Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Equal Marriage now law in England and Wales



It's not perfect but it is done. Today Her Majesty the Queen signed the Equal Marriage bill and it became a law in England and Wales.

I'm proud to have been a minuscule part of the Out4Marriage campaign, and stunned that it is over because it has succeeded.

if any same-gender Jewish couples are looking for a rabbi for their wedding, I'd love to officiate. Just saying!

Read about it here:
Pink News
Parliament's page for the bill
blog piece in the Independent
BBC News
Andy Borowitz compares Her Maj with the Governor of NJ

links to the major papers not yet up - will add later ... they are taking their time!

So far, The Times has a front-page photo and link to the winner of the Apprentice TV show, though, as well as telling us that the Queen is impatient for the royal baby to arrive. The Guardian has a couple of pieces about lethal school dinners in India. Not front-page news? Hmmmmm


Monday, February 06, 2012

It Gets Better!

My friends and I at KeshetUK spent most of yesterday filming and editing some vids to add to the collection under the banner of 'It Gets Better'. We were talking specifically to LGBT Jews, but I do hope the message speaks to many more. Here is my contribution:


Have a look at the others too ... and more will be uploaded as we receive them. It really does get better!

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Belief-0-Matic Knows Me Best!

Via somebody's tweet, to a piece by Roger Ebert, to this quiz, I answered twenty questions and the computer told me which faith tradition is mine. Despite a warning:

"Warning: Belief-O-Matic™ assumes no legal liability for the ultimate fate of your soul."

I share with you now the results I received

1. Reform Judaism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (95%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (93%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%)
5. Neo-Pagan (81%)
6. Secular Humanism (79%)
7. Baha'i Faith (72%)
8. Orthodox Judaism (70%)
9. New Age (69%)
10. Sikhism (65%)
11. Islam (64%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (61%)
13. Orthodox Quaker (56%)
14. Theravada Buddhism (54%)
15. Nontheist (54%)
16. New Thought (52%)
17. Jainism (50%)
18. Scientology (50%)
19. Taoism (45%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (40%)
21. Hinduism (37%)
22. Eastern Orthodox (34%)
23. Roman Catholic (34%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (33%)
25. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (32%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (29%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (13%)

Guess what? The computer got it right. While I am a bit perturbed that I am almost as Neo-Pagan as I am a Reform Jew, I am also glad to have it confirmed that I am unlikely to become a Mormon in the near future. I just couldn't handle the underwear. I am also more likely to become a secular humanist than an Orthodox Jew. Hmmmmm .....

Friday, June 26, 2009

What about Roger Williams?

Having been interviewed last year by the third and fourth grade students in my alter ego of Roger Williams, I was disturbed to hear of the controversy surrounding the full and proper name of the state of Rhode Island, known to most of us as "Rhode Island". Ray Henry reports for the Associated Press:

" The country's smallest state has the longest official name: "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." A push to drop "Providence Plantations" from that name advanced farther than ever on Thursday when House lawmakers voted 70-3 to let residents decide whether their home should simply be called the "State of Rhode Island." It's an encouraging sign for those who believe the formal name conjures up images of slavery, while opponents argue it's an unnecessary rewriting of history that ignores Rhode Island's tradition of religious liberty and tolerance.

The bill permitting a statewide referendum on the issue next year now heads to the state Senate. "It's high time for us to recognize that slavery happened on plantations in Rhode Island and decide that we don't want that chapter of our history to be a proud part of our name," said Rep. Joseph Almeida, an African-American lawmaker who sponsored the bill.

Rhode Island's unwieldy name reflects its turbulent colonial history, a state that consisted of multiple and sometimes rival settlements populated by dissidents. Banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his unorthodox religious views, minister Roger Williams set out in 1636 and settled at the northern tip of Narragansett Bay, which he called Providence Plantations. Williams founded the first Baptist church in America and became famous for embracing the separation of church and state, a legal principle enshrined in the Bill of Rights a century later ... Opponents of the name charge argue that "plantations" was used at the time to describe any farming settlements, regardless of slavery.

Stanley Lemons, a professor emeritus of history at Rhode Island College, said changing the state's name ignores the accomplishments of Williams, whose government passed laws trying to prevent the permanent servitude of whites, blacks and American Indians. "There are different meanings for this word," Lemons said. "To try to impose their experience on everyone else wipes out Roger Williams.""

