It must strike progressive atheists as a stroke of bad luck that Christopher Hitchens, leading atheist spokesperson, happens to have hawkish views on foreign policy. After all, with atheists an overwhelmingly left-wing group, what were the chances that the loudest infidel in the western world would happen to be on the right? Actually, the chances were pretty good. When it comes to foreign policy, a right-wing bias afflicts not just Hitchens’s world view, but the whole ideology of “new atheism.”
Posts Tagged ‘religion’
Robert Wright: Why the “New Atheists” are Right-Wing on Foreign Policy
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
Archbishop ‘regrets’ move to ordain gay bishops
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
Dr Rowan Williams warns of church split over US decision to ignore ban on homosexual clergy
Dr Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, has said he regrets a decision by the US Episcopal church to ignore a ban on ordaining gay bishops and lobby for their inclusion.
Williams’s comments at the general synod in York were in response to a vote held yesterday in Anaheim, California, where the Episcopal church of the United States is meeting for its triennial gathering.
Representatives from the house of deputies, one of two legislative branches in the US church, voted to adopt a resolution declaring the ordination process open to “all individuals”.
If passed by the house of bishops this week, the resolution will be a blow for Williams, who went to Anaheim last week to urge the Americans to show restraint over homosexual clergy.
In a sermon last Thursday, he told the congregation his debut at the general convention was tinged with “hopes and anxieties”.
“Along with many in the communion, I hope and pray that there won’t be decisions in the coming days that will push us further apart. If we – if I – had felt that we could do perfectly well without you, there wouldn’t be a problem.”
Williams arrived in York last Friday for the general synod, the Church of England’s governing body, and answered questions on the Anglican communion.
When told by a synod member, Chris Sugden, that the house of deputies was pressing for the ordination of all individuals to the episcopate, he replied: “It remains to be seen whether the house of deputies will be endorsed by the house of bishops. If they choose to block that then the moratorium stands.
“I regret the fact there is no will to observe a significant part of the moratoria,” he added, referring to three bans aimed at keeping the Anglican communion together.
Gay bishops have proved to be a headache for Williams, who has struggled to maintain harmony in the Anglican communion.
The dissent culminated in an open revolt last year, with the boycott of hundreds of bishops from the flagship Anglican conference and the establishment of a worldwide network for conservatives.
Disaffected Episcopalians in the US have severed their ties with their mother church, setting up a rival church and appointing an archbishop.
This week, more than a thousand representatives from the Church of England endorsed the launch of a UK fellowship for congregations and clergy unhappy with the Church of England’s fuzzy position on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of women and homosexual priests.
To compound Williams’s woes, delegates at the general convention will also debate blessing same-sex unions and consider whether gender-neutral liturgies should be introduced.
Some fear what the changes will mean for the conservative voices within the Episcopal church.
The Rev Ralph Stanwise, from the diocese of Quincy, said: “If we overturn the moratorium we will in effect be urging many remaining conservatives and moderates among us and in our home dioceses, especially our most fragile ones, to search for the exit signs.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Urumqi officials back down on mosque closures
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Police break up small protest after Friday prayers
• DNA tests begin on victims of ethnic violence
Riot police broke up a small group of Uighur protesters outside a mosque in the troubled capital of Xinjiang after officials relented on an earlier decision to cancel Friday prayers.
Earlier, hundreds of Uighur men had gathered at the gates of mosques in Urumqi despite notices saying services were suspended. Officials cited “safety” reasons after brutal inter-ethnic attacks which began on Sunday.
Police had begun DNA testing to identify 156 people killed that day, thought to be primarily Han Chinese targeted by Uighur rioters, state media reported. The official news agency Xinhua said authorities would pay the families of “innocent” victims 200,000 yuan (about £18,000) compensation.
More than 1,000 people were injured in the riots. Subsequent days saw revenge attacks on Uighurs by Han Chinese, but no details of resulting fatalities or other casualties have been offered. Several Uighurs told the Guardian they believed at least four people had died.
The mood in the city appeared to have calmed but a heavy security presence remained, with armoured personnel carriers parked at the Grand Bazaar – where the violence began – and trucks full of troops touring the streets. Loudspeaker vans drove around the city urging people not to be swayed by “criminal elements”.
The attempt to close the mosques appeared to be prompted by the authorities’ anxieties about large crowds. At the Yang Hang mosque, Uighurs applauded and up to 400 worshippers carrying prayer mats flooded in as the doors were unlocked. A notice cancelling the day’s service disappeared from the front gate.
About 100 men won the day at the popular White mosque after demanding that guards allow them in for prayers. A Uighur policeman guarding the building, who declined to give his name, told the Associated Press: “We decided to open the mosque because so many people had gathered. We did not want an incident.”
At the Dong Kuruk Bridge mosque, one of several to remain closed, a young man told Reuters: “We feel we are being insulted. This is our mosque. But we are not allowed in, while they let in non-believers.”
He said Chinese security forces had been stationed inside and even in the minarets.
At another mosque, used primarily by Hui Muslims, Uighurs were among those allowed to enter but there was no formal service. “It’s a shame they don’t allow us to practise our religion,” said a passer-by.
Many people prayed at home instead, residents of Uighur neighbourhoods said.
The secretary-general of the Urumqi Islamic Association, who gave his name as Ma, denied the authorities had ordered the closures. But an official at the Urumqi Administration for Religious Affairs said only mosques in areas not affected by the violence were allowed to remain open.
Barry Sautman, an expert on China’s ethnic policies at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said the 23,000 mosques in Xinjiang gave it the highest mosque-to-Muslim ratio in the world. “It’s impossible to control such an extensive number of religious personnel,” he told AP.
About 30 or 40 Uighurs launched an impromptu march near the White mosque this afternoon, crying and pumping their fists in the air and demanding the release of men detained this week. One begged foreign reporters to stay with them as they walked.
“Every Uighur people are afraid,” Madina Ahtam told AP. “We are afraid … The problem? Police.”
Security forces initially stood back, but when the demonstration continued they surrounded and detained protesters. Footage shot by the BBC showed riot officers kicking one demonstrator and punching another in the face. They detained journalists filming events.
In Kashgar, a mainly Uighur city in southern Xinjiang, officials ordered foreign media to leave, escorting some journalists to the airport. They had earlier prevented them from leaving their rooms.
“There are no conditions for interviews in Kashgar, so we hope the foreign reporters will leave for their own safety,” said Chen Li, a media officer with the city government.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Who wants Ireland’s blasphemy law?
