Yet There Is Method In It

I havent posted anything at all recently and have deluged by all sorts of other work, so much so that even my reading list is suffering. Anyway decided to a jumbled and ad hoc post on various news snippets that have caught my attention.

Sarkozy vs the Burqa

In a speech to both chambers of the French Parliament recently President Sarkozy declared that the Burqa was not welcome in France.

“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience… It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”

At first glance this appears to be an opinion rather than a policy, but this comment was based upon a demand from 65 MP’s that a commission examine whether wearing the Burqa contravened Women’s rights and France’s secular tradition. Interestingly this request has wide political support from across the political spectrum, Communists to Conservatives (though the Socialist opposition were not supportive).

This follows on from the secular law of a few years back that banned the display of religious symbols in public schools and government buildings.

I have mixed views about this matter.

a) With regard the seperation of religion and state – which is essential in order to avoid theocracy or state-controlled religion – I reluctantly sympathise with various measures to restrict conspicous religious symbols. Reluctantly because I think in many western liberal societies – such as France – the presence of a Crucifix on a wall or a Hijab veil on the head of a woman is not likely to lead to a theocratic state. Although I agree it may lack inclusivity I think most western european diktats on religious imagery are being motivated by a secular-humanist agenda which is not of itself “wrong” but which smacks of an ideological intolerance that skilfully ignores the observation that atheism, agnosticism and every other belief position whether organised or not is but one of many, which though may not factually be equal should in principle be implied to be equal.

(I add this caveat as a compromise to those who would suggest that atheism/agnosticism is fact based – or to put it better non-metaphysical, in that respect a materialist atheism and transcendental theism are not equal epistemologically).

However in conclusion I do agree that where the state policy is secular (so as to mean anti-sectarian rather than anti-religious) then state owned institutions probably should operate an equally secular policy.

b) I also sympathise with the view that the Burqa is not a religious symbol but one of gender oppression. But I do not belong to the same culture that defends such codes of dress, nor do I wish to, therefore I cannot fully comprehend why women would choose (and yes there is ample evidence that the Burqa is an item of clothing of choice in many societies rather than of coercion) to wear such an outfit. As I am not of this culture, nor interested in being a part of it, surely in reflection all I can say is my values are not the same as your values – which is somewhat different from saying my values are superior to your values (which is implied in Sarkozy’s comments).

Theologically I think the Burqa is misguided (note however my philosophical tradition is Christian and not Muslim so my judgements are probably incomensurable). The Burqa is supposed to be a symbol of a woman’s purity. And a veil to protect her modesty – which some Islamic scholars identify as a key command from the Quran and the Hadith. But who is the woman’s modesty being protected from? If the woman needs protecting from the lusts of men then surely it is men who are posing the problem? I could carry on in this vein but the argument is fairly circular. Suffice to say my personal opposition to the Burqa is that if purity and modesty are virtues, then surely they are virtues that are manifested by “what is inside” a persons heart (i.e. their motives) rather than what is external to them.

c) And so to my final point. I can sympathise with the ideals of a secular state – indeed even champion such an idea so long as it is matched with freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Similarly I can agree that the Burqa is not compatible with my views. Yet I am loathe to even countenance Sarkozy’s objective which is to ban the burqa from France altogether. This I think is a direct contravention of liberte, egalite, fraternite etc… the ideals of the French state founded after the revolution. It is not enough to suggest that it is detrimental to women’s rights when many volunteer to wear the Burqa. To ban something is I believe to take choice away from the individual and consequently is to impose an abstract state authority that is the antithesis of liberty.

(Subnote: Someone suggested to me, following a similar rant on this matter, that if women chose to wear the Burqa then they should be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own homes, but not in public… this is quite funny actually. The Burqa is meant for outdoors wear and is traditionally taken off indoors, after all if you are married you have no need to protect your modesty from your spouse!)