Saturday, October 18, 2008

a step towards a liberal islam?

the telegraph reports today:

"A female professor has become the first woman to lead a mixed congregation in Islamic prayer in Britain.
By Chris Irvine
Professor Amina Wadud gave the sermon at a centre in Oxford in what is being called a "leap forward" for equality in Islam.
The sermon was controversial as tradition holds that Muslim religious leaders, called Imams, must always be men when there are services with both sexes. Some Muslims also believe it is against Islam for a woman to conduct such services. Prof Wadud took the service, known as a khutbah, to mark the start of a conference on Islam and feminism at Wolfson College, Oxford.
"There's nothing in the Koran that prohibits it," she said. "My own theological research into the essence of Islam indicates the necessity for us to be able to move away from the tradition that restricted women from the practice of leading prayer."

The move has angered many Muslims and a small group gathered outside the college to voice their opposition. Aishah Samah, from Oxford, said: "We're here to uphold the traditions and the values of Islam and uphold the ways of the prophet - peace be upon him." Fellow protester Maryan Ramzy said: "We have no objections to women being heads of state, or organisation leaders. "Women are highly-respected in Islam. But in Islamic law, women cannot lead prayer."

Chairman of the Muslim Education Centre Oxford Dr Taj Hargey, said earlier this week he was undeterred by the possible protests, arguing the prayer service is a step in the right direction. "We believe Islam is a gender-equal religion," he said. "There is a record that the Prophet Mohammed allowed a woman to lead a mixed-gender congregation, but this precedent has been ignored. "Women have led prayers in South Africa, Canada and the US and this is a first time here – it is a celebration." Dr Hargey added: "People thought it was a bad idea to give women the vote. "When Emmeline Pankhurst chained herself to the railings in protest there was uproar, but things move on. "This is about theological self-empowerment - women as well as men have the right to determine their own theological destiny." Prof Wadud has attracted controversy before - in 2005 she led a service in New York City, which had to be held in an Anglican church after mosques refused to host the event."

more about amina wadud.

Monday, October 08, 2007

scratch my back and i'll scratch yours?

last week in the weekly column of john allen jr posted on the national catholic reporter conversation cafe, he interviewed cardinal francis george from chicago. one of the highlights allen notes from the discussion that took place on the second of october was:

"George said the American bishops have asked for clarification from the Vatican as to whether the pre-Vatican II rite can be used during Holy Week, a question made acute by a controversial Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews; If the old rite can be used in Holy Week, George said, a more positive prayer for the Jews from the new liturgy will "probably" be substituted for the old one - though at the same time, George said, this discussion could also be an occasion to ask Jews to renounce unflattering depictions of Jesus in the Talmud"

actual excerpts from the interview follow, which you may read here. they include some discussion of the recent broadening of permission the pope has given for the celebration of the pre-vatican ii latin mass. this includes the liturgy for good friday which has a prayer in it calling for the conversion of the jews. the part of the cardinal's response that stands out for me is this:

"Of course it can be done (changing the text of the prayer), and I suspect it probably will be, because the intention is to be sure that our prayers are not offensive to the Jewish people who are our ancestors in the faith. We can't possibly insult them in our liturgy … Not that any group has a veto on anybody's prayers, because you can go through Jewish texts and find material that is offensive to us. But if we're interested in keeping the dialogue strong, and we have to be, we should be very cautious about any prayer that they find insulting. 'They,' however, is a big tent. What my Jewish rabbi friend down the block finds insulting is different from what Abraham Foxman [national director of the Anti-Defamation League] finds insulting. Also, it does work both ways. Maybe this is an opening to say, 'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?'"

apples and oranges for me. in the cause of interfaith relations, there may be a place for some discussion of jewish terms for jesus in the talmud. however, those passages in the talmud are not public prayers that are part of the liturgy of a worship service. we do not sit in synagogue and refer to jesus as a bastard. in fact, if it were not for the unfortunate history between our two faith traditions, we would not refer to jesus at all since he is utterly irrelevant to either our theology or our philosophy. so i think the cardinal's response is a bit disingenuous. it tries to shift the focus of the issue away from the public catholic religious practice of a particular prayer that denies the jewish people the right to their own identity.

then there is the lovely headline in today's telegraph: Call for Jews to stop calling Jesus a bastard. hmmmmm.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

nooooooooo!

bad news from the united states episcopal church. they blinked. here is what the bbc online is saying about it this morning:

"Anglicans to halt gay ordinations

Leaders of the Episcopal Church in the United States have agreed to halt the ordination of gay clergy to prevent a split in the Anglican Church. The Church will also no longer approve prayers to bless same-sex couples. Many African Anglicans threatened to leave the worldwide Anglican Communion after the ordination of the first openly gay bishop four years ago. The American Church was told to meet the conditions by 30 September or lose membership of the communion. US bishops made the decision after a six-day meeting in New Orleans. The meeting was attended in part by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who urged the Episcopal Church to make concessions for the sake of unity. The Episcopal Church is the American wing of the Anglican Communion, which has 77 million members worldwide.

