will of The Source of all Reality.
To those who do not believe in Christ’s cross of nonviolent love, its truth is folly, a scandal, an unrealistic waste of life’s time. To those who believe, it is nails, thorns, spears and suffering for others until the blind can see, until the lame can walk, until the imprisoned are freed, until the hungry are fed, until the oppressed are liberated, until the naked are clothed, until the sick are healed, until the rich are saved, until the homeless are at home, until the unlovable are loved, until all sins are forgiven. The believer in Christ’s nonviolent cross breathes in deeply the sufferings of humanity and breathes out freely his or her happiness in order to spread the healing power of nonviolent love as Divine Yeast in the dough of humanity.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Friday, September 22, 2006
[10.18 GMT] Here's a cluster of pieces from Ekklesia, relating to my article on the Pope and his Muslim critics. The first two include some additional comments from me. 'Christendom ideology' hampers Christian-Muslim relations, says think tank 22/09/06; Cardinal faces criticism on Turkey-EU issue 22/09/06; Mennonite seeks dialogue on Iranian president’s letter to George Bush 22/09/06; Christians and Muslims meet for religious dialogue in Iran 21/09/06.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
[325.1] WHY CHRISTENDOM IS THE POPE'S REAL FALLIBILITY
Amid the acres of comment about Benedict XVI’s remarks concerning Islam in his recent German university speech, very little has been said so far about the core issue – the continuing confusion of Christianity with the dominant assumptions and institutions of Western society.
Instead, while noting obvious historical wrongs, the analytical stress has been on trying to add up the balance sheet of this particular pope’s opinions on questions such as Christian-Muslim relations. The difficulty with this is that it places too much emphasis on an individual (albeit a rather crucial and highly symbolic one), and demonstrates little comprehension of the power nexus out of which that leading individual speaks... Continued.
See also: Redeeming Religion in the Public Square, by Simon Barrow; and Faith and Politics After Christendom: The church as a movement for anarchy, by Jonathan Bartley]
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Amid the acres of comment about Benedict XVI’s remarks concerning Islam in his recent German university speech, very little has been said so far about the core issue – the continuing confusion of Christianity with the dominant assumptions and institutions of Western society.Instead, while noting obvious historical wrongs, the analytical stress has been on trying to add up the balance sheet of this particular pope’s opinions on questions such as Christian-Muslim relations. The difficulty with this is that it places too much emphasis on an individual (albeit a rather crucial and highly symbolic one), and demonstrates little comprehension of the power nexus out of which that leading individual speaks... Continued.
See also: Redeeming Religion in the Public Square, by Simon Barrow; and Faith and Politics After Christendom: The church as a movement for anarchy, by Jonathan Bartley]
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
[21.47 GMT] Jim Wallis of Sojourners has entered the world of blogging with a high-profile space on BeliefNet. Part of the agenda is to enter into dialogue with those on the religious right, as well as promoting the progressive agenda of Call to Renewal. SojoNet is also promoting various new mailings, including a daily digest and the reflective Verse and Voice.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
[02.05 GMT] For what it's worth, here (Why Rowan Williams helps stem the drift to idiocracy) is my take on the current argument about the Archbishop of Canterbury's Nederlands Dagblad interview, documented well on Thinking Anglicans.
Monday, August 28, 2006
[14.22 GMT] School student interest in religion raises problem of complusion (Ekklesia, 28/08/06) - including my comments on the situation of Religious Education in schools. Once again, the policy debate is unhelpfully fixed by those who want to push a particular religious or anti-religious line in public education. Or those who confuse the role of educational institutions in a plural society (which is to provide a phenomenological understanding of the belief systems that shape and influence us) with the role of faith communities (which promote formation in, and communication of, specific traditions). We all need some better ways forward.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
[12.16 GMT] Liberation after Christendom October 13-15, 2006 - A d-i-y style weekend on subversion, spirituality and struggle. All welcome. Email me for more details.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
[12.18 GMT] Life in the political twighlight zone. The UK parliamentary recess is often used to allow policy to go under the radar, as with the current war on terror and Middle East questions. What's more, the notion of 'a break' rarely extends to more than a brief respite in the debilitating round of backbiting politics-as-usual. The recess, whch now runs from July to October, could be developed in a much more radical way, this article argues ... by reflecting on the now-hidden meaning of the Jewish and Christian Sabbath tradition. And by thinking about civic, not just parliamentary, forums.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
