Greg Mulholland to disestablish CofE???

Imagine my surprise last night, when I was leafing through the Evening Standard on the train home, and discovered that Greg Mulholland (Lib Dem MP for Leeds North West) is taking the first steps to disestablishing the

Church of England.

Er.... Are you sure Chris?

Afraid so. If you don't believe me the whole article was reproduced in the Huffingdon post.

To go into greater detail it isn't as bad as it sounds.

One of the most divisive parts of the introduction of Gay marriage has been the fact that basically the state is perceived as ordering Religious leaders to make it so and dictating rules on what people had to believe.

One of the problems that many probably had with the proposition of equal marriage was that the state was effectively telling them that their beliefs were wrong and correcting the word of God rather than any deep seated Homophobic views or hatred. The British government has no right to tell Muslims, Catholics or even Church of England what they can believe.

I know some scions of the Christian Church still view homosexuality as wrong or sinful and although, I personally have a more enlightened approach I cannot tell them that their interpretation of the scriptures and Bible are wrong. After all the freedom to practise your own spirituality and beliefs is one of the cores of Liberalism - as long as it isn't being actively used to persecute and restrict the freedoms of the Gay community.

So we reach an impasse of what is more important - something Greg has stressed in this online press release on the subject.

He states:

I also want to make it clear that, as a liberal, I do also believe that it should be up to each faith and belief based organisation to decide for themselves what they believe marriage to mean and who it should be open to. I also do believe that the current situation, where same sex couples in civil partnerships lack some of the rights of civil married opposite sex couples (notably on partner's pension rights) is not equal or fair and must be addressed.

Which I think is something we can all agree with.

It further makes sense that you should secularise civil and state marriages and leave them as a wholly

civil/state controlled affair.

I am a little shaky on the removal of the clause that means adultery can be used as grounds for divorce but lets see how that plays out.

This isn't the end of the Church of England, nor is it a great secularisation of State and marriage, rather a way of encouraging equality for married couples, no matter what your orientation, and giving religious bodies the right to practise their beliefs and definitions of marriage as they see fit. How can this be a problem?

Religion is not as big a part of a significant part of the nation's life anymore, unless you are dying or there is a major sporting event on and for many marriage is about the committing as a couple rather than before God. Attitudes have changed as well over the last fifty years and now Homosexuality is considered, and rightly so, as the norm where as my Grandad was a policeman at the time it was illegal and was involved in arrests!

Greg's motion is something that should definitely be considered and is the best liberal answer to a groundbreaking move within politics and society to finally make people equal in marriage. It is hardly the first step in disestablishing the C of E, but giving them the freedom to practise their beliefs without interference from the State.

Intolerance and book burnings

If memory serves me German Author Heinrich Heine once said; Where a state burns books, one day they will burn people. (Dort, wo man Bucher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen)

This is a fact that is frighteningly relevant.

A book is more than a papery object bound together full of words. It is a summation of ideas and beliefs and means a great deal to the author and many readers. I should rapidly point out that for the most part I'm talking about the Non-fiction variety. I can't imagine many people, beyond maybe me, becoming upset about the burning of Star Wars; Darksabre!

Usually when people talk about book burnings the immediate train of thought goes to the Nazis. As the Third Reich began its slow rise to European dominance all the Non- German books were confiscated and burnt in a nationalistic fervour and display of Germaness. Mostly books by Jews (Heine, Einstein et.al) or political ideology that was considered not to fit into the Nazi ideal such as Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, Lenin  etc. There is also the Jewish Communist Karl Marx who is obviously the antithesis of everything the Nazi party strived to be.

This was Germany reasserting itself and finding a new identity in the post First World War/Wiemar period. Heine was correct that within ten years of the book burnings the Holocaust was in full swing. Herr Heine was proved correct.

Surely that was then though right Chris? I mean, the Nazis are pretty evil right?

There's no denying that the Nazi Government went on to do one of the most horrific acts ever carried out by mankind in the modern era. Book burnings and the removal of ideas was arguably the first step of many.

