Ryan Anderson debates gay marriage with Piers Morgan

I had never heard of Ryan Anderson before but he stands up well to hostile cross examination by Piers Morgan and guests. Clearly set up for a fall he more than holds his own and despite being goaded remains courteous throughout. Well done!

"The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood.

As soon as I started reading this it immediately reminded me of an earlier novel by Robert Heinlein called "Revolt 2100", the basic plot is the same; a theocratic regime takes over the USA. Even some of the key characters such as "The Commander" in THT is similar to "The Prophet" in R2100, "The Handmaid" in THT has a similar role the "The Virgin" in R2100 (it is a purely honorific title of course!) Neither story is great literature but "The Handmaid's Tale" has been praised out of all proportion to its merit. I can only think that this is because it is ideologically 'right on'. Personally I found the plot implausible, but that may reflect the author's paranoid worldview. By all accounts this was written as a serious warning about the threat Christian Fundamentalism poses to democracy; which has to be either paranoia or a cynical attempt to use fear to manipulate the reader. What is certain is that no Christian I know of would feel comfortable with the Republic of Gilead and its activities. I don't think the plot has been well thought through, there are several internal contradictions - a puritanical regime forcing someone to work in a brothel? It doesn't sound likely. The book is a bit of a blunt instrument if it is genuinely meant to make a serious point. But then again I don't believe the polemic is aimed at anyone with a background knowledge of the Bible - it is aimed to confirm the prejudices of the ignorant.

Jimmy Savile and The Misogyny of Liberalism.

There was an editorial in the UK news magazine "The Week", 13th October 2012, by Caroline Law which I have reproduced below. The title above this post is my own interpretation of her comments...

"It was different back then. That's one of the explanations given for how Jimmy Savile got away with molesting girls for so long. Savile, who prowled the corridors of schools and hospitals in search of victims, appears to have been far more calculated in his predations than most. But it is undeniable that many pop stars and DJs routinely exploited young female fans in the 1960s and 1970s. Some even paraded underage girlfriends, yet were not prosecuted. (Jailed for seven years in 2001, Jonathan King was a rare exception; but then he molested teenage boys).
This is often put down to the casual misogyny of the time, but it was more than that. In the era of free love, parents worried, as they do now, about 'dirty old men', but there was also a feeling in the air that sex was something that everyone should enjoy, children included. So much so, there was even an activist group called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). From 1974 to 1984, PIE openly campaigned for greater acceptance of paedophilia, lobbied for the abolition of the age of consent, and helped paedophiles make contact with one another. And it had influential friends. No less a group than The National Council for Civil Liberties, now called Liberty and then run by future Labour minister Patricia Hewitt, was affiliated to PIE. Consenting sex between adults and children was harmless they argued, and shouldn't be illegal. Perhaps that's how BBC bosses rationalised away the rumours about Savile. They were in respectable company."

Gender, Authority & Sexuality.

Excellent talk this morning at church on Gender, Authority and Sexuality. Check out www.shmedia.org.uk for free mp3 downloads. Or try iphone: http://goo.gl/G5Y2C or Android: http://goo/Owl2Bl or search for "St Helen's" on Apple App or on Google Play.

The Injustice of Liberalism.

This morning I was listening to BBC Radio 4's "Start the Week" hosted by Andrew Marr discussing national identity. One of his guests was Maajid Nawaz who used to be a leading figure within an Islamist group called Hizb ut-Tahrir. The BBC website says of him 'from Islamist extremist to champion of democracy' and describes how he became radicalised as a young man by the racism he personally faced in the UK and then by the Bosnian conflict of the 1990's.

The discussion was largely insightful and helpful but hit a sour note when Maajid was presented with a leading question about whether Islamic Extremism was a response to the rise of  "Christian Evangelism" (sic). [The terms in which the question was couched betrayed a shameful ignorance of the meaning of the words employed!] Maajid concurred with the view expressed by one of the other panellists.