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
New rules which forbid causing ‘outrage’ among religious people have baffled Ireland. We were getting along just fine without them
I’m not sure which piece of unpopular Irish news is being buried by which: the announcement of a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, or the shuffling through of a law creating penalties for blasphemy, an offence that has never properly existed in the Irish state.
While there is certainly a store of resentment in the population at being asked to vote again (that is: vote properly, you morons, as the government is barely holding back from saying) on the Lisbon treaty, there is a certain sense of bafflement at the new blasphemy legislation, smuggled in under the guise of defamation law reform. Nobody wanted this law: no one can think of a single thundering priest, austere vicar, irate rabbi or miffed mullah ever calling for tougher penalties for blasphemy. Certainly there were the frequent, and frequently ignored missives from Armagh, warning the Irish not to abandon God for 4x4s and Nintendo Wiis. And there was widespread dismay when popular comic Tommy Tiernan pushed the Bible-baiting a bit too far on the Late Late Show. But never did anyone suggest we needed tough blasphemy laws. Until the justice minister, Dermot Ahern, decided we needed to fill the “void” left by our lack of one.
Technically, Ahern is correct that Bunreacht na hÉireann requires that blasphemy be a criminal offence. However, no one ever bothered to formulate what the exact offence might be, and we muddled on for quite a long time without anyone worrying about this (perhaps, as a friend pointed out to me, because all blasphemous material was grabbed by the all-powerful censors long before it could ever get to court). In 1999, there was an attempt to prosecute a newspaper for a cartoon mocking the church, but the judge in that case noted that he could not prosecute, because there was no definition of what legally constituted blasphemy. Well now there is. And it concerns itself with what might or might not cause “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion” (note, not just Christianity, as was the case with English blasphemy law: this is, at least, equal opportunities idiocy).
As Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland has pointed out:
The proposed law does not protect religious belief; it incentivises outrage and it criminalises free speech. Under this proposed law, if a person expresses one belief about gods, and other people think that this insults a different belief about gods, then these people can become outraged, and this outrage can make it illegal for the first person to express his or her beliefs.
So Irish law has now enshrined the notion that the taking of offence is more important than free expression. If something might cause a motivated group to be “outraged”, rather than, say, cause them to live in fear, then it is illegal, with a fine of up to €25,000 payable.
Note the ease with which a prosecution could be brought, and the punitive nature of the fine: this is not legislation that simply serves to tie up a few loose ends.
The minister claimed that his only alternative to this legislation was to have a referendum. This again, is technically true: any constitutional changes in Ireland require this. But the minister dismissed the notion of organising a referendum as being too costly in these straitened times.
Yet today, we are told there is to be another Lisbon referendum in October. Wouldn’t it have been sensible to hold both the Lisbon referendum and a referendum on the abolition of the concept of blasphemy from the constitution on the same day, cutting down on costs? Wouldn’t it, minister?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Pope Benedict calls for new world order
July 8th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Global recession caused by greed, says pontiff
• Economic crisis is ‘clear proof of effects of sin’
Pope Benedict today pinned responsibility for the worldwide recession squarely on greed and an amoral fascination with technological progress for its own sake.
This must be tackled, he said, by the creation of a global political authority and financial order based not just on the search for ever greater profits, but on ethics and a sense of the common good.
The pontiff made the appeal in a 144-page encyclical – a reflection on doctrine that is the highest form of papal writing – three days before he was due to discuss the global downturn with Barack Obama.
Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) is Benedict’s third encyclical and the first to deal exclusively with economic and social issues. In one section, he says the current economic crisis is “clear proof” of the “pernicious effects of sin”.
The pope’s analysis echoed some of the criticisms made by the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, of government policies that target growth to the exclusion of wider social considerations. But, as its title suggests, the papal encyclical is a primarily theological discourse which takes as its point of departure the argument that only a belief in the truth as proclaimed by Christianity can offer the necessary answers.
“A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments,” Benedict writes. His reflection – delayed by more than a year by the world economic crisis – nevertheless contains numerous specific criticisms and recommendations. Though the pontiff does not use the word “capitalism” in the encyclical, there are lengthy reflections on morality in economics.
In a key passage, the encyclical says: “The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.”
Then in an unequivocal critique of unbridled markets, the pope writes that “grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”
At a press conference in the Vatican, the pope’s technical consultant, Stefano Zamagni, an economics professor at the University of Bologna, denied the encyclical was anti-capitalist, but added that it “views capitalism in its historical dimension and goes beyond it”.
He noted that “the market economy is broader than just capitalism”, which was merely one variant. In another section of the reflection, Benedict argues that “financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity … right intention, transparency, and the search for positive results are mutually compatible and must never be detached from one another.”
Then, in a passage that builds on ideas first voiced by his predecessor, John Paul II, the pope argues that globalisation has made necessary a “reform of the United Nations Organisation and likewise of economic institutions and international finance so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth”.
One of his most senior advisers, cardinal Renato Martino, said: “The encyclical is not asking for a super- or world government.” But it comes very close to doing so. It proposes a “true world political authority” that “would need to be universally recognised and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice and respect for rights.” It would be asked to “manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis [and] to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis.”
But its responsibilities would be more than just economic. They would include securing “timely disarmament, food security and peace”. The new body, a reformed UN, would also be called upon “to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration”.
Often regarded as the first “green” pope, Benedict also took advantage of his encyclical to make clearer his ideas on the importance of respecting the environment. But Zamagni said the document implicitly rejected forms of environmental thinking that put other forms of creation on a par with humankind.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
China lockdown as suspicion bubbles
July 7th, 2009 |
No Comments
It was too quiet. At two o’clock on another hot, dry afternoon they strolled up towards the People’s Square. Some were in smart shirts and ties, others in jeans and trainers. In their hands were iron bars, knives, staves of wood, metal chains and nunchuks, golf clubs and meat cleavers, lengths of piping, shovels and axes.
Little by little the numbers swelled, almost imperceptibly. Within half an hour there were hundreds of Han Chinese on the streets of Urumqi – then thousands. At first the talk was of self-defence. Then it turned to vengeance. A respectable-looking middle-aged woman carried a plank with a nail poking from it; a younger woman in a colourful top and white diamante mules clutched a metal pipe. A father, passing with his family, held his young son with one hand and a length of wood with the other.
