KEN TO THE RESCUE

Wednesday's Guardian in an article about London's growing water crisis includes the following quote;


Unveiling plans for a concerted drive to cut water waste, Ken Livingstone urged Londoners to refrain from flushing the toilet if they have had only "a pee".

All of which has two possible benefits;

1/. My wife now realises that for all my hygienic failures, she is better of being married to a grump like me than to the charismatic Ken.

2/. The thought of London as a breeding ground for the sorts of diseases that come from poor sanitation, just my tip the balance and save us from a visit in 2012 by that most self important and ethics free body, the International Olympic Organisation. Perhaps they will keep their corporate sponsors happy by extending their promotion of the state terrorists who oppress China.

TRIBUTE TO SHRUB

George W Bush is a problem to me. This is because many people link him and his convictions to Christianity. It is hardly for me to comment on the private man BUT I can in no way link the public man with the Gospel. I can in no way associate the Texan toxic executioner who sends missiles into the streets of Iraq and at the same time plays fast and loose with the environment as well as demonstrating a preferential option for the rich and powerful, with Jesus of Nazareth who gives value to all and who shows the power of love.

Anyhow, an American band called 'Bright Eyes' have produced a song entitled 'When the President Talks to God.' Read these powerful lyrics;

When the President talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women's' rights

And send poor farm kids off to die?

Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto’s broke
No, they’re lazy, George, I say we don’t
Just give ‘em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That’s what God recommends

When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God

When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he’s not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?

I doubt it

I doubt it


So do I. But more than that, if Christianity is to be linked with the actions of young Bush, it will be the biggest disaster for Christianity since Constantine, another man of bloodshed, got his hands on the Church nearly 1,700 years ago.

GUT WRENCHING JOURNALISM

The past few days have been days of extreme gutter crawling by Rupert Murdoch's News International, even by their own grubby standards.

On Sunday, the 'News of the World' frontpage highlighted the suggestion that the Prime Minister is an unfit drinker. A quick scan of the story on the internet shows that there was really no story at all. The fake Sheikh of that particular organ had enticed a few unwise remarks out of Mrs Blair's former aide Carol Caplin. In context, she had said nothing of note. But for a newspaper that is incapable of serious news analysis, it was felt to be a scoop. It may well be that the real target was Ms Caplin whom the Murdoch Press have a dislike of. Doubtless, it gave a laugh to the gin sodden bullies of News International.

This week it has been the turn of the Sun. Readers may recall that the Sun virtually deified Princess Diana in the immediate aftermath of her death in 1997. This week the worm has turned. During the past three days there have been lurid claims from a book by Diana's former spiritualist advisor whom the Sun has doubtless paid the conversion rate of thirty pieces of silver. This 'friend' of the Princess has accused her of a one night stand with an American celebrity, taking cocaine and behaving in such a way that one of her sons was subject to a DNA test. I do not know the truth or otherwise of these claims. There is no evidence to support them other than the claims of a 'friend' on the make. Were the Princess alive, she would be able to sue. But in her death, the way is left open to cowards to spin any sort of nonsense. And the value free zone that is the Murdoch Press will gladly print them to sell their illiterate wares.

Now, let me be clear. I am not defending heroes here. I have little feeling for Mr Blair who I would happily see in the dock on war crimes charge. Ms Caplin strikes me as somewhat flakey. As for Princess Diana, I think she was neither Saint nor Sinner to any great degree. She was simply a complex woman who like most of us, had both virtues and flaws. To be honest, I found some of the idolatry surrounding her death to be shallow and in the case of the media, insincere. However, there needs to be standards of reporting. In the case of the Sun articles, it would seem only humane for the Sun to take into account that the Princess left behind two young sons. Indeed, the indiscretions of one of them, may not be unrelated to his loss and to the sort of journalism re his mother that has titillated Sun readers this week.

What concerns me is that these two pieces of reporting, reflect the mentality of News International. I have come to suspect that the reason that people do not confront these papers, is a degree of fear at the bullying mentality which has become their byword. If any of us adopted the scoffing bullying approach of Murdoch's press in our dealings with others, we would be in line for at the very least an ASBO. Meanwhile, out of fear, the 'Great and Good' bow before the perverter of decent standards.

The more I see of this gut wrenching journalism, the more I want to vomit at this desecration of a once honourable trade - preferably in the direction of the man from Oz!