Teenage Beliefs in the UK

According to a recent survey:

2/3 teenagers aged 13-18 (from a sample of 1000) dont believe in God.

50% never pray.

16% have never been to a church.

59% believe religion to be a negative influence on the world.

60% only attend church for Weddings and Christenings.

30% believe in an afterlife.

10% believe in reincarnation.

47% believe organised religion has no place in the world.

60% believed religious studies should not be compulsory in school.

91% believed in the maxim “do unto others as you woudl have done unto yourself”.

Most teenagers stated that family, friends, money and reality TV (!) rated more highly in their life’s priorities than religion and God.

A Church of England spokesman said that we could disregard the results as teenagers have not yet fully formed their opinions. Whereas a spokesman for the British Humanist Association (containing their glee) said they were not suprised by the results.

I am mostly neutral on the matter, I have a belief system, others dont, it really doesn’t bother me if you share my beliefs or are radically opposed to them. What I do cherish is the freedom to hold my beliefs and to practise them openly without fear of persecution – the payoff that I make is that I likewise respect the values and beliefs of others and seek not to impose those of mine on others whereever they may differ.

But I do have some thoughts.

1) The survey seems very inadequate… what I mean is it puts God under a simple yes/no box. Why so simple? Obviously this is more of a social research project than a philosophical one, but I find it hard to believe (irony) that 1/3 say Yes I Believe! and 2/3 say No I Dont Believe! … what about the “I’m not sure”, “I dont care”, “I dont think we can know”, “Why just one God”, “Depends what you mean by God”, etc.

I agree with Wittgenstein when he says that the question do you believe in God is a non-question because the very meaning of the word and the concept changes person to person and in whatever context it is found. I personally dislike the simplified use of the binary opposite theist/atheist in this case because I think it oversimplifies and obscures the complex.

Theist, Deist, Pantheist, belong in a similar category. As do: Atheist, Hard Agnostic etc. But what about the overlaps?

Soft Agnosticism: I’m not sure. (Implies I am yet to be convinced).

Apatheist: It’s not a relevant issue in my life right now. (Implies i’ve never been to church, my family is not religious, i’ve never thought about it etc.)

Misotheist (God-Hater): I can’t believe in a God that allows such bad things to happen, (or) such a God that allows evil doesnt deserve my worship. (Implies I am dissillusioned with an idea of God ((my idea))).

There is a subtle overlap on these non-belief positions with belief positions, as they are not necessarily fixed or well considered. Actually the movement is two-way, many religious people fall into a soft agnosticism, apatheism or misotheism when various life events challenge their ‘faith’.

In my social conversations with friends and family and for that matter complete strangers, I think these 3 overlap positions are by far the most populous. Many people are not sure what constitutes the God-hypothesis (how can they be when believers aren’t either). I think the absence of any real scholarship both philosophically and sociologically on these “overlap” positions is scandalous and allows a very narrow academic “Faith War” to develop between the loony fundamentalists on both sides.

Personally as a philosopher I find these three positions the most interesting to talk about.

2) That half never pray means little to me, please define prayer? Dear God give me an x-box for christmas… Om Mane Padme Hum (famous Buddhist Mantra of compassion) and the lone isolated inner voice in a moment of need or despair addressed to nobody in particular that cries out “help”… which of these is validly open to description as prayer? (Or which ones are not?)

I can think of two Christian (Catholic) quotes that mean a lot to me on this matter, Meister Eckhart is attributed as once saying “if the only prayer we say was thankyou that would suffice” and the Fourth Eucharistic prayer asks God to remember those who have died “whose faith is known to you alone”.

3) A suprisingly large number of teens have been to church, even if it is only for “rites de passage” like marriage or christenings. This contrasts with the 50-60% who believe religion to be a negative influence on the world and specifically organised religion. Is this attitude born of their “Church-experience” or does it pre-date it, or is it reflective of the pop-media trends of this time where every Catholic priest is a paedophile, every protestant is obsessed with homosexuality and every muslim is a terrorist?