Then, a roar in the distance. They walked, then ran, toward the Uighur part of town, where many would smash up stores and threaten residents. It would take round after round of teargas and thousands of riot and paramilitary police to disperse them.
The authorities believed that they had the capital of the troubled north-western region of Xinjiang under tight control after 156 died and more than 1,000 were injured in ethnic violence that flared on Sunday.Twenty thousand security forces have since flooded the city. But officials had not reckoned on the sheer force of loathing and fear building up in Urumqi.
Last night the city was under curfew “to avoid further chaos” after a day of escalating tensions. But whether the 11-hour lockdown will do anything to suppress the intensifying ethnic conflict will only become clear today.
It seems it is no longer possible to turn down the temperature on the simmering grievances and mutual suspicion which have emerged in this region over decades. Many of the Uighur Muslims, who make up almost half of Xinjiang’s population, resent controls on their religion and rising Han migration and accuse authorities of eroding their culture. Many Han appear to distrust the Uighurs.
Establishing control of the streets appeared challenge enough for the authorities yesterday. Earlier, Uighur residents had clashed with police as they protested against the arrests of men in their neighbourhood on Monday. More than 1,400 people have been detained in connection with the riots.
Uighur exiles accused the government of a brutal crackdown on peaceful protests on Sunday, when Uighurs and other minorities were injured along with Han. The authorities have not issued details of deaths and casualties by ethnicity. But witnesses described Uighurs launching apparently indiscriminate attacks on Han. The resulting images of blood-soaked bodies and battered victims both terrified and inflamed many Han and some reported further attacks by Uighurs yesterday. Rumours were flying around the city. Uighur gangs were prowling the streets and attacking Han, they said. Uighurs had broken into a hospital to finish off Sunday’s survivors. Uighurs were coming again, with knives and guns. “We just want to defend our stuff,” said one man.
Bank staff shuttered the doors and crouched behind the glass; not only security guards but young cashiers had grabbed wooden batons. Hotel workers taped up windows. Officers stood and watched as the crowd grew, doing nothing to dissuade or disarm them at first.
Then, as they began to run along North Jiefang Road, towards a Uighur area, three paramilitary police trucks took off in pursuit. Anxious officers pleaded with gangs to drop their weapons and go home, promising that security forces would protect them. “We need to protect the law. Please retreat … please trust us,” one urged.
“Our brothers and sisters have been bloodied,” cried a man in the crowd.
“How many people were killed [on Sunday]? How many people died?” demanded an old man in a hat.
Singing bursts of the national anthem and shouting “we should unite, we should unite”, the crowd surged around the city. Police fired teargas to force them away as they attempted to break into a mainly Uighur housing compound. One witness reported gunshots, but said that amid the chaos it was impossible to tell who fired.
Further along the streets, they chased a boy up a tree because they believed he was a Uighur. “Someone said he was Han and managed to calm the crowd down. I think otherwise they would probably have killed him,” the witness added. Police bundled away several journalists “for their own safety”.
Those who attempted to restrain the mob appeared to have little effect. In places, officers forced their way between rock-throwing Han and Uighur crowds to separate them.
Elsewhere, they bundled Uighurs away before angry Han could reach them. Even when teargas dispersed the mob, many still wandered the streets with weapons, applauded by onlookers. Some stood back, amazed by the madness around them. In 48 hours the Urumqi they knew – a growing, modern city of shopping centres, office blocks and fast-food stores – had degenerated into hatred and mob violence. It seemed no one was immune.
A Han resident shook his head in disbelief and dismay. “This is not our city,” he said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Armed Han settlers seek revenge
July 7th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Government imposes a curfew in the capital of Xinjiang region
• Toll from Sunday’s riot raised to 156 dead, 1,000 wounded
The Chinese government imposed a curfew on Urumqi after hundreds of Han residents armed with meat cleavers, iron pipes and shovels joined the frontline of the deadliest ethnic clashes the country has seen in decades.
As the United Nations called for restraint and petrol bombs were thrown at a Chinese consulate in Europe, armed riot police in Urumqi struggled to restore order with teargas and roadblocks in the capital of the far western Xinjiang region.
The local Communist party chief, Wang Lequan, warned that the struggle was far from over, although he said the worst violence on Sunday had been quelled.
Yesterday there were at least three confrontations between indigenous Uighurs, Han settlers and police, according to media reports. The authorities raised the casualty toll from Sunday’s riot to 156 dead and more than 1,000 wounded. No ethnic breakdown has been given, but reports from hospitals suggest the vast majority were Han. Chinese websites and newspapers have published pictures of rows of bloodied bodies.
There have been few domestic reports of the dozens of Uighur casualties – some of whom have been confirmed by the Guardian as having being shot – or claims by exiled Uighur groups that police killed protesters. Human rights groups have called for an independent investigation into the cause of the violence. The UN’s human rights high commissioner, Navi Pillay, said the Chinese authorities and civic leaders of the Han and Uighur ethnic groups should exercise great restraint to avoid sparking more violence.
But many Han residents – the largest ethnic group in Urumqi – and Hui armed themselves and took to the streets, looking for revenge or communal self-defence.
Several hundred headed for the Grand Bazaar, the main Uighur district, armed with clubs and chanting “Defend stability, protect the motherland” and “Attack Uighurs”. They smashed shop windows and knocked over food stalls. “They attacked us. Now it’s our turn to attack them,” a man in the crowd was quoted as saying by Reuters. Riot police reportedly held the mob back, then tried to break it up with teargas.
In another protest, hundreds of Uighurs, mostly women and children, confronted police and called for the release of husbands and fathers who were rounded up in a search for suspects. The authorities have arrested 1,434 people. Some were taken away during door-to-door searches in which police asked men to remove their shirts so they could look for wounds that might indicate involvement in the riot.
A separate report suggested a gang of about a dozen Uighurs armed with knives and bricks attacked passersby and drivers from other ethnic groups. On Monday evening about 200 demonstrators gathered in front of the main mosque in Kashgar, a Silk Road city closer to the border with Kyrgyzstan.
Police say “separatist groups” are trying to organise more unrest. The Chinese authorities blamed Rebiya Kadeer, leader of the exile group World Uighur Congress, for stirring up discontent. They say she and her supporters want to divide China by creating an East Turkestan homeland.
Police claimed today to have evidence that she instigated the riot. In a recorded conversation, they allege Kadeer said: “Something will happen in Urumqi.” The veracity of this claim could not be confirmed, nor why such a phrase might be proof of instigating violence.