CHICKEN YOGHURT

Just set up a new link with current affairs blog 'Chicken Yoghurt.' This is a site that takes no prisoners. The blogger (Justin) is the political equivalent of Norman 'bites yer legs' Hunter.

SHIVERS LOOKING FOR A SPINE

Our freedom loving Prime Minister has refused to announce a general moratorium on deportation of Zimbabwean asylum seekers. At a time when Mugabe's reign of terrror is reaching a new crescendo, to look tough our Prime Minister is prepared to send a number of the back to the tender mercies of Mugabe.

The Guardian today includes this report;


"The prime minister, Tony Blair, today ruled out a general moratorium on the deportation of Zimbabwean asylum seekers for fear it would lead to abuses of the system.

As a hunger strike among Zimbabweans seeking refuge in Britain entered its sixth day, Mr Blair said the government was in a "difficult" situation over what to do with people fleeing President Robert Mugabe's regime.

"We abhor what has happened in Zimbabwe," he said at his monthly press briefing. "Everything said about Mugabe has been shown to be true. But over the past few years we have cut asylum numbers down dramatically and for the first time are getting the system under control.

"If we introduce a generalised moratorium in respect of Zimbabwe instead of assessing each case on a case-by-case basis, our real fear is that we will open up our system to the abuse we have been shutting down."


He said all of those deported to Zimbabwe had had their claims thoroughly investigated, often by a court.

"If we then say, even to those whose claims fail, that we are not going to send you back, we will send a signal right across the system that Britain is open for claims ... that are not genuine."

Mr Blair said he "despaired" about the "appalling" regime in Zimbabwe and welcomed the fact that a UN envoy was visiting the country to inspect the latest home clearances, which have left hundreds of thousands homeless.

"I desperately want to do more. But I know that will create opposition from other countries surrounding Zimbabwe and from Zimbabwe itself."

Later in the Commons, the home secretary, Charles Clarke, said the government would not change its policy on Zimbabwean asylum seekers.

Those in need of protection or likely to face persecution by the Mugabe regime will continue to be granted asylum. But the "blanket suspension" of removals would only encourage those "seeking to get round our controls", he warned.

Mr Clarke confirmed that 57 Zimbabweans in detention awaiting deportation were on hunger strike, with officials keeping them carefully monitored.

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, condemned the government's policy on Zimbabwe as a "miserable failure".

Earlier today, Zimbabwe's chargé d'affaires in London, Godfrey Magwenzi, insisted it was safe for failed asylum seekers to return home.

"There is no need for me to guarantee the safety of these people. In fact, their lives were never in danger at any point in time. Everybody who goes back to Zimbabwe is safe," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"Nobody has been arrested. Nobody is in prison. Nobody is ever tortured for coming back to their own country."

At least 41 out of 116 Zimbabweans in UK immigration detention centres are on hunger strike in protest against the lifting of a ban preventing them being deported.

Meanwhile, a UN envoy was waiting to meet President Mugabe today before touring shantytowns and markets destroyed under a so-called urban renewal campaign that has displaced hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans.

Anna Tibaijuka, the Tanzanian head of the UN settlement agency, UN Habitat, arrived in the country yesterday at the head of a seven-member delegation to judge the impact of the programme dubbed Operation Murambatsvina, or Drive Out Trash, for the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan.

President Mugabe describes the campaign as intended to fight crime, maintain health standards and restore order in Zimbabwe's cities. But the opposition, which has its strongholds among the urban poor, says the blitz is meant to punish its supporters, who voted against the government in recent parliamentary elections.

Since the campaign was launched, on May 19, police have torched and bulldozed tens of thousands of shacks, street stalls and, at a time of acute food shortages, the vegetable gardens planted by the urban poor. Independent estimates of the number affected range between 300,000 and 1.5 million people; police only acknowledge 120,000.

Yesterday, the Zimbabwean opposition claimed that Robert Mugabe's government suspected returned asylum seekers were spies for the British government.

"This is a paranoid state that views those deported from London as spies trained by the Blair government to carry out espionage," a Movement for Democratic Change spokesman, Paul Themba Nyathi, said.

In Britain, politicians and church figures joined calls for a resumption of the Home Office ban, which, until last November, prevented anyone being forcibly deported back to the troubled African country.