The BBC's religious affairs correspondent, Robert Pigott, says the agreement will help defuse the crisis triggered by the US Church's consecration of an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003. But traditionalists in the US are already making plans to set up their own independent Church. Conservative churchgoers believe homosexuality is contrary to the Church's teachings. However, liberal Anglicans have argued that biblical teachings on justice and inclusion should take precedence. The Episcopal bishops did reaffirm their commitment to the civil rights of gay people and said they opposed any violence towards them or violation of their dignity."

Thursday, September 06, 2007

some questions for you ...

i just found these questions that i put together for a project a couple of years ago. would love to know what you all think of them ... and also even if you have any responses :-)

1. What is the source and/or basis for the emotional, mental and physical strength that you have?

2. What do you think are the characteristics of a religious person?

3. What is your sense of God/the Divine?

4. What sense do you have of evil? Does it exist? If so, how? Where? Why?

5. What do you want from a religion?

6. What does religion expect from people?

7. What do you think are some negative aspects of religion?

8. What do you think are some positive aspects of religion?

9. What do you think are the characteristics of a person of faith?

10. Do you consider yourself to be free? Why/why not?

11. Do you consider yourself to be a member of a community (e.g. colleagues, a sports team, a class (for learning), a social action group, etc.)?
* What do you enjoy about it?
* What do you not enjoy about it?

Saturday, August 25, 2007

the burqini


if you are a woman who wishes to swim, but religious obligations regarding modesty mean that regular swimwear is inappropriate, this may no longer be a problem. via jewcy i found this website.

Friday, August 17, 2007

pyramids of mars (old doctor who ep)

while searching to see when the next sarah jane adventure may be available to watch, i came upon a mention of an enemy sj and the doctor fought in the ep pyramids of mars. it was called sutekh, described thus by wiki:

"Sutekh, a member of an alien race called the Osirans, was encountered by the Fourth Doctor in the 1975 story Pyramids of Mars by "Stephen Harris" (a pseudonym for Robert Holmes and Lewis Griefer). The Osirans were an ancient and highly powerful but now extinct race. The renegade Sutekh was a crazed super-being who feared all forms of life might one day challenge his hegemony and so became Sutekh the Destroyer, the destroyer of all living things. This included his home planet Phaester Osiris and ancient Mars. Sutekh's brother Horus and the remaining 740 Osirans tracked Sutekh down to Ancient Egypt and used their powers to restrain and imprison him in a pyramid on the planet Earth. He was placed in a remote location with the Eye of Horus beaming a signal from Mars to suppress Sutekh's powers and hold him an immovable prisoner. The tales of the Osirans were remembered in Egyptian mythology — Sutekh as the god Set, brother of Horus; and in the designations Sados and Satan."

while i am not such an old doctor who geek as to care too much about all these details, seeing the name brought back a wonderful memory from my childhood.

well, maybe more of a naughty memory. we had scripture lessons in the old days, especially at a church of england school. the old testament was ok, but jewish kids were allowed to skip nt if they wanted to. i wanted to, but my parents thought it would be interesting for me to learn about it.

anyway, at some point while this doctor who 4 week arc was playing, our class decided to start a new religion. we observed it only in scripture classes. we worshipped the god sutekh. we demonstrated our adherence to our god by sitting backwards on our chairs, doing the endless ommmmmmmmmm, and saying about anything we did not like, "can't do that - it's against my religion". the poor teacher was beside herself. the high mistress herself (the principal) spoke to our entire class. i think we may still hold the school record for the number of times the entire class had to be spoken too by the high mistress in one year. it was our very first year at the school.

i asked my father what he would have done if he had been the teacher. he said that he would have helped us to construct the religion. either we would then learn something, or we'd get bored and stop. rumour has it that shortly afterwards the teacher married a missionary and moved to bahrain.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

peace in northern ireland?