One of the constants of history is that no one ever learns from history which locks us into cycles of repetition. Events that are transpiring today have already happened many times before and yet no one has learnt. The banking crisis... same as the South Sea trade bubble collapse in the early 19th Century. Public alcoholism - the Gin riots. So to flip it around - Nazi book burnings (which was not the first instance of it in history!) can be compared to this picture;

Yes I know it was one priest in America... and I also know people will chuckle and say Well its one crazy in a country of crazies but lets think about this.... It is the first step and its still significant.

I'm not one for religious tomes. I am an avid disbeliever but not aggressive. There are aspects of Islam that I disagree with the same as Christianity and Judaism. There are laws and beliefs that are carried out and legislated in some countries that I think is just Bat *dropping* crazy and backward but I respect them because they are people's beliefs.

It seems that people do not see the significance of burning books, or if they do they are so caught up in hate they don't care.

I'm sure many shrugged when they heard of US soldiers burning Korans in Afghanistan a while back and thought;

So what?

But it is a red rag to a bull.

Britain learnt this to their detriment in the early 19th Century with the Indian Revolt which was caused, in part by forcing Hindu Sepoy's bite rifle cartridges (when loading) that had been dipped in tallow which contained Cow and Pig fat.

So?  I hear you cry.

Pigs are filthy animals according to Muslims and Cows are considered to be Sacred by Hindus which is a double whammy! It caused a massive rift between the offended soldiers and their less numerate and often uncaring White officers and ultimately led to the Lucknow and Cawnpore massacres.

People need to be mindful of others beliefs and religions. We also need to be tolerant of them.

You may be angry at a particular set of people - in the case of the above priest it was Islamic terrorists, BUT in committing his act he has alienated and angered a vast number of Muslims across the world for burning their Holy book. It does nothing but inflame the situation.

A similar act was  the burning of Poppies on Remembrance Day a few years ago. No they aren't religious books or cause religious offence but they act as a national unification. Something we Britons come together with. Its not about politics, or religion, or even the war that is being fought - it is about the soldiers who have fought and died. It is  National symbol.

Government's need to act on this when it happens. Yes it is attacking an individuals liberty to do as they will however Law is based on balancing liberty of the individual against offences caused to the sensibilities and Liberties of others. Burning someone's religious tome clearly offends the sensibilities of the individual.

Where states burn books. Well, all I'll say is that as I wrote that I could hear the steady clomping of Jackboots on gravel in my mind and a veil of darkness.

Rev Hargreeves claims "Christians treated like Jews in Nazi Germany."

Nazi anti Jewish boycott.

This morning on BBC1 the Rev Hargreeves, leader of the Christian Party, made the claim that Christians today, in Britain were being treated the same way that the Jews in Germany were treated under the Nazi Government.

He later went on to argue that he "Obviously" didn't mean the Holocaust but the beginnings of anti-Semitic law brought in by Hitler at the very beginning of his Government and that History has seen this sort of religious persecution before and it could lead to similar problems.

He has sited a few cases, such as a BA air stewardess who suffered a disciplinary for wearing a Crucifix, a married couple who forbid a Gay couple from sharing a double bed, or a Councillor who refused to assist a Gay couple as it was against his religion. (this turned out to be a damp squib, he did not refuse to council anyone, merely that as a Sex therapist his religion would come into conflict with his profession should he have to conduct sex therapy on a Gay couple.) He also brought up examples of Richard Dawkins who is seeking to ban Creationism from schools education. All these look like attacks on Christians by an intolerant or indeed aggressively secular state.

Not really, no. The BA air stewardess was not disciplined because of the Crucifix itself, rather the visible jewelry rule that BA have. Of course in the case of a crucifix it is probably a bit unfair. After all at MacDonald's they had the same rule except for in the case of Religious Iconography and it was a case of an over zealous overseer and from memory the case of BA was thrown out of court.

The case for removing Creationalism is a touchy subject. As an atheist and believer in Evolution I don't think that Creationalism has a real part in a Science lesson but again relegating it to an RE lesson shows favour of one possibility over the other. Maybe one way forward would be to teach evolution but keep a segment as "Religious groups believe this..." That way everyone wins and students can make their own minds up rather than feeling conflicted. The same is true with professionals who do certain jobs and feel that their religion will come into conflict with their profession. Is it worth giving them scope to step away from certain cases without any sort of come back from employers or the state. That said, it should also be borne in mind that anyone stepping into such a position that conflict between faith and your employer is a possibility and do you want to get caught up in it?