How convenient. So the line being presented on national radio is that Islamic Extremism is ultimately the responsibility of Christians. In this meta-narrative the secular, liberal, humanist dumps the responsibility for terrorism into the laps of an innocent community because they want to believe the illusion that no-one could possibly take issue with the virtues they feel they alone represent. The meta-narrative they want to impart to the listener is that all conflict is fuelled by "others" and if only they would conform to the secular, liberal, humanist position the world would be a happier place. It is that claim to a 'helicopter perspective' and moral superiority which jars.

By condemning the innocent with the guilty this sort of Liberalism discredits itself - it is not concerned about justice, it is more concerned about pushing a particular ideological interpretation of the world. And that ideological interpretation places a Liberal elite as the sole moral judge. The word 'liberal' is one we all aspire to; to be open, caring, generous etc are wonderful things but these virtues are not the exclusive preserve of those who parade themselves as 'Liberal'. In fact it is my contention that the Liberal is not liberal as this morning's discussion intimated. Someone who is liberal would seek to get their facts straight first, nor would they rush to judgement, nor would they issue a blanket condemnation by association. However a Liberal would, so it seems, happily do all these things.

What do people mean by 'the rise of Christian Evangelism'? If they mean 'the Christian Right' is it really fair to attribute Islamic terrorism to this? Surely an Islamist is just as likely to take offence at secular humanism and its values as to Christianity! This notion that Christian Evangelism and islamic Extremism are two sides of the same coin is a quack diagnosis clutched at by fearful individuals who desperately want a simple explanation of the world they find themselves in. Unfortunately in the process they condemn the innocent with the guilty.

No Brainer!

Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinker in the mid 20th century who defined two revolutionary concepts - revolution by manouvre and revolution by position. Revolution by manouvre is the physical action of taking power. Revolution by position is the act of  establishing oneself within the conciousness of the individual that makes the revolution inevitable. The Gramscian concept is that one reaches a point where "The Revolution" becomes so common-sensical in the popular imagination that it comes about of its own accord. The key concept here is this - when does something cease to be 'ideological' and become 'common sense'?

Let me give a current example: In conversation with someone I will call CH the Middle Ages were an unmitigated intellectual disaster fostered by Christianity. The self evident fact - so far as he was concerned - was that Christianity had plunged Western Civilisation into the Dark Ages. And the "Fact" was that his enlightened view of life had brought a revival of learning out of this Dark Age. Moreover that this interpretation of history was "Fact"!
Vainly I pointed out that Dark Ages were due to the incursion of pagan invaders and that the Christian Church was the repository of classical learning. I also gently intimated the Carolingian and 12th Century 'Renaissance' don't fit his simplistic interpretation of history - but ignorant of these - he was inclined to consider these considerations mere bluff.
The point I am driving to is this. So far as he is concerned it is a "No Brainer" - Christianity brought about the Dark Ages - he does not need to engage his brain... the Gramscian revolution has occured... what requires careful thought has been bypassed...
To be a Christian one needs to engage ones Brain.

Christian Medical Comment: BBC uses distortion, hype, exaggeration and select...: With the consultation about legalizing same-sex marriage already underway in Scotland and with the Westminster consultation about to start, ...

Atheist Promises.

Atheists are campaigning against the Brownie oath (they obviously don't have anything better to do with their time!) and to that end a number of letters have been exchanged in the press. This letter in The Telegraph, London, 16th August 2011 particularly caught my eye.

"As an atheist former Brownie who questioned the overwhelmingly selfless message of servitude in the promise, I suggest replacing the words 'to love my God' with 'to love myself'."

I think that is more revealing than the author realises!

Veteran presenter slams ‘Guardianistas’ at the BBC "VETERAN PRESENTER SLAMS 'GUARDIANISTAS' AT BBC." Michael Buerk criticises the BBC for its bias and for taking its creed from the Guardian newspaper. The piece is interesting although I do find the use of the phrase 'political correctness' overused and tiresome these days. I also feel very strongly that the word liberal (a great word!) is too often misapplied to the metropolitan elite who in practice do not believe in liberty but have taken on themselves the role of policing those beliefs they disapprove of. They have a meddling statist attitude which presuposes that they know best for everyone.