are such things possible? today, we saw ian paisley, the democratic unionist party leader who spent decades denouncing republicans, and martin mcguinness, a former ira commander, standing next to each other as they prepared to begin governing the province of northern ireland together.
Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness, Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Tony Blair, Peter Hain, and DUP leader Ian Paisley after the ceremony at Stormont

the main papers report it thus:

the guardian
the telegraph

from the times:

"Then and now

Martin McGuinness, on trial in Ireland, 1973 “I am a member of Oglaigh na Eireann (IRA) and very, very proud of it”
Yesterday in Stormont “As for Ian Paisley, I want to wish you all the best as we step forward towards the greatest yet most exciting challenge of our lives”

Ian Paisley, opposing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, 1985 “Never! Never! Never!”
Yesterday in Stormont “That was yesterday. This is today and tomorrow will be tomorrow. From the depths of my heart I can say to you today that I believe Northern Ireland has come to a time of peace”"

from the independent:

"Over the years I heard them, repeatedly and routinely, send out the message that there would be no compromise, no sell-out, no surrender. But now there is a new rhetoric and all of the old certainties are disappearing. Ian Paisley, now Northern Ireland's First Minister, spoke of "a time when hate will no longer rule". Martin McGuinness, ex-IRA and now his new deputy, spoke of peace and reconciliation. They both clearly meant it."

new york times

finally, from ian paisley (the auld preacher)'s speech, his conclusion:

""I have sensed a great sigh of relief amongst all our people who want the hostility to be replaced with neighbourliness.

"The great king Solomon said, 'To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
'A time to be born and a time to die.
A time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted.
'A time to kill and a time to heal.
A time to break down and a time to build up.
'A time to get and a time to lose.
A time to keep and a time to cast away.
'A time to love and a time to hate.
A time of war and a time of peace.'

"I believe that Northern Ireland has come to a time of peace, a time when hate will no longer rule. How good it will be to be part of a wonderful healing in our Province. Today we have begun to plant and we await the harvest.""

if it can happen in northern ireland, dare we hope in other places ... ... ... ?

Thursday, April 05, 2007

and then there's that whole evolution debate ...

we'd be better off without religion?

just noticed this from about a week ago on ruth gledhill's blog. richard dawkins, professor a.c. grayling, and christopher hitchens were speaking for the motion. against it were professor roger scruton, nigel spivey, and my godmother. the chair was one of my late father's favourite (not so) secret crushes - joan bakewell (her autobiography was the last thing he read before he died).

the debaters won the motion, leading at the beginning of the discussion, and increasing their lead at the end. as ruth points out early on, this was not a debate about the existence of god. as i often remind myself, i believe and feel that religion is something that we humans created to help ourselves deal with questions about the unknown in our world, e.g., our origins, what happens after we die, and what is the best way to live the lives that we have. as i read her, ruth felt that religion is essentially about the search for and expression of love for both the transcendant and each other. as for the star of the debate, and ruth's response:

"'There are very good grounds to believe there is no actual truth in the claims of religion. I rather liken it to a child with a dummy in its mouth. I do not think it a very dignified or respect-worthy posture for an adult to go around sucking a dummy for comfort,' said Dawkins, perpetuating a common but gross misunderstanding of why people need religion. Some of us, I suspect quite a lot, are not religious for comfort. It is because we need to be battered, reduced, to have our monstrous egos squashed so we can control them properly. Speaking entirely for myself here of course."

but what about community? of course each individual has her/his personal perspective. is there, however, no benefit to the individual from being part of a like-minded group? going back to what dave thomas said about football ... relationships, connections, mutual support (which is not the same as sucking a dummy for comfort) ... that certainly makes sense to me. i don't know enough about xianity to discuss the concept of a personal jesus. i do know enough about judaism to state that community is central to our religious identity. our synagogues are never just houses of prayer. they are houses of study, and houses of meeting.

if we no longer feel able to be part of our religious communities of origin, how on earth will we be able to find a way to live in peace with other religious communities?

Sunday, February 25, 2007

jehovah's witnesses sextuplets in vancouver

catherine philp wrote in yesterday's times:

"The birth of Canada’s first sextuplets should have been cause for celebration. But their struggle for life has provoked a ferocious battle pitching Church against State and a child’s right to life against parents’ rights to practise their faith.

When the four boys and two girls were born nearly three months prematurely in early January, they were hailed as a miracle. The mother, on being told that she was carrying multiple foetuses, had been offered “selective reduction”, a procedure to remove several foetuses to help to ensure the survival of the others. She refused.