Crowds initially gathered on Sunday to protest against the killing of two Uighur migrants by Han co-workers at a toy factory in Guangdong two weeks ago. In a belated response, police announced yesterday that they had detained 15 suspects in the case, though graphic video of workers repeatedly battering the victims with wooden staves has been circulating on the internet for more than a week.
The authorities acknowledged yesterday that they had restricted access to the web since Sunday. “We cut internet connection in some areas of Urumqi in order to quench the riot quickly and prevent violence from spreading to other places,” the city’s top Communist party official, Li Zhi, told state media.
Elsewhere in China, the microblog Twitter has been blocked and details about the riot censored.
Compared with the unrest in Tibet last year, the government has given more access to foreign reporters. Officials have organised press conferences and trips. But a visit to a local hospital was cancelled on security grounds and several correspondents have had equipment confiscated.
The conflict appears to have spread overseas. Uighur supporters have staged demonstrations outside Chinese diplomatic missions in the Netherlands and Germany. In Munich two petrol bombs were thrown at the consulate.
Xinjiang covers a sixth of China’s territory and has some of the country’s biggest oil, gas and coal deposits. Though its Muslim Uighurs have attracted less sympathy in the west than Buddhist Tibetans, the two groups face a similar predicament as homelands are developed by an influx of settlers, mostly from the Han majority.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Jersualem braces for Saturday car park protests
July 7th, 2009 |
No Comments
Ultra-orthodox activists claim opening of parking space near holy sites desecrates Jewish holy day of the Sabbath
Police in Jerusalem were preparing for fierce clashes tomrrow, as ultra-orthodox Jewish demonstrators threatened to escalate protests over a car park, which they say desecrates the Sabbath.
The religious protesters have hurled rocks, set fire to rubbish bins and denounced the police as “Nazis” who would “burn in hell” during demonstrations over the past few weeks against the city council’s decision to provide free municipal parking near Jerusalem’s Old City for tourists on Saturdays.
Protesters have blocked roads and disrupted traffic, while the city’s secular mayor, Nir Barkat, has received death threats, according to a police spokesman.
A few weeks ago, the controversy attracted 30,000 ultra-orthodox residents to pray in protest at the new car park. The weekend before last saw 57 people arrested, most of whom were subsequently released, although a number have been charged with assault.
The row has also prompted counter-demonstrations from secular residents urging Barkat not to cave in to “religious coercion”.
The ultra-orthodox sector – also called “Haredi” or God-fearing – adheres to strict religious codes, of which observing the Sabbath is a central tenet.
They view the decision to open a municipal parking lot as a move that sanctions driving, and indirectly promotes trading on Saturdays – both forbidden according to ultra-orthodox practice – and hence considers it to be a city-wide cancellation of the Sabbath.
“Our struggle is not over a car park, but about the character of Jerusalem,” said Shmuel Poppenheim, of the ultra-religious Eda Haredit group, which has organised most of the protests.
“If the mayor decides today that he can open a car park on a Saturday, who knows what he will decide to do tomorrow.”
City council representatives have said that the decision to open the parking lot was in response to a chronic shortage of weekend parking.
The new car park was approved, officials say, in response to police reports that increasing numbers of tourists and day-trippers were depositing dangerously parked cars around the Old City.
Barkat, who was elected mayor last November, sees attracting tourism as part of his economic growth plan for the city, where the usually low-income ultra-orthodox sector is expected to form the majority of the Jewish population within the next decade.
The car-park clashes are seen to represent a stand-off between the mayor and Jerusalem’s growing ultra-religious community. Members of this sector have said that the issue is a “cultural war”, through which Barkat seeks to turn Jerusalem into another Tel Aviv – where numerous businesses, including shops, cafes and car parks, remain open on Saturdays.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Pope urges ethical side to global capitalism
July 7th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Benedict XVI says ‘effects of sin’ evident in business practices
• Encyclical accuses NGOs of ‘actively’ promoting abortion
The pope today called for a “profoundly new way” of organising global finance and business, calling for a new social and ethical dimension to capitalism and arguing the case for a new world political authority to help champion “the common good”.
In the third encyclical of his pontificate, entitled Charity in Truth, Pope Benedict XVI urged the financial sector to “rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity”.
The economy, he said, was marked by “grave deviations and failures” – an area of life “where the pernicious effects of sin are evident”.
“The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from “influences” of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way,” the pope said. “In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.”
“Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers,” he added.
To revive the global economy without creating greater imbalances, inequalities and insecurities, he said, “there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”
The pope also used the encyclical to accuse governments and non-governmental organisations of working “actively” to spread abortion and promote sterilisation in poor countries and, in some cases, “not even informing the women involved”.
An encyclical is a papal treatise on pressing spiritual or political issues. The 57-page document, called Charity in Truth, addresses the social and moral consequences of the economic crisis. It is the pope’s third encyclical since he was elected to the papacy, in 2005.
The question of respect for life could not be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples, he insisted, as he attacked societies where family planning was available.
“Some parts of the world still experience practices of demographic control, on part of goverments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion. In economically developed countries, legislation contrary to life is widespread and it has already shaped moral attitudes and praxis, contributing to the spread of an anti-birth mentality; frequent attempts are made to export this mentalility to other states as if it were a form of cultural progress.”
He went further in his condemnation of contraception by claiming that it was forced on impoverished communities.
“There is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific healthcare policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth-control measures.”
Further grounds for concern were laws permitting euthanasia as well as pressure from lobby groups pushing for its juridicial recognition, he added.
The consequence of this “denial or suppression of life” was a loss of striving for “man’s true good”. In a broadside at developed nations he said that by cultivating openness to life, “wealthy peoples” could better understand the need of poor ones.
“They can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens and instead promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Sharia across the pond
July 6th, 2009 |
No Comments
Denying sharia arbitration to Muslims singles them out unfairly. The UK should follow the US example and relax about the issue
Last week the British press frothed over a report that at least 85 sharia tribunals now operate in the UK. British law is supposedly under attack, threatened by the creeping tide of radical sharia.
It’s understandable that talk of “sharia” makes some people nervous. Some interpretations of the sharia ban on apostasy clearly violate religious liberty and other basic human rights. There are also legitimate concerns that some elements of the Islamic community in the UK already ignore various civil laws.
On the other other hand, throwing the baby out with the bath will hardly help. The United States has long recognised sharia tribunals. Far from ghettoising Muslims or enslaving women, these tribunals have helped integrate Muslims into American society while respecting their religious liberty.