Significantly for those who belong or run organised religious groups… is this a reflection of your practises? If so many are going to church for “rites de passage” yet declare to have so little belief in the metaphysics of the religion, surely your message is being obscured. Is it relevant?

My buzz-words in philosophy of language at the mo (and part of my dissertation) is “Convenience” and “Comprehension”. People seem to only whole-heartedly believe in that which they comprehend (it makes sense to them) and that which is convenient to them to believe (enriches their lives).

I think these stats have important considerations for religious people to consider, is your message understandable, could it be rendered more so?

and short final thoughts…

4) Belief in the after-life has little or no religious importance. Buddhists are non-theists but believe in an afterlife, the Sadducees were a Jewish faction that rejected the soul, angels and the after-life but believed in Yahweh.

5) Should religious studies be compulsory in school? Should any subject be compulsory? How about school itself? In terms of human and cultural geography I think religous studies is important.

6) Wow over 90% value the “Golden Rule”. It is not exclusively Christian, Buddha said much the same, and Kant trying to develop a perennial philosophy without recourse to religious metaphysics devised the same maxim. The spokesperson for the BHA said that people should take heart from the fact that the non-religious could still hold “positive values”.

I could ask what came first, the chicken or the egg? A religious value system that included the golden rule, or good old-fashioned decent “positive values” that simply got co-opted and tacked on to religion… but it would cease to amusing very quickly.

7) Final thought: x amount believe religion to be a negative force, y amount thinks religious studies should not be compulsory… in a propaganda war (which this essentially is) surely the assertion made by x amount that religion is a negative force should be open to a challenge by the not-x amount who believe religion to be a positive force. But instead of propaganda, and proselytism perhaps simple discussion should take its place, and considered reflection.

Homeschooling

In response to alleged falling standards in schools, and a loss of a moral compass in society as a whole so, many people argue, parents should have the right to homeschool their child.

Aggressive secularists dont like this, as many homeschoolers are religious families, who perhaps have been upset by the ideological eradication of all religious ‘objectivism’ from the school system. Home schooling, where the non-qualified parent can teach the child pretty much anything they like is… a form of child abuse (or at least open to it) … according to Dawkins etc.

Anyway I picked up on this story from another blog. And I only refer to it as I think it is another case of an all too powerful state system undermining the most basic forms of autonomy and as a libertarian I find that most disturbing. I will reproduce an extract of the article here that interested me the most:

“The review’s proposals include a national registration scheme for home educators, to be renewed annually. There will be national guidance issued which will include a

clear statement of the statutory basis of elective home education and the rights and responsibilities of parents

Homeschooling is therefore no longer to be considered something that parents have a natural right to do, but something that has to have a “statutory basis.”

Parents will have to:

provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.

Designated Local Authority officers will have the right of access to the home and the right to speak with each child alone “if deemed appropriate.”

The Badman-Balls approach is a fundamental contradiction of the true relationship between state education and the family. The school should be considered as acting “in loco parentis” (in the place of the parent) because the parents are the first educators and carers for their own children. This latest review and its recommendations assume that the state is the primordial educator and carer and that if parents “elect” to educate their children without the help of the state, they are effectively acting “in loco rei publicae” (in the place of the state) and must therefore be registered, monitored, reviewed…

… pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed and numbered?”

It might surprise some, but I am not very interested in the MP expenses scandal. It is of course true that some MPs claimed much more than absolutely necessary, but why would we expect them do to differently? The pursuit of wealth is accepted by the majority. Selfless actions are perhaps highly spoken off, but less actually done. But how can we call for MP’s to act selflessly? That would be a selfish thing to do – and therefore hypocritical!