At birth, the babies weighed less than two pounds (1kg) each, and measured less than an outstretched adult hand. They were put into incubators but within a week two had died. Doctors told the parents that the surviving infants desperately needed blood transfusions if they were to survive, but once again the parents refused."

the full article is here

according to the way the JW's understand their old testament, and the book of acts in the nt, xians are forbidden to ingest blood in any form or way. one result of this is their refusal to accept blood transfusions.

when i was a chaplain in a new jersey hospital about 15 years ago, there was a similar situation, with the parents refusing a transfusion for their small child. they believed it was god's will and that the child would go straight to god in heaven. the chaplains were called in to counsel the nurses, who were utterly confused, angry and distressed about this. the child died.

the thing is, while i abhor anyone using a scriptural text out of context to justify behaviour that causes emotional or physical pain and death, i will still take a moment to look at it from a textual context.

ok - these guys have as a key text leviticus 17:10:

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

fine, that is there. there is more text in the same book, though. who decides which is more important? let's look a few paragraphs later in chapter 19, verse 16:

"... neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour"

in judaism, this is the source of the concept 'pikuach nefesh', i.e., that a person must do everything possible to save the life of another, even donating bodily organs. not only that, but also the commandments of shabbat may be broken in order to save life. unless it will endanger one's own life, we are required to do all we can to save human life.

it is therefore incomprehensible to me how anyone could use text to allow a child to die, for religious reasons. what would that nice JEWISH boy jesus do, eh? 'pikuach nefesh' - save the children! aaaaargh!

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

one giant step back

woke up to the news that the leaders of the anglican communion have given the american episcopalian branch about 7 months to ban blessings of same sex unions. this is where i read it.

the leader of the communion, the archbishop of canterbury, said: (this is) “an interim solution that certainly falls very short of resolving all the disputes.”

the article notes that: "The primates said their instructions were intended to reassure other Anglicans “who have lost faith in the Episcopal Church,” to minister to conservative Episcopalians who have rebelled against their leadership’s more liberal stance and ultimately to curtail efforts by bishops from other countries to take over parishes within the United States."

hmmmm ... in the usa they are fighting right now about who gets to keep the property if conservative parishes try to secede from the episcopal church.

i'm sorry, i need to rant for a moment:

WITH ALL THE TERRIBLE THINGS HAPPENING IN OUR WORLD AT THE MOMENT LIKE WAR AND POVERTY AND CHILDREN DYING OF HUNGER, THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IS GETTING ITS KNICKERS IN A TWIST ABOUT THIS? FOR GOD'S SAKE!

i think that libby purves and i are actually on the same page.

ok. rant curtailed. for now.

meanwhile, in the times ruth gledhill reports that there are plans to reunite the anglican church with the roman catholics under the leadership of the pope. she writes:

"Were this week’s discussions to lead to a split between liberals and conservatives, many of the former objections in Rome to a reunion with Anglican conservatives would disappear. Many of those Anglicans who object most strongly to gay ordination also oppose the ordination of women priests.

Rome has already shown itself willing to be flexible on the subject of celibacy when it received dozens of married priests from the Church of England into the Catholic priesthood after they left over the issue of women’s ordination."

ruth discusses the issue more in her blog

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

bishop of southwark - 'the boozy bish'

o dear o dear o dear. another clergyperson bites the dust. of all the pieces in all the papers, i present to you ruth gledhill's blog from the times. why this one? she is the newspaper's religious correspondent, she writes well, and she was always nice to my father :-)

it is, however, a conundrum for me - to be a spiritual leader, that everyone expects to be an exemplar; and at the same time to be oneself, which includes some percentage of imperfection and major messing-up. i tell you, who'd be in the religion business?!

"Bishop of Southwark: 'Bished as a newt'

Mass at my heavenly church of St Anne's Kew this morning was chacterstically high and, after the children came back in from Junior Church, noisy too. Then at the end Father Nigel gave his flock a little unexpected bonus track. He lowered his eyes and said: "Now I want you all to say a prayer for our Bishop, Tom Butler, and his wife, who as some of you may realise have been in the papers recently." He didn't elaborate on why, just urged caution before any of us rushed to judgment, and, with characteristic generosity of spirit, repeated his admonition to pray. Never before have I known such silence in our beautiful church, packed as usual with standing room only. It was a silence of stunned profundity and wonderment. Father Nigel had left them all flummoxed, wondering indeed at what on earth had happened. Because as became clear from the number of people who discreetly probed me over coffee afterwards, few in Kew read The Mirror (from whom my headline is borrowed), The Sun or The Mail on Sunday. And if they read The Sunday Times, as I would hope, they clearly do it only after church. Definitely worth reading though is Stephen Bates in The Guardian. I also did a piece with Sean O'Neill, who is Irish and was actually at the Embassy party in question. "I don't know the Bishop of Southwark personally," he told me. "But there was a very garrulous clergyman there, walking around saying: 'I am the Bishop of Southwark'."