Recognising sharia tribunals in the United States has not enabled fundamentalist Muslims to stone adulterers, engage in polygamy, or flog drunkards. Rather, the United States treats sharia tribunals like any other private arbitration. Just as a corporation can resolve a labour dispute through arbitration, or a Jewish couple can take a divorce dispute to a rabbinical court, Muslims can voluntarily resolve their private disputes in a sharia tribunal. The sharia tribunal’s judgment is then enforceable in civil court just like that of any other private arbitrator – provided the civil court determines all appropriate procedural safeguards have been followed.
What are those procedural safeguards? First, the parties must agree to use the tribunal voluntarily; any force, fraud, or coercion invalidates the proceeding. Second, the arbitrators must be neutral. Third, the arbitration cannot be “against public policy” – if the arbitrator resolves sensitive matters (such as child custody) in a way that undermines important state interests, the decision is unenforceable. Fourth, the arbitration cannot, in the eyes of a civil court, be “unconscionable” or grossly unfair. Finally, the arbitrator has no authority to enforce his decision; enforcement requires one of the parties to sue in civil court.
Despite the uneventful history of sharia tribunals in the United States, many Britons abhor the idea of sharia arbitration. Some objections stem from confusion over what authority sharia tribunals would wield. For example, some worry sharia tribunals could force a 12-year-old girl into marriage, permit polygamy, or punish adultery with stoning. But in America (as in the UK) no form of arbitration – religious or secular – may violate civil law. Arbitration can only decide issues where civil law already gives parties freedom to negotiate, such as division of property in a divorce or shares of an inheritance.
A more serious objection is that sharia arbitration will undermine the rights of Muslim women. Opponents say Muslim communities will pressure women to choose sharia tribunals where they will face disadvantages, such as procedural rules devaluing a woman’s testimony, or religious rules giving men a greater share of property in divorce or inheritance cases.
American experience contradicts these claims. First, sharia tribunals don’t always disfavour women. In some situations – such as spousal support after divorce – sharia gives women more rights than civil law. In fact, many American sharia cases have involved wives suing to enforce favourable sharia decisions against husbands.
Second, the five procedural safeguards mentioned above have amply protected women in sharia arbitration. If a woman is coerced into sharia arbitration, faces a biased arbitrator, or receives a grossly unfair decision, the sharia decision cannot be enforced in civil court. There is no evidence these standards have failed to protect Muslim women’s rights in the United States – especially when coupled with public information campaigns to inform vulnerable women about their legal rights.
Finally, opponents of sharia tribunals completely ignore the fundamental question of religious liberty. Just as Orthodox Jews believe they should resolve certain disputes before a rabbinical court, and some strains of Christianity teach that Christians should resolve disputes through the church, many Muslims (like Zeinab’s mum) believe sharia dispute resolution is a religious duty. Britain has allowed Jews to resolve disputes in the London rabbinical court since the early 1700s; denying Muslims the same right violates their religious liberty.
The key is to strike a balance between the laudable (but paternalistic) urge to protect Muslim women from coercion, and the fundamental human right of all persons to follow their conscience. The United States strikes that balance by treating sharia arbitration just like any other form of arbitration – allowing devout Muslims to resolve disputes voluntarily in a sharia tribunal, while invalidating any arbitration decisions that violate neutral civil standards of fairness.
If those standards prove insufficient to protect the rights of vulnerable groups (such as Muslim women), the solution is not to ban voluntary sharia arbitration (sorry Denis) but to strengthen the standards and educate vulnerable groups about their rights.
In addition, standards should be strengthened using neutral secular terms that apply to all forms of arbitration, not just sharia. That ensures the government remains neutral among various religions. It also ensures the government remains neutral between religion and non-religion – treating religiously motivated decisions to arbitrate no worse than decisions made for secular reasons.
The rallying cry of the anti-sharia movement is “one law for all.” Banning sharia arbitration does not further that goal. Instead, it provides one law for Muslims (who cannot arbitrate), and another for people of other faiths or no faith (who can). The United States provides one law for all by treating all forms of arbitration equally – a Muslim who chooses sharia arbitration is treated no differently from the Jew who chooses rabbinical court, or the celebrity who chooses civil arbitration. This way the United States gives the right of conscience the respect it deserves. The UK should too.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Anglican dissidents protest at CofE ‘liberalism’
July 6th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Coalition against same-sex unions and gay priests
• Critics say move will lead to Church of England split
Thousands of Anglicans will gather in London tomorrow to support the launch of a UK movement opposing liberalism in the Church of England, with critics claiming it will undermine the church and the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury.
The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), which counts five homegrown bishops among its backers, is aimed at congregations and clergy unhappy with the Church of England’s position on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of women and homosexuals as priests.
One of the English churchmen supporting the FCA is Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, who continues to draw criticism for his views on homosexuality.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, and then today from the pulpit of the Church of St Peter in Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, he said homosexuality was a threat to the Christian way of life and that it had divided the Anglican communion.
In his sermon he said: “When we ignore what the Bible tells us we do so at our peril, as we continually discover.
“If we continue in God’s way then we will flourish as persons. Marriage will be strong, family will be strong and society will be strong. It’s not rocket science.”
The other danger to Christians and the Church of England was “syncretism” ‑ the attempted reconciliation of opposing principles or beliefs, he said. “It happens daily when we capitulate to the forces around us,” he warned. “The values of culture are not necessarily values of the Christian faith.”
The tendency among traditionalists was to “keep the peace, not rock the boat and compromise with the world”, he told churchgoers. He said the FCA would change that, adding: “We will resist compromise … We need to make sure that God’s will for human beings and their flourishing is set forth clearly.”
After the service he said there had been meetings with the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, about the movement and that he had sent a message for delegates. Asked if it was a message of support, Nazir-Ali replied: “I’ve only seen one line of it, but it looked good to me.”
Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell accused Nazir-Ali of prejudice. “As an Asian man, the bishop knows the pain of racial prejudice,” he said. “I am shocked he wants to inflict similar prejudice on gay people. Bigotry, even in the guise of religion, has no place in a compassionate, caring society. His prejudice goes against Christ’s gospel of love and compassion.”
The bishop, who retires in September, was one of several high-profile clergymen to address congregations in the Greater London area today to rally support. Others included the archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen.
Organisers of the event claim it does not represent a schism and that the group is not an organisation, with structures and a constitution, but simply a spiritual network of like-minded Christians.