In fact this whole issue is a distraction and an extension of finding someone to blame for economic woes, especially since attacking bankers has become boring. I am far more concerned with the authoritarian legislation that has been passed by the present government, illegal wars, trade and cooperation with countries that use torture, etc. A recent, more important issue: the recent Simon Signh libel case…

Update: Of course, I recklessly assumed that hypocritical criticism is a problem. We could call for politicians to be selfless to serve our own interests – and this is happening. The question is then: do we admit to ourselves that we are hypocrites? This is unlikely. The result is we lie to ourselves, saying “we are unselfish” and “politicians should be too!” – this also keeps the illusion of universal morality in tact. What is needed to replace this is a deeper debate on what type of person do we want as politicians and what exactly is the point in the state?…

Anti Citizen One

My attention has just been drawn to this controversial article written in The Australian by Hal Colbatch entitled “Thought police muscle up in Britain“.

I call it controversial mainly because the incidences it describes are obviously being discussed across the world. It is also controversial because the cases mentioned are extremes and often the over zealous applications of well-meaning laws (i.e. equality and diversity laws). But I believe the points he makes are accurate.

In describing Britain as a soft Totalitarian state he concludes his article with the following:

“Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together – and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day – they add up to a pretty clear picture.”

Do we citizens have cause for concern?

The UK Liberal Democrats are proposing what I think is a dream legislation on civil liberties. I can’t help smiling when I read the list of measures. If we live in an open society, all these civil rights should be a matter of course.

In a more philosophical sense, these reforms can avoid the concept of “natural rights” by considering they are “rights of the state” over the individual that must be abolished.

* Scrap ID cards for everyone, including foreign nationals.
* Ensure that there are no restrictions in the right to trial by jury for serious offences including fraud.
* Restore the right to protest in Parliament Square, at the heart of our democracy.
* Abolish the flawed control orders regime.
* Renegotiate the unfair extradition treaty with the United States.
* Restore the right to public assembly for more than two people.
* Scrap the ContactPoint database of all children in Britain.
* Strengthen freedom of information by giving greater powers to the Information Commissioner and reducing exemptions.
* Stop criminalising trespass.
* Restore the public interest defence for whistleblowers.
* Prevent allegations of ‘bad character’ from being used in court.
* Restore the right to silence when accused in court.
* Prevent bailiffs from using force.
* Restrict the use of surveillance powers to the investigation of serious crimes and stop councils snooping.
* Restore the principle of double jeopardy in UK law.
* Remove innocent people from the DNA database.
* Reduce the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 14 days.
* Scrap the ministerial veto which allowed the Government to block the release of Cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq war.
* Require explicit parental consent for biometric information to be taken from children.
* Regulate CCTV following a Royal Commission on cameras. Lib Dems

Basically a work of genius But the existing powers that be are likely to resist this attempt to moderate their influence…

Anti Citizen One

There are interesting happenings on the terror front:

“We want to move away from just challenging violent extremism. We now believe that we should challenge people who are against democracy and state institutions”, he [a Whitehall insider] said. BBC

Interestingly, it is legal to hold views that are anti-democracy and anti-state. My worry is what does “challenge people” mean in this context? Pressure people to avoid conservative preachers? This is similar to having black lists of people suspected of being anti-government (and McCarthyism) and since “challenge” probably does not mean legal sanction, the people who are black listed have no legal recourse in the case of false accusation.

This ties in to the view of a study by the International Commission of Jurists. The use of extra-legal measures against society are the biggest menace to our “open” society.

Mr Chaskelson, chairman of the panel, said: “In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the extent of the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world.

“Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.

“The result is a serious threat to the integrity of the international human rights legal framework.” BBC

This also agrees with a former head of MI5.

“It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism – that we live in fear and under a police state,” she said. BBC

The two things we need to consider in a response to terrorist threat are:

• Is the mere accusation of terrorism being used to silence rational debate by assuming the guilt of the accused?
• Do the proposed measures mitigate or aggravate the problem? What evidence supports this claim?