Some of them do read my blog, however. They were slightly perplexed, given my report, about our parish priest's request that we be generous in our response to events. I offered them my own sober analysis, adding my concern that sending the Bishop a bottle of high quality champagne, might not perhaps have been the best thing to do in the circumstances.

"Bished", of course, was in the 1950s a Jennings-style term meaning done for, useless, no good. I am not saying poor Tom Butler is now bished as well as bashed, but this case does raise some interesting issues.

An inconvtrovertible fact is that what he claimed about the incident has been shown to be untrue. According to the information he conveyed to his spokeswoman Wendy Robbins, which she conveyed to me when I first enquired about the story early last week, he was asserting that he had been mugged.

Well if being thrown out of a Mercedes, in Crucifix Lane of all places, after throwing the owner's children's toys off the back seat constitutes being mugged, I suppose he was. He claimed he could remember none of this and I choose to think he was not being less than truthful in his mugging story. "I'm the Bishop of Southwark. It's what I do," was his memorable response when the owner of the car confronted him after the car alarm went off on the Mercedes.

According to the reports, he had drunk copious amounts of Portugese red wine at the embassy function he attended in Belgravia beforehand. It was the Irish embassy. Possibly, he was drunk. One of the symptoms of extreme drunkenness is the "alcoholic blackout". Few people without a drink problem suffer these frightening episodes, even if they drink heavily at Christmas functions. "Normal" people who have never known what it is like to be addicted to alcohol might find this difficult to believe, but when blackout kicks in it is possible to lose an entire evening, day, even a week from one's memory. The excess alcohol effects some weird chemical reaction in the brain which disables the memory receptors. It also disables the usual societal inhibitors, so it is during those times that alcoholics do the most inconceivably awful and embarrassing and sometimes hateful things. Many murders, as prisoners will testify, are committed in blackout. It is understandable that those left with cleaning up the mess afterwards are sceptical when the perpetrators of these heinous acts claim not be be able to remember, but it is true. You really cannot remember a thing after blackout.

I don't understand the process but I certainly understand the effects. It has to be a possibility that the Bishop suffered one of these blackouts. So it would be unfair to assume the mugging story was a lie. It seems far more likely to me that he genuinely believed he had been mugged, given the evidence of the black eye, bump on head and missing mobile, briefcase and glasses. (It was of course the briefcase's appearance in the back of the Mercedes that alerted the owners to the illustrious nature of their temporary passenger.)

The other possibility is that he has suffered a cerebral medical problem, a minor stoke or something similar. This would be truly awful. But there seems no doubt, from the reports in the Sunday papers, that he had been drinking.

One issue, as far as I can see, is how this reflects on him given his own treatment of clergy in the Southwark diocese. As someone who has worshipped for the past 15 years at the very least at three different churches in the diocese, and who meets clergy from Southwark and neighbouring dioceses regularly at General Synod, I have been witness to the effects of Bishop Tom's inimitable pastoral approach to his own errant and indeed inerrant clergy. Put simply, as one lay person said to me when they telephoned yesterday: "Ruth, I feel sorry for the man but let's face it, if my vicar had done this he probably would not have survived."

To me, this all represents a fantastic opportunity for the Bishop, who naturally enough, heads the Church of England's social responsibility arm. (Doesn't God have a fantastic sense of humour sometimes?). He should not resign. Or at least not yet. He is 66 for goodness sake, and surely cannot be that far of retirement in any case.

But let's remember the churches' advertising campaign this Christmas, one done with the support of the Church of England and other mainstream churches. The posters show an empty beer glass, with the face of Jesus etched out in the foam on the side. Let's hope the Bishop of Southwark can now also be inspired to find Jesus in his cups, and take advantage of the powerful opportunity for witness to the nation that this represents. In the end, all I can personally do is look with awe at the headlines, whisper, "There but for the grace of God...", and pray."