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, said he was writing to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, calling for him to suspend 100 planned deportations.

"In these dreadful circumstances, we should place all deportations to Zimbabwe on hold," he said. "The Mugabe regime is wholly unsafe and plainly has no respect for human rights.

"The 116 people who are scheduled to be deported should have their cases urgently reviewed and there should be no question of returning them at the present time."

The Right Reverend Colin Fletcher, Bishop of Dorchester, said: "There is suffering and danger facing those asylum seekers being deported back to Zimbabwe.

"The current situation demands a compassionate response from our government, and urgent reassessment of its policy in relation to the return of failed asylum seekers."

More than 15,000 Zimbabweans fled to Britain in the four years up to 2004, though only a few hundred have been granted asylum. During the first three months of 2005, 95 Zimbabweans were deported.

Well Mr Blair if you seriously abhor what Mr Mugabe is doing and you have any sort of moral compass, you would stop the deportations. And if you don't and your Labour MPs have any backbone, they will stop you.

The only trouble is that as Iraq, the assault on civil liberties and a range of other issues show, far too many of them are in George Galloway's words, 'Shivers looking for a Spine to Crawl Up.'

Oh, for the backbone to stand up for what is right!

I AM DOOMED

This week has begun on a sour note. Recently I have been trying to change my eating patterns in the hope of losing weight. Whilst vanity may play a part in this, my main reason has been to improve my health and hopefully to help contain my asthma problems. Imagine my shock when on buying the Guardian, I found a front page item which begins as follows;

Overweight people who diet to reach a healthier weight are more likely to die young than those who remain fat, according to a study.

The finding needs to be backed up by further research before sweeping changes are made to public health strategies, the authors warn, but it highlights how poorly the long-term health effects of dieting are understood.

It is well proven that losing weight reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes among the obese, but the new study suggests that dieting also causes physiological damage that in the long term can outweigh the benefits.

The authors stressed that very overweight people and those with weight-related illnesses should not be deterred from dieting, but added that researchers should in future consider the short-term advantages of weight loss against the potential long-term risks.

"We need to study the effects of weight loss on the body much better than we have done so far," said the study's lead researcher, Thorkild Sorensen, of the Institute of Preventive Medicine at Copenhagen University hospital.

The study, which was carried out in Finland, followed 2,957 overweight or obese people who had been screened to ensure they had no underlying illnesses.

Overweight people have body mass indexes (BMIs) greater than 25, while obese people have BMIs greater than 30.

Each participant was questioned about their desire to lose weight in 1975 and again in 1981. Records of their weight and general health were kept for the next 18 years, during which 268 of the participants died.

Analysis of the data showed that those who wanted to lose weight and succeeded were significantly more likely to die young than those who stayed fat.

"Healthy overweight or obese subjects who try to lose weight and succeed in doing so over a six-year period suffer from almost double the risk of dying during the next 18 years compared with subjects who do not try to lose weight and whose weight remains stable," said Dr Sorensen.

Those who gained weight also had a greater risk of dying young.


Hoping that this was a quack theory, I was heartbroken to read thatother research appears to back this conclusion;


The finding is supported by an earlier study by researchers at the US National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion in Atlanta.

It followed 6,391 overweight or obese people for nine years and found that those who had no intention of losing weight and even gained weight were least at risk of dying young.

If the latest study is confirmed, it emphasises the need to prevent people becoming overweight and obese, the authors say.

"If people are overweight, their main priority should be to stop gaining weight and then work on losing some rather than chasing a low body mass index," said Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London. "If you can stop people gaining weight in their 20s and 30s, it seems to have the best outcome in the long term."


So to quote from Cassandra - 'Woe is me!' By the way I have so far lost 9lbs. But for my health, must I go back to Yorkie bars and Cornish pasties?

MORE PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY

Returning to the matter of Progressive Christianity, once more we find hope from USA. I have just taken some statements from the 'Christian Alliance for Progress' (will publish a link over the weekend). This is perhaps a more politicised statement of Progressive Christianity.


Values Matter.
Our values are our bedrock ideals about what is good or bad, what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral. Our values are at the center of Reclaiming Christianity in America.

Diverse Perspectives. One Source.