Some are unconvinced, noting that the FCA allies itself with groups that have snubbed the archbishop of Canterbury or established parallel churches that are more conservative.
The Rev Andrew Goddard, a tutor in Christian ethics at Trinity College, Bristol, said the FCA was “self-consciously” distancing itself from the Church of the England and aligning itself with conservative churches in Africa and North America, and that it included and was supportive of some who had already separated.
“These people would want the FCA to distance itself from at least parts of the Church of England and would seek to move the FCA in a more separatist direction. The danger is that even if it as a whole does not officially follow a ‘separatist’ path, [it] will give legitimacy and provide cover for members who do separate.
“The concern is that it will simply support those who sign up to it.
“However they conduct themselves in relation to the authority structures of the Church of England, the separatist tail will end up wagging the officially non-separatist dog.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
British cardinal edges closer to sainthood
July 3rd, 2009 |
No Comments
Pope approves beatification of John Newman, which would mean first British saint since 1976
Cardinal John Henry Newman has moved closer to sainthood after Pope Benedict XVI approved his beatification, saying that the healing of a man’s serious back condition was down to his intercession.
Newman, who was England’s most famous convert to Catholicism until Tony Blair turned to Rome in 2007, would become Britain’s first saint since St John Ogilvie, a Scottish martyr, was canonised by Pope Paul VI in 1976 and the first Englishman who lived after the 17th century to be canonised.
For someone to be proclaimed “blessed”, his or her heavenly intercession must be judged responsible for a miracle of physical healing. A panel of doctors has to rule that the healing is scientifically inexplicable, while theologians examine whether it occurred as the result of the intercession of the person whose beatification is being considered.
If the doctors and theologians judge the case positively, it is then examined by the cardinals and bishops of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The results of those discussions are communicated to the Pope, who alone has the power to declare a healing to be a true miracle. Only when all these stages have been successfully completed does the Pope authenticate the miracle.
A second miracle has to be recognised for a person to be declared to be a saint.
The news was welcomed in the UK and beyond. Jack Sullivan, a cleric in the US who claimed he was healed through Newman’s intercession, said he was left with an “intense sense of gratitude and thanksgiving to God”.
In the archdiocese of Birmingham, where Newman lived for more than 40 years, Bishop William Kenney said he was “delighted” to hear of the development.
“This is an opportunity for a real renewal of spirit among Catholics and many others, not least here in the city of Birmingham.”
The steps to sainthood can take years or centuries and the process can only start after a person has died. The first stage involves an examination of a person’s life and writings. During this examination he or she is called a “servant of God” – as Pope John Paul II is at present.
At the end of this scrutiny, the Pope may make a proclamation of “heroic virtue” – that the person lived to a heroic degree the “theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, and the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude”.
With this proclamation, he or she is declared “venerable”, a status Newman has held since 1991.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Find God, win a trip to Mecca
July 2nd, 2009 |
No Comments
Turkish gameshow enlists imam, Greek Orthodox priest, rabbi and monk to try to convert atheists, with pilgrimage as reward
It sounds like the beginning of a joke: what do you get when you put a Muslim imam, a Greek Orthodox priest, a rabbi, a Buddhist monk and 10 atheists in the same room?
Viewers of Turkish television will soon get the punchline when a new gameshow begins that offers a prize arguably greater than that offered by Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
Contestants will ponder whether to believe or not to believe when they pit their godless convictions against the possibilities of a new relationship with the almighty on Penitents Compete (Tovbekarlar Yarisiyor in Turkish), to be broadcast by the Kanal T station. Four spiritual guides from the different religions will seek to convert at least one of the 10 atheists in each programme to their faith.
Those persuaded will be rewarded with a pilgrimage to the spiritual home of their newly chosen creed – Mecca for Muslims, Jerusalem for Christians and Jews, and Tibet for Buddhists.
The programme’s makers say they want to promote religious belief while educating Turkey’s overwhelmingly Muslim population about other faiths.
“The project aims to turn disbelievers on to God,” the station’s deputy director, Ahmet Ozdemir, told the Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review.
That mission is attested to in the programme’s advertising slogans, which include “We give you the biggest prize ever: we represent the belief in God” and “You will find serenity in this competition”.
Only true non-believers need apply. An eight-strong commission of theologians will assess the atheist credentials of would-be contestants before deciding who should take part.
Converts will be monitored to ensure their religious transformation is genuine and not simply a ruse to gain a free foreign trip. “They can’t see this trip as a getaway, but as a religious experience,” Ozdemir said.
The programme, which is scheduled to air in September, has been criticised by commentators and religious figures for trivialising God and faith.
Mustafa Cagrici, provincial head of the state-run religious affairs directorate for Istanbul, said: “I don’t find it right to discuss religion in such environments.”
Others may see the show as fuelling a widespread intolerance of atheism in Turkey, where a large majority profess a deep religious belief despite the state’s officially secular character.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Hajj officials confront swine flu threat
July 1st, 2009 |
No Comments
Saudi workshop discusses ways to minimise spread of swine flu during pilgrimage season
The elderly, young, infirm and pregnant should stay away from this year’s hajj to avoid catching swine flu, Saudi health officials said today.
Their recommendations followed a workshop aimed at minimising the spread of the disease during the pilgrimage season, which attracts about 4 million Muslims from around the world.
Other measures include vaccinating people at least a fortnight before their arrival in the country and encouraging international delegations to stock medication to prevent and treat the virus causing swine flu.
Participants in the workshop stressed the need to encourage pilgrims to cover their noses when sneezing, cough into tissues and wash their hands with soap. Face masks, another precaution, are already worn by pilgrims to protect against pollution in Mecca and Medina.
The Saudi health minister, Dr Abdullah Al-Rabeeah, said at a press conference in Jeddah that the World Health Organisation experts who took part in the workshop were satisfied with the safeguards in place.
Asked about the efficacy of vaccines against swine flu, he said: “The available vaccines are yet to be evaluated and assessed, a process that might take months.” He disagreed with claims that the media had exaggerated the threat posed by swine flu, saying: “The danger of the disease comes from the absence of immunity and vaccination against it.”
Fever-detecting cameras will be installed at King Abdulaziz airport in Jeddah, the main gateway for pilgrims entering Saudi Arabia. This week another six cases were announced in the country, raising the total to 81.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Let doctors pray for patients, BMA to be urged
June 29th, 2009 |
No Comments
British Medical Association conference to be told praying for patients should not be grounds for NHS disciplinary action
Doctors’ attempts to discuss spiritual affairs with patients or to offer prayers for them should not trigger NHS disciplinary action, the British Medical Association will be told this week.