I have to think about the curious case of Geert Wilders

Anti Citizen One

1. False information published on wikipedia
2. Newspaper publishes false information based on wikipedia article
3. Wikipedia is corrected to the original information
4. Wikipedia is updated to reflect the false information and cites the newspaper report as a source.

Balance is restored…

Also, public opinion may be substituted for wikipedia.

I have been lacking in posts recently as I have been both lazy, mentally drained and suffering from sporadic cut-offs thanks to a shoddy modem/router.It is with pleasure then I announce “I’m back!”

I was interested to see AC1 comment on recent news as I was planning on doing so myself – and at the same time air some of my more unusual views.

There are really three main news items that are capturing my attention at the moment:

1) The lifting of the excommunication on a holocaust denying Bishop.

2) The Edinburgh “Gay adoption” row, and

3) The Christian Nurse.

Holocaust Denial

The first story is troubling for me as a nominal Catholic, although I should celebrate the hoped for “return to the fold” of schismatic Catholics to the church – a precursor for a greater ecumenical push between world religions – I am dissappointed that the Holocaust Deniar Bishop Williamson has not been publicly disciplined.

There is an interesting tension here that revolves around freedom of speech – a matter much discussed on this blog. We needn’t repeat the arguments over and again – suffice to say though that I feel extraordinary pain that in the name of freedom of conscience Bishop Williamson’s evidentially wrong and misinformed beliefs concerning the scale and nature of the holocaust should be permitted the oxygen of publicity that his office and his rehabilitation to the Church has afforded him.

A very interesting article concerning this tension between censorship and freedom of conscience can be found on the hermeneutic of continuity blog. Where a traditionalist priest struggles with the notion of freedom of conscience and the spreading of error. His resolution interpreted in the Church’s conciliar teachings are that freedom of conscience is a responsibility rather than a right and that we have the responsibility to pursue that which is true – therefore in the context of Holocaust denial the overwhelming weight of evidence and testimony to the horrors of the “Shoah” should suffice to encourage mass censure of this mans false beliefs.

Gay Adoption

In principle I have no objection to Gay adoption. I am unconvinced by those arguments (usually motivated by a pre-existing heterosexually dominant bias) that the classic mother/father unit is always the best environment to bring up a child. There is no reason why a Gay couple (whatever their status in law i.e. married, cohabiting etc.) or indeed any couple (whether their relationship be sexual or not) cannot provide a safe, caring, loving and nurturing environment for the upbringing of children.

The role of sexuality and sexual orientation has minimal impact on the upbringing of children (indeed I may be understimating how positive such an upbringing may be in terms of encouraging a pluralistic attitude with regards human nature).

It is to put it bluntly “wrong” to suggest that a Gay couple could distort the emotional and sexual development of any children in their care. Homosexuality is a) not infectious, and b) not acquired. The sexual orientation of any children who have been placed in the care of homosexual couples is wholly incidental.

However. I am troubled by the Edinburgh case that has been in the news recently. Namely two young children have been placed in the adoptive care of a Gay couple, despite the protestations of their maternal grandparents who insist they are capable and willing to care for them themselves.

Generally where family is available – and they are deemed to be fit to bring up children – then priority should be given to the family – not because it is in the family’s interests but because it is in the childrens interests. Living with your grandparents (in theory) should be far less of a major upheaval than living with total strangers.

Edinburgh Social Services have deemed that the grandparents are unable to adopt the children because firstly they are too old (grandfather 61, grandmother 49), and secondly because they are too ill (grandfather has angina, grandmother type 2 diabetes). Having informed the grandparents of their decision they then told them that the children would be adopted by a gay couple. The grandparents claim they did not object to gay adoption (though they did not favour it) but they did object to their being disqualified. The reaction of social services was very blunt – the objection must clearly be homophobic and unless they changed their attitudes and became more open minded they would never be allowed to see their grandchildren again.