Friday, November 17, 2006

lessons of the holocaust

today the independent newspaper discusses the pros and cons of a new scheme to take 2 sixth-formers from every school in the united kingdom - more than 6000 students - to visit auschwitz in the next 3 years. the government, and gordon brown in particular, are behind this scheme.

"But not everyone agrees with the idea, arguing that it is an odd use of taxpayers' money - albeit a relatively small amount - and that there are other ways to teach children about atrocities. The critics also complain that it keeps Britain locked in an old-fashioned 60-year-old mindset about Germany and about British relationships with that country when, in reality, they have changed beyond all recognition."

the paper spoke to the head of education at the holocaust educational trust, kay andrews:

"The Holocaust has lessons to teach us today, but Andrews does not resort to the pat exhortation, "never again". He says: "It's lame to say 'never again' because there has been more genocide in the past 60 years, and of course there is still prejudice in the world. But I think learning about the Holocaust can inspire young people to try to make their own little world a better place, by doing something to prevent bullying or prejudice when they see it.""

on the other hand:

"Not everyone, however, agrees that taking students to Auschwitz is the way to put the memory of the Holocaust to use. Some question government backing for a trip to one particular atrocity site. Others say you don't have to physically visit such places. "You don't have to go to Auschwitz to appreciate the horrors of the period," says Professor Frank Furedi, whose mother survived the concentration camps, and who has been critical of the Government's "sanctimonious" approach to the Holocaust before.

"I think that Auschwitz and the camps have come to serve a symbolic purpose as a metaphor for evil in the imagination," he argues. "Learning about the Holocaust has become a rite of passage for schoolchildren. The Government uses it to try to inspire a moral literacy in young people, and I think that's a bad way to go about it. In a time when morality, good and evil are uncertain concepts, there's an impoverishment in using the Holocaust as a standard of good and evil. Atrocities are not the only way to get children to think about morality, or right and wrong. We should look more at good things, at human achievement rather than destruction and catastrophe.""

for me, especially as the time will soon be here when there are no more living witnesses, people need to go to the place and see that it is real. they need to see the ovens, and the piles of spectacles, and the shoes, and everything. if all you do is read about it then it is a lot easier to deny it. of course, i have a vested interest in perpetuating the memory of the shoah, with regard to the influence it had on my family. i hope i also have a vested interest with regard to the development of humanity, in that seeing to what depths human beings may sink will inspire others to defy evil. it's all very well celebrating human achievement, but surely the overcoming of our flaws is the greatest achievement of all?

the independent article was by tim walker

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

from madeleine l'engle's commonplace book

i just learned about commonplace books from lemony snicket, and it turns out i have had one for a long time ... the notebook in which i gather words and poems that i like. My poetry book includes stevie smith, dorothy parker, william blake, brian patten, a a milne, dylan thomas, jenny joseph, wilfred owen, ogden nash and sylvia plath. o, and gerard manley hopkins, she added. of course, like thousands of brits, my favourite poem has to be 'jabberwocky'.

anyway, i was reading 'walking on water' by madeleine l'engle. why? because i had finished the artemis fowl book from the library, i'd already read both patricia cornwells, and i wasn't in the mood for 'the star of redemption'. i like to have someone to talk to when i eat, and this book was on the top of the pile on my kitchen table. however, i got no further than the following quote from francis of assisi (p 25):

"In pictures of God and the blessed Virgin painted on wood, God and the blessed Virgin are held in mind, yet the wood and the painting ascribe nothing to themselves, because they are just wood and paint; so the servant of God is a kind of painting, that is, a creature of God in which God is honoured for the sake of his benefits. But he ought to ascribe nothing to himself, just like the wood or the painting, but should render honour and glory to God alone."

l'engle was talking about the symbolism of icons, but since i come from a tradition that proscribes the creation of images of the divine, that did not grab me. at first glance, it seemed to be simply about humility, that each human body is not actually divine, but rather a medium for the expression of the divine. and we should not get confused and start to believe our own press, i.e., that we deserve the kudos for being as wonderful as we are. then i started to think about, well actually the next thought was the picture of dorian gray. you know - the effect the decay of the soul has on the physical body. we do have some power over this creation - is it only the power to destroy?

what is the difference between humility and submission? perhaps humility is having no desire for kudos, and submission is either forced or voluntary acceptance of a power greater than one's self. while traditional jews are required to submit to the yoke of the commandments, they are free to choose so not to do. are the commandments the act of painting? and since we are in a covenantal relationship we have to take part in that act? or am i pushing this too far? hmmmmm.