The issue has been raised in a series of critical motions to be debated at the BMA’s conference in Liverpool during a session on medical ethics.
Concerns about what is professionally appropriate have been highlighted by the case of a nurse, Caroline Petrie from Weston-super-Mare, who was suspended after a patient complained she had offered to pray for her.
Her primary care trust later agreed she could continue to pray for patients as long as she asked them first if they had any spiritual needs.
Most of the BMA motions effectively support that position but insist spiritual discussions should not be grounds for disciplinary intervention by NHS managers.
The main motion, put forward by the BMA’s agenda committee, states that it “is concerned that … any discussion of spiritual matters with patients or colleagues could lead to disciplinary action”.
It adds: “Offering to pray for a patient should not be grounds for suspension.” Spiritual matters should be raised, it suggests, “with respect for the views and sensitivities of individuals”.
The area is currently subject to two distinct sets of guidelines, one set out by the General Medical Council (GMC) and the other by the Department of Health.
In Religion or Belief: A Practical Guide for the NHS, the department states: “Members of some religions … are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.
“To avoid misunderstandings and complaints, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures.”
The GMC guidance is the one preferred in most of the motions before the BMA conference. It urges the department “to exercise some joined-up thinking so that while always respecting the views and sensitivities of others, there should be freedom of speech to have appropriate consensual discussions of spiritual matters within the NHS”.
Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA’s Council, said yesterday he was unaware of the issue intruding on the working lives of most doctors.
It was, he suggested, difficult to expand on the subject based on a few isolated cases. What was most important, he said, was good communication between patients and doctors.
Dr Vivienne Nathanson, director of professional activities at the BMA, said it was “hugely important that it’s done right and sensitively… [Doctors] want to know what they are allowed to do.”
A Department of Health spokesman yesterday said its document was a guide to encourage awareness for staff and patients.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Review of Bill Hybels, “Holy Discontentâ€
June 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
Review of Bill Hybels, Holy Discontent: Fueling the Fire that Ignites Personal Vision. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
What really sets you off? What are the things in life that really get your blood boiling? In this short, provocative, and easy-to-read book, Willow Creek’s Bill Hybels uses his pastoral fluency to challenge the reader to consider what he calls their “holy discontent,†which consists of a sort of God-given righteous indignation and to channel this discontent in positive directions. The back-cover blurb summarizes the book very concisely: “Hybels invites you to consider the dramatic impact your life will have when you willingly convert the frustration of your holy discontent into fuel for changing the world.â€
Before I proceed with the review I should offer a bit of context. I saw the title at the bookstore at Gardendale’s First Baptist Church in Gardendale, Alabama on July 13, 2008, and it stuck out for two reasons. First, I had a passing familiarity with Hybels and his ministry. Second, Gardendale pastor Kevin Hamm had just given a message on contentment based on a passage from Philippians 4. From the promotional text on the book jacket it appeared that the book would address a lot of issues in which I am interested.
I found the book to be both timely and revolutionary. It asks a set of questions and teaches lessons that are important to Christians and non-Christians alike. Life is frustrating, and unfocused rage can be exhausting. So how can we channel our discontent in more positive directions?
Hybels bases his book around a very simple question: “why do people do what they do?â€Â This is based on a simple observation: people expend a lot of time, effort, and energy to change the world, and not always in ways that render material benefits. In the language of the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, people act in order to remove “felt uneasiness†or to transform their environment into one that they find more suitable.
What Mises calls “felt uneasiness†Hybels calls “holy discontent,†and he compares it to and contrasts it against the spiritual principle of contentment. Contentment and holy discontent are somewhere along the spectrum between inert complacency and unthinking, unfocused rage. Holy discontent is a motivation to action that is tempered by the Holy Spirit.
Hybels illustrates his points with Biblical patterns and twentieth century examples, noting for example that Moses became useful to God because of the injustices he observed and could not stand (pp. 20-21). I should mention here that Moses was motivated by holy discontent, but when he tried to take care of business by his own ideas and his own methods, he failed miserably, sacrificing his credibility with the nation of Israel by killing an Egyptian.
The failures of our Biblical examples are encouraging, and Hybels encourages us to take God’s perspective on our fellow man. Every person should be labeled “work in progress,†and it should be unsurprising (and un-discouraging) when our zeal for God’s house issues in mistakes and shortcomings.
To use a more modern pattern, Hybels discusses the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example of someone taking something he could stand no more and effecting change. Even today, people delight in pointing out King’s personal and professional failures. Indeed, there was much in King’s politics, economics, and personal life that was objectionable. But the same applies to King David, whose failures and shortcomings are immortalized as part of Holy Writ. We shouldn’t infer from this that God excuses everything; rather, we should take comfort from this in the knowledge that God can use people in spite of their failures and shortcomings. That Dr. King was imperfect should surprise no one. That God used him in spite of this to usher in a peaceful revolution in the way the United States conceives of the proposition that all men are created equal should inspire everyone.
Most of the remainder of the book consists of examples and applications. He discusses the fire in some hearts for children’s ministry, women’s ministry, poverty alleviation, revival, and other matters. His discussion of children’s ministry was especially compelling as he pointed out the workers at Willow Creek who, taking the view that some percentage of the children at Willow Creek on any given Sunday are, have been, or will be abused, seek to provide an environment in which the kids can be comforted, cared for, and loved. The trials and travails of daily life that seem so important fade to black when God shines his light on real injustice and others’ pain.
Hybels’s goal is to help people channel their deep discontent—and such discontent can be healthy—into effective action, noting on pages 50 and 51 that there has to be a purpose for our lives between salvation and death. Quoting Ephesians 2:10, Hybels notes that we are to dedicate ourselves to good works. This point can be summarized in the following passage from page 41:
Truly there’s nothing more inspiring than a person who transforms something he just can’t stand into the kind of positive energy that advances restoration in the world. This is what’s at work every time a check gets sent from a grateful heart to a worthy cause, all in the name of “doing good†in the world. It’s what’s at work every time a person steps into a church or a civic center or a reliev agency’s tent with an “I’m here to serve†attitude—and does so after logging forty or sixty or eighty hours at their “real†job each week. It’s also what’s at work when that real job is more than a path to a paycheck; it is an avenue for releasing a little pent-up holy discontent tension.