My opinions very briefly are that despite news reportage I may give some benefit of the doubt to social services – age and health should be taken into consideration regards suitability for adoption. However I would like to know if the judgement that disqualified them was made by a doctor or by a social worker. Are they medically unfit to adopt – or is this just an opinion formed by a non-medical professional?

I am also worried about the increasing power that the state is taking over society. To threaten the grandparents with permanent loss of contact unless they conform to an opinion that social services approves is potentially dangerous. Are we in thought police territory yet?

(I’m aware that in the previous section I was concerned with limitations to freedom of conscience yet here I am arguing total liberty – I’m not being inconsistent so much as highlighting the extraordinary tension between the two positions.)

My final concern is that the press have manufactured this into a homophobic issue.

Christian Nurse

This story fascinates me. The nurse asks a patient if she would like a prayer said for her, patient declines, takes no offence (though considers it weird), mentions it to the nurses colleague the following day, nurse gets suspended.

What is a nurse/nursing? My definition (which I consider fairly accurate) is that a nurse is a medical health practitioner who offers a more “holistic” service than that which can be provided by a physician.

Thus the nurse not only carries out the physicians instructions re: medication, dressing of wounds, general health care provision etc, but also provides support, basic counselling skills, caring observation of the patients welfare status and so on.

Part of this “holistic” approach focuses on the “spiritual” well being of the patient. I will post more on the beneficial uses of religion and spirtuality in health care soon (this story broke shortly after I started gathering materials for it).

The definition of “spiritual” well being in a multi-denominational and plural society necessarily needs be very broadly defined. Indeed one could describe the terms “spiritual” and “well being” as identical (i.e. not referencing any transcendent factor).

In this context then one would be hard pressed to suggest that asking a patient if they wished to be prayed for was a bad/wrong thing to do. One could argue that this approach (though overtly religious) was part and parcel of a holistic caring approach to the patient that a nurse ought provide.

Now for some problems and analysis.

1) The nurse had previously been warned about her behaviour (having been caught handing out prayer cards to another patient).

2) Though the nurse offered to pray and freely accepted the refusal such an overt statement may seem evangelical (forcing of ones beliefs).

3) Such an offer may be liable to offend.

The first issue is interesting – she has “previous” and has seemingly gone against the wishes of her local primary care trust. It is therefore (whether the policy is correct or not) an internal disciplinary matter. It is not a global persecution of expressions of the Christian faith (though one may argue it is a more localised persecution). What is more interesting though is that neither the prayer card, or prayer request patient made a complaint. Offence was neither intended nor taken – yet offence has been registered by a third non-interested party. Again (a common theme in this post) there seems to be a tension between freedom of conscience and institutional censure.

The second issue is a strange one. I dislike being evangelised (and yet I am a person of faith). Clearly a person who does not share the same faith or who is a non-believer altogether may feel irritated at being evangelised and preached to. This is a problem again with freedom of conscience and living in a plural society. Should a person of faith assume the “worst” and keep their beliefs private? Or should they be allowed the freedom to express themselves – partically when its expression has benign intent.

As I noted on a previous comment – a famous atheist once remarked (in suprisingly conciliatory tones) that if ones worldview was such that you believed in good/evil, life after death, eternal bliss etc., then you would have to really hate someone not to want to share the “good news” with them.

In this case I think offering to pray for someone – an expression of good will here – another way of saying “I hope you get better soon” – is not evangelising.

The late Irish comedian Dave Allen (no friend of organised religion) used to close his shows with the phrase “and may your God go with you.”

I think it is inevitable that in a plural society there will be a diversity of beliefs regarding God, the spiritual etc. Many of religion and many of no religion – it is therefore important that we recognise benign sincerity wherever we see it and understand though we may not share the same “language game” that good wishes may be expressed in a variety of idiomatic ways.

The third issue is curious and follows on from the other two. Offence may not be intended but may be taken – such is the fragile nature of intepretation and translation between language games. The patient in the story said she thought it unusual – insofar as though she wasnt offended she could see how some people might interpret the question “shall I pray for you?” as meaning “God you look awful – beyond medical help – you’re best chance is a miracle!”