People in this movement hold diverse views about religion and the Christian life. But our differences are not what define us. Rather it is what we have in common: We find the inspiration for our shared values in the life of Jesus, in the spiritual path he modeled for us.

How We Seek to Follow the Jesus of the Gospels - Seven Values We Share:

Compassion and Care for "The Least of These "We follow Jesus' call to compassion and his command to "love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Responsibility and Obligation We heed the call to take up our cross - to transform our lives, but also to do more: to move beyond the "personal" and to take responsibility in our communities and country.

Justice for All We stand against powerful systems of human injustice in our world as Jesus stood against them in his.

Equality and Inclusiveness Like Jesus did among women, tax collectors, Samaritans and others, we reject hurtful exclusionary distinctions between "us" and "them."

Faithful Stewardship We follow Jesus' call for responsible stewardship - caring protection for the environment and sharing of our worldly treasure.

Right Use of Power We turn away from fear; we use the power of God that flows through us to protect the innocent and build justice in the world, not to coerce others to our will or force others to accept our vision.

Spiritual Foundation We turn to God as our spiritual foundation.

What Grows from Living These Values?

The Creation of Shalom, A Hard-Earned Peace.

Living these values requires hard work. But it is in living values out that the kingdom of God is established. The result is called Shalom, the well-being and wholeness of all. This is what the word "Peace" means.


I can't help but feel that this statement of what faith means, is relevant in a British context. We too need Progressive Christianity.

PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY

During the past few months, I have been disturbed by the identification of the Bush regime in the USA with Christianity. The toxic executioner from Texas seems to represent a very different understanding of Christianity than that with which I would wish to be associated. Around him have been a veritable collection of homophobes and the so called 'faith' approach to AIDS seems to have been as negative towards condoms as anything that comes from the Vatican.

Furthermore, we have seen a foreign policy based on violence which seems to me to be in total contrast with Christ who is the Prince of peace. Meanwhile he has done nothing to reduce the scandalous prison population which in Britain, our own Christian Prime Minister is also increasing.

I have long believed that for the sake of Christianity we must create a different perspective of faith than that which comes from Bush and those associated with him. Interestingly some hope comes from USA. I have long admired the work for peace and justice which comes from Jim Wallis and the Sojourner community.

Another group which I find myself challenged by is 'The Centre for Progressive Christianity.' I hope to set up a link to their site over the weekend. For now, I simply print their statement as to what progressive Christianity is.

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who…

1. Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus;

2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us;

3. Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples;

4. Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to):
believers and agnostics,conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,women and men,those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,those of all races and cultures,those of all classes and abilities,those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope;

5. Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe;

6. Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes;

7. Form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers; and

8. Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege.
***
The Center (oops American spelling and English spelling are not like Bush and Blair in always agreeing) talks of its mission as follows;

The mission of The Center for Progressive Christianity is:
» To reach out to those for whom organized religion has proved ineffectual, irrelevant, or repressive, as well as to those who have given up on or are unacquainted with it. »

To uphold evangelism as an agent of justice and peace. »

To give a strong voice both in the churches and the public arena to the advocates of progressive Christianity . »

To support those who embrace the search, not certainty.

Currently, we are working to fulfill our mission by:

» Creating open and welcoming communities of faith. We are developing strategies for evangelism that do not assume the absolute superiority of Christianity so that we do not contribute to the worlds tragic divisions.

» Reclaiming the symbols of our faith. We are finding effective means to be heard and to influence the behavior of the churches.

» Building an international network of progressive Christians. We are working with independent networks in other countries to provide support for people, especially the isolated, who hold to the principles that we believe are central to the Gospel.

» Being a constructive force for social and environmental justice and peace in the world. We are finding allies in the struggle to bring social and environmental justice and peace to all people, especially those who have been oppressed and powerless.


I certainly find this vision attractive and to me it speaks of the mission of Christ. I hope to read more from this organisation because we certainly need a progressive Christian witness in our world rather than the idolatry that is destructive of human life and dignity.

SCOTLAND TO GREET WHORES OF DEATH

Skimming through today's Guardian, I was fascinated to read about a report published by Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms entitled 'The G8: Global Arms Exporters'.

Amongst the interesting facts are that 6 of the G8 countries account for £15.7billion in arms exports. Here are some of the shocking details

France and Germany have recently exported arms to Burma, China and Sudan despite an EU arms embargo.