Incubating clarity takes time, though. Hybels advises baby steps (pp. 67-68) while at the same time advising a resolute forward march against the Goliaths of our lives (pp. 70-71). He counsels a conscientious and self-aware view of the areas where we really think we need to see change. Rather than fighting the impulses we feel when something really drives us crazy, he suggests that we feed rather than fight the missional feelings that God gives us. He cites further the example of U2’s Bono, a rock star who has no doubt made many rock star mistakes but who shines as a “1000-watt bulb,†to paraphrase Hybels, and as a living expression of his faith. I disagree with Bono about a great many things related to economic development policy, but his earnestness and his willingness to seek out wise counsel (such as Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs) are admirable.
Here I diverge from a traditional review and consider some of the take-home points I have gleaned from this book. Business writer Seth Godin has suggested that one should not read a business book without resolving to change at least three things as a result. Here I echo this advice. Holy Discontent is not a business book per se, but it is a call to action. I would like to combine Hybels’s message with some of the things I have learned as an economist to help the reader formulate an action plan that can complement the book.
With respect to good works, we should think hard and have a nuanced understanding of what we seek to change. This requires that we seek wise counsel. I mentioned earlier that I think Bono’s views about the process of economic development are incorrect (and have gone on record to this effect), but he has done something that few celebrity activists have done. He sought the assistance of the very best; indeed, his relationship with development economist Jeffrey Sachs resulted in Bono’s writing the introduction for Sachs’s book The End of Poverty. I am more inclined to fall on the other side of the development debate, agreeing primarily with New York University economist William Easterly, but we should all follow Bono’s example by seeking to develop a nuanced understanding of the problems we seek to solve.
We should also “see then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, for the days are evil,†continuing steadfastly in prayer and fellowship (Ephesians 4?:15-16). The world will fill all of our time with demands on our attention, which means that we will often be tempted to put off the things that are important in order to take care of things which are merely urgent. This suggests two action steps.
We would all do well to take an inventory of our commitments and of the things that create in us a sense of holy discontent. Then we should apply what has come to be known as the “80/20 rule,†a rule developed based on the writings of the Italian economist Vilifredo Pareto. Pareto pointed out an interesting empirical regularity: approximately eighty percent of output comes from about twenty percent of inputs, and approximately eighty percent of problems come from about twenty percent of inputs. This suggests that we should look for and seek to develop the twenty percent of our commitments that create eighty percent of our meaningful results while discarding the commitments we have that are very heavy on the inputs but very light on the output.
This requires a degree of discipline, review, and reflection that I, quite honestly, have struggled to implement. Particularly as technology changes and as we become more productive, the demands on our time will only increase. The temptation to sacrifice what is important and productive in order to do things that are trivial and perhaps unproductive can be, at times, overwhelming. Over time, however, we can develop the discipline necessary to change the things that create in us a sense of holy discontent.
In my estimation, Bill Hybels has written a very important book. It is by no means a “how to†manual on dealing with holy discontent, but it offers a scriptural and practical foundation on which to build our lives and ministries. Hybels’s book is short and easy to read, and in this sense it is a literary manifestation of Shakespeare’s idea that “brevity is the soul of wit.â€Â The book has changed my outlook on life, and I expect it will do the same for others, too.
Art Carden is Assistant Professor of Economics and Business at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee and an Adjunct Fellow with the Oakland, California-based Independent Institute. His research papers have been published or are forthcoming in Public Choice, Contemporary Economic Policy, the International Journal of Social Economics, the Business and Society Review, the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, the Review of Austrian Economics, and other outlets, and they can be found on his SSRN Author Page. His commentaries appear regularly atwww.mises.org and in newspapers around the country, and he is a regular contributor to Division of Labour. He and his wife, Shannon, had their first child in July, 2008.
Who wants Ireland’s blasphemy law?
New rules which forbid causing ‘outrage’ among religious people have baffled Ireland. We were getting along just fine without them
I’m not sure which piece of unpopular Irish news is being buried by which: the announcement of a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, or the shuffling through of a law creating penalties for blasphemy, an offence that has never properly existed in the Irish state.
While there is certainly a store of resentment in the population at being asked to vote again (that is: vote properly, you morons, as the government is barely holding back from saying) on the Lisbon treaty, there is a certain sense of bafflement at the new blasphemy legislation, smuggled in under the guise of defamation law reform. Nobody wanted this law: no one can think of a single thundering priest, austere vicar, irate rabbi or miffed mullah ever calling for tougher penalties for blasphemy. Certainly there were the frequent, and frequently ignored missives from Armagh, warning the Irish not to abandon God for 4x4s and Nintendo Wiis. And there was widespread dismay when popular comic Tommy Tiernan pushed the Bible-baiting a bit too far on the Late Late Show. But never did anyone suggest we needed tough blasphemy laws. Until the justice minister, Dermot Ahern, decided we needed to fill the “void” left by our lack of one.
Technically, Ahern is correct that Bunreacht na hÉireann requires that blasphemy be a criminal offence. However, no one ever bothered to formulate what the exact offence might be, and we muddled on for quite a long time without anyone worrying about this (perhaps, as a friend pointed out to me, because all blasphemous material was grabbed by the all-powerful censors long before it could ever get to court). In 1999, there was an attempt to prosecute a newspaper for a cartoon mocking the church, but the judge in that case noted that he could not prosecute, because there was no definition of what legally constituted blasphemy. Well now there is. And it concerns itself with what might or might not cause “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion” (note, not just Christianity, as was the case with English blasphemy law: this is, at least, equal opportunities idiocy).
As Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland has pointed out:
So Irish law has now enshrined the notion that the taking of offence is more important than free expression. If something might cause a motivated group to be “outraged”, rather than, say, cause them to live in fear, then it is illegal, with a fine of up to €25,000 payable.
Note the ease with which a prosecution could be brought, and the punitive nature of the fine: this is not legislation that simply serves to tie up a few loose ends.
The minister claimed that his only alternative to this legislation was to have a referendum. This again, is technically true: any constitutional changes in Ireland require this. But the minister dismissed the notion of organising a referendum as being too costly in these straitened times.
Yet today, we are told there is to be another Lisbon referendum in October. Wouldn’t it have been sensible to hold both the Lisbon referendum and a referendum on the abolition of the concept of blasphemy from the constitution on the same day, cutting down on costs? Wouldn’t it, minister?