My only comment on this is – (and again this reflects the overriding theme of this post the tension between freedom of conscience and censorship) – if were constantly vigilant to the fact that what we say may be interpreted in ways we never intended and that the seemingly benign may transform before our very eyes into something heinous – then most likely we would be struck mute for ever!

Personal Concluding Thoughts

I had the misfortune of being seriously ill a couple of years ago and of being thoroughly dependent upon the care provided by visiting nurses. None of them to my knowledge openly prayed for me or asked about my spiritual wellbeing. And yet in their actions a broadly spiritual concern was expressed – and I am perpetually grateful to them for it.

I did in my sick bed recieve from concerned individuals good wishes (of a secular variety) and also expressions of religious sentiment.

There is some research that suggests that praying for someone (and informing them of it) may be cathartic to their recovery. There is also conflicting research that suggests the effects to be negligible.

Personally I found it a) satisfying – it is nice to know people care, but also b) irritating.

I found it irritating for three reasons philosophical and theologically formed.

i) I am quite fatalistic – it is not so much that something happens for a reason, but that things happen and one must make do with ones circumstances – Although I was in pain, and distress I quickly came to be at ease with my situation – it was out of my control, therefore I let go of my attachment to suffering. Consequently my suffering became redemptive, enlightening even, and I learnt more about myself in a short space of time than I had ever known in all my previous years.

ii) I am quite cynical and humble – God (if you happen to believe in Him) surely has far more pressing concerns than to worry about little old me and my ailments. Don’t pray for me, beg him to stop earthquakes, floods, famines, war, pestilence, and so on.

iii) I am a philosophical and theological disciple of the Rhineland School of Mysticism – exemplified by the teachings of Meister Eckhart. Prayer is a human institution – a psychological reaction to circumstance – it is not bad of itself but it can become an object of fetishistic attachment. It can be an obstacle to letting go of attachments, a vehicle of selfishness and a barrier to simply “being.”

In the New Testament Jesus is reported as praying on only a handful of occasions. Usually they are private affairs. Throughout them though is one common theme – that of the resignation of the self-will -  not mine but “thy will be done.”

This is the crux of ‘Christian’ prayer as Jesus is supposed to have taught it.

Eckhart summed up the selfishness of our attachments and our abuse of prayer when he said:

but if they should fall sick they would wish it were God’s will that they should be better. These people, then, would rather that God willed according to their will than that they should will according to His. This may be condoned, but it is not right. The just have no will at all: whatever God wills, it is all one to them, however great the hardship.

Eckhart coined the phrase Abegescheidenheit which loosely translated can mean living without a why. The lucky man is attchment free and is content with whatever befalls him, sickness, health, weal or woe.

Therefore this nurse’s case is in my humble opinion – no great offence to society or to the healthcare profession. In fact I would propose that her goodwill is such that it overflows and she is a fine model of what the nursing profession can be. Her suspension is therefore heavyhanded and sad reflection of the ease of misinterpretation. I wouldnt mind betting that the patient who mentioned it in passing, now wishes she had remained silent.

What this does represent though is perhaps an immature approach to her faith and to prayer. We all wish the sick to get better, we all wish to live long and happy lives. But life is not like that – the evidence is all around us to see. For some people this is a damning condemnation of the supposed goodness of God and perhaps demonstrative of His non-existence. For others it is simply demonstrative of the selfishness of the human ego that we should seek to define God’s will as compatible with ours. Some people find the approach of the via negativa uncomfortable, is a God that allows suffering or who shows no inclination of goodness worthy of our attention and worship?

The nurse didn’t do a bad thing, and is being wrongly persecuted. But the nurse most likely should have persisted in her caring capacity without the need for a public expression of her faith. By her actions alone – and indeed by the actions of the entire medical proffession – we may judge for ourselves what manner of persons they are. And if a patient requests some form of explicit expression of benign goodwill such as a prayer then regardless of ones personal beliefs one should be willing to offer it knowing that it is part of a holistic approach to wellbeing.