Another problem is discrimination by Christians who then use their faith as a shield. It was stated on the programme that discrimination whether religious based or not  its still discrimination. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not is down to the individual but you can't say that you will not allow gay people the same consumer or human rights as anyone else because you have been taught that it is wrong. It is hearkens back to; "No Coloureds allowed" signs in the US or the road signs "No Jews Allowed in this town." in 1930's Germany. I'm afraid the law is the law whether you agree with it or not and today's society is not what it once was and everyone is the same under it no matter what your religion or creed. To say that Christians are the only ones to be singled out under it is a falsehood.

Comparing these current problems with Nazi German state sponsered anti-semitism that culminated into mass genocide is completely wrong. What Hargreeves suggests that the current actions are similar to the first steps. Though post war Germany sought to blame someone for the defeat and betrayal of 1918 and the already existing Anti-semitism in Europe fueled this fire which is why the pre Hitler NSDAP actually had anti-Semitic policies that grew as the party did and when in power acts to stop Jews working in certain professions, displaying their faith or eating Kosher food became more prevalent. No such policies exist in any of the main parties!

Also Anti-semitism was taught to children in schools and in the German Youth movements, Jews were rounded on in the streets, shop windows broken culminating in Kristallnacht. Road signs proudly proclaimed German towns "Jew Free" or "Sharp bend please slow down - Jews increase speed." and even the state sponsored media itself was aggressively anti-Semitic, I don't recall seeing anything like this in Britain, nor do I see real state sponsored anti-Christianity, after all the state is still predominantly Christian, the church is still led by the Queen and the largest religion is Protestantism, hardly the oppressed minority the Jews were in Germany. Added to that is the fact that genocide was carried out against Jews, gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses etc. Murder was just part of it, the horrors that occurred have few parallels and it is exceptionally stupid and hurtful to those groups who suffered in humanity's darkest hour, to compare a few judicial lapses in judgement with those events.

So yes, there have been a couple of bizarre cases and some of it has been blown out of proportion by the media but I don't think Christians are particularly persecuted, especially not on the same scale as the Jews in Germany in the 30's and to draw comparisons not only shows a degree of poor education but is also grossly insensitive to the events in German held territory during the Holocaust.

The Arch Bishop of Canterbury writes for the New Statesman - So what?

This week a political maelstrom was whipped up by Dr Rowan Williams because he guest edited and awrote for the New Statesman, more importantly he disagreed with the Coalition Government policy and criticised Labour for not showing any proper opposition.

As a senior member of the clergy and a member of the house of Lords he should not be commentating on such matters.

Why Not?

After all he has as much right to talk on political matters as anyone else in the nation.
I personally disagree with religion in politics. There was once a time when they were inextricably linked but now in the modern age and with society made up of many religions and denominations I do not believe it is right for spiritual Church of England lords deciding policy.

However, Dr Williams' text was not written from a religious point of view, nor was it written as an all out attack on the Government or a misuse of his office. If anything it was written from the point of view of a concerned citizen who has an interest in politics.

Many people have stated that they do not believe that the Coalition doesn't have a mandate from the people, which technically it doesn't but has one from the Queen, or that Coalition policies may be a little rushed and not thought through, again a good point one that we as Lib Dems have argued in favour of regarding the NHS bill, and that Labour under Ed Miliband have failed to provide a viable alternative to the government policies, again true hence the talk of Miliband's "Blank piece of paper."

There was nothing new in the text, nothing that many of us had not already talked about.

He also did not force Anglicanism down any ones throat, a fact that would turn many people away including myself, nor said "As Arch-Bishop of Canterbury I think.... and you should to!"

so I wouldn't say that he is using his office to influence the readership, especially of a left leaning magazine which stereotypically is the side of the spectrum that steers away from religion. He came across as a straight talking, concerned member of society who is as welcome as any of us to their opinion and to speak it. I do not understand why there was such a furor.

The best way to look at it is... Would there be such a stink if I said it? Or the bloke on the tube?

No. Thought not.