Monday, November 13, 2006

elton john says ban all religions

in today's sunday observer, they present a conversation between elton john and jake shears from the scissor sisters. mainly they talk about being famous gays, but the passage that will probably get the headlines is this one:

"EJ: I just find it more human. We should all be together. I've got this really naive idea of what life should be like - it's an idealistic idea but it's completely integrated. We can't keep thinking of gay people as being ostracised; we can't keep thinking of Muslim people as being [ostracised] because of the fundamentalism that occurs in Islam. Muslim people have to do something about speaking up about it. We can't judge a book by its cover.

From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate.

The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave; why aren't they coming together? I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts: instead of more violence why isn't there a [meeting of religious leaders]. It's all got to be dialogue - that's the only way. Get everybody from each religion together and say 'Listen, this can't go on. Why do we have all this hatred?'

We are all God's people; we have to get along and the [religious leaders] have to lead the way. If they don't do it, who else is going to do it? They're not going to do it and it's left to musicians or to someone else to deal with it. It's like the peace movement in the Sixties - musicians got through [to people] by getting out there and doing peace concerts but we don't seem to do them any more. We seem to be doing fundraisers for Africa and everything like that but I think peace is really important. If John Lennon were alive today he'd be leading it with a vengeance."

well, elton, i am glad you are there to give peace a chance.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

selichot

one of my favourite parts of the torah is in the book of numbers, at the beginning of chapter 14. the children of israel are complaining again, wishing they were dead, or back in egypt; and contemplating returning to egypt. a few chapters earlier i love the bit where they remember the melons and cucumbers and leeks they used to eat in the good old days! anyway, despite the pleas of moses and his guys, the congregation threatens to get nasty and are about to stone them when god shows up in the tabernacle. god is utterly fed up, and suggests that god will destroy them all and start all over again with moses. this could be a big opportunity for moses - to be the founder of a whole new, and hopefully better, people! so what does moses say? listen god - i think this is really bad p.r. for you. if you kill the children of israel now, the egyptians and the others won't be saying o well they were really whiny and totally deserved all they got. no, god, these guys will be saying that you are all mouth and no trousers. you made big promises, but you just couldn't follow through. don't you think it would be a better move to forgive the children of israel and give them another chance? and god responds: good point, moses. i shall do as you say.

WHAT WAS THAT?!

the holy sacred torah has a passage in it where moses argues with god, and not only is not struck down, but also changes god's mind?

indeed it is so. and it is not the only place in the torah where god's mind is changed after a discussion with a human.

this is such an important moment - i don't understand why it is not one of the most famous parts of all the torah. moses' words requesting pardon are part of our atonement services. the previous verses, however, where he dares to argue with god, are not highlighted.

i have so much to say about this, and no idea where to start.

first of all i'll go with brit, which i choose to translate as covenant. by this i mean a relationship, that i often describe on the one hand as a deal, i.e., god gets this and we get that; and on the other hand as a partnership, where we agree to work together towards a particular goal.

try and forget about all the power stuff with superman god smiting us according to his will and punishing us with his absence.

try and think about being in a relationship with someone that you think you could like if you got to know them better.

what kind of things might you do to develop this relationship in a positive way?

perhaps most organised religions started out as a way of gathering together the things they thought would help to develop this relationship.

the problem for me is that over time many people forgot that their records, their sacred scriptures, and the rituals that they had developed over the years, that these things were supposed to help them, rather than oppress them. by this i do not mean to say that if something is too difficult then it is ok to just bin it. i am trying to talk more about how the forms themselves become sacred over time, and the content within them, the thoughts and feelings that engendered them, start to melt into the faraway corners of memory.

trying to get back to the point here ... why am i so excited about the above passage of torah? because god listens. and god is flexible. and god is flexible enough to hear something difficult, and not let pride stop god from changing god's response. even the greatest power that the human mind can posit is able to turn and say hmmmmm maybe there is another way to do things. not only that, but god also is the one to begin the conversation.

whether you believe in god or not, is not the question. whether you believe in relationship, or not - that is the question! if so, what follows logically for me is how do i figure out how to be in relationship with anyone and anything? and that's where selichot comes in! selichot is a time put aside every year as we start to prepare for the new year. the summer is ending (unless you are in the southern hemisphere of course. apologies for my northerncentric perspective). it is a time when we can check in on our relationships, when we can turn to each other and ask, "are you ok?" and then, i hope, i can listen to the answer.