I noticed the incoming US president has distanced himself from the pro-torture policies of Bush administration. This is a wise decision and supports the US constitution (Fifth Amendment) and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which was partly US authored). He has fallen short by not investigating crimes – including war crimes – perpetrated in the so called “war on terror”. Those who authorised torture and other abuses will probably say “we did it to defend the interests of the US”. But who are they to decide what whose interests are? Obviously, they are not particularly well qualified if they violate their own founding principles! Again, political expediency has overcome justice:

“If there was any effort to have war-crimes prosecutions of the Bush administration, you’d instantly destroy whatever hopes you have of bipartisanship,” said Robert Litt, a former Justice criminal division chief during the Clinton administration, Newsweek

Regarding Guantánamo Bay,

…[Obama's] advisers are wrestling with what to do about the remaining 250 detainees there, especially those considered dangerous. Newsweek

The only options are due process under the law or release. Since the procedures used to apprehend and detain them were illegal, no prosecution could ever be fair. They must be release and further harm they might inflict is the fault of those who used illegal procedures. Before anyone criticises me for being naive, remember the 5th amendment agrees with my interpretation (not to mention the second sentence of the US Declaration of Independence – but that is too “natural rights” for me).

In other news,

A Christian nurse from Weston-super-Mare has been suspended for offering to pray for a patient’s recovery.

Community nurse Caroline Petrie, 45, says she asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her. BBC

Although this is not the first complaint against the nurse for this behaviour, I feel her managers are acting as if “through the looking glass”. One woman’s spiritual view is not particularly threatening or offensive, particularly when compared to much more significant issues. If we want to remove Christian bias in the health care system, perhaps we should have a discussion on euthanasia, gene therapy, etc without resorting to spiritual arguments? That would be more worthwhile then martyring this one person. Incidentally, Kierkegaard probably would say being victimised in this way is a necessary part of being a Christian.

Anti Citizen One

I had to laugh. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the UK police retaining DNA samples of people not convicted of a crime is a violation of human rights. Instead of saying “that is a victory for human rights”, the UK government disappointed and apparently has higher priorities than human rights (something about “crime detection”).

This highlights an interesting contradiction (or convenient deception) – are law makers above the law? or should they be? or can they be? If something is legally displeasing to them, they can simply legislate. (Of course, I am aware they occasionally ask to be re-elected but what we have is 1 day of democracy then 4 years of one party rule.) The recent arrest of Damien Green MP is a recent example of this. As Dominic Grieve MP asked: “Who is in charge of the police, if she [the home secretary] isn’t?”

I would imagine the home secretary would proclaim respect for the law as necessary and inherently good ideal. But then she ignores European human rights law! Or even more ironically, she claims the law can be abridged because it interferes with upholding other laws! If she can pick and choose which laws to obey, how is that not hypocritical? Should people who wilfully violate human rights (like the current home secretary) be punished as a law breaker?

This hypocritical attitude is actually necessary – strangely – because to establish new values, it is necessary to lie that these values are “true”.

Anti Citizen One

“No amount of entertainment is worth the life of a child!” This is perfect political rhetoric, guaranteed to get the Question Time studio audience clapping their support. But it also explains why that same audience is beset by so much “nanny state gone mad” regulation. What’s more, it is wrong. Anyone who thinks that no amount entertainment is worth the life of a child either overvalues children or undervalues entertainment. Jamie Whyte, The Times

Something that made me laugh: Charlie Brooker on Aspirational TV. The last quote reminds me of this blog: “Far better is to sit here and sneer at the lot of it. Isn’t it? That’s what we like to do, isn’t it? Aye? Have a good sneer, aye? Aye, that cheers us up! Aye?”

AC1