Russia makes money selling arms to such beacons of light as Sudan, Ethiopia and Iran.

The US sells military equipment to the freedom loving democracies of Columbia and Pakistan as well as Israel. In the case of Canada they sell to Columbia via USA.

The UK can hardly be left out. In recent times under an 'ethical foreign policy' we have approved licences including armoured vehicles to amongst others 'Algeria, Morocco. Syria and Saudi Arabia.

I doubt that these weapons are bought for asthetic value. As the Report points out these sales are used to suppress people and for conflict.

In a telling quote, the Report notes;

Large numbers of women and girls are at risk of armed violence, whether they are directly involved in the fighting or dealing with the emotional, social, and economic consequences of the loss of male relatives.

Given the effects of weapons misuse, it is shocking how few governments give serious thought to the impact on development and human rights of their arms exports. And for the few that do, it has yet to become a genuine priority.

I hope that there will be a massive effort to challenge this arms trade. We need peaceful but persistent protest. The truth is that the leaders who come to Scotland may not sell their bodies for money. The truth is far more sinister. Through their promotion and subsidising of the arms trade, they sell other peoples' lives for money.

As a Turbulent Cleric, I hope that the Church and a range of democratic peace loving people will loudly shout, 'ENOUGH!' This immorality must be brought to an end and only when that is done, can these leaders deserve any respect. The whoredom of death must be exposed as a giant blot on the whole world's conscience. For the sake of non violence, it is time to take a stand.

FIRST LINKS

With the guidance of my son, James, I have this evening tried to put on my first link sites. Time will tell if they actually appear.

Anyhow, let me tell you about these four sites.

Merseymike comes from Liverpool and for his sins is an Everton supporter. As well as being an enthusiast for the Eurovision Song Contest, he argues an interesting slant on religious and political questions. He is a sociologist and his blog was the first I can remember reading.

Matt Sellers brings a strong critique of the Iraq War amongst other issues to the web. As well as having interesting things to say about political issues, he posts on faith issues and sport.

Beth Quick is my inspiration for setting up this blog. Like myself she is nearing ordination ( in her case with the United Methodist Church). She also produces super lectionary notes and reminds me of the good side of the USA.

Finally, Private Privations comes from a friend 'Devon Sparks' who lives not a million miles away from me and I hope to be watching some cricket with him shortly. His blog is new and I am sure he'll fire in with considerable passion on a wide range of subjects.

Still, I have yet to see if we have put these links up correctly. If we have, more are on the way in a day or two.

TOUCHY FEELY GOVERNMENT

I was a trifled amused to see Margaret Hodge ( the government minister who in her days as an Islington left wing firebrand council leader advertised for a nanny in the household magazine of all revolutionaries, 'The Lady') is in the news for saying that redundant Rover workers should look for jobs at Tescos.

I can imagine the cry of 'Let them fill shelves!'


Am I alone in thinking that she may have misjudged the mood of Rover workers in a manner reminiscent of Marie Antoinette who enraged the people of Paris with her sensitive response to hunger - 'Let them eat cake!'

LINKS

As I am somewhat computer illiterate, I shall be receiving help from my 12 year old son James over the wekend so that I can post links.

In my absence he has put the address of his site.

Having never read it, I can't vouch for contents - although I might peruse it tonight.

FUNNY TYPE OF AID

From last Sunday's Observer came the following report on a massive expansion of arms sales to Africa that has occurred at the same time as our government has talked about its commitment to that continent.



UK arms sales to Africa reach £1 billion mark Antony Barnett, public affairs editorSunday June 12, 2005 British arms sales to Africa have risen to record levels over the last four years and have reached the £1 billion mark, The Observer can reveal.
Analysis of official figures shows annual weapons sales almost quadrupled between 1999 and 2004.
Campaigners and MPs called the increase 'obscene' and 'unacceptable' at a time when the government is putting so much political capital into relieving poverty in Africa.
Many exports approved by the Department of Trade and Industry involve selling arms to some of the most deprived states and to countries with poor human rights records.
Among the most controversial exports since 2000 discovered by The Observer are:
· More than £30 million of military equipment sold to Angola, including armoured vehicles and body armour.
· Export licences granted by the DTI last year to sell £3.6m of military equipment to Malawi, one of the least developed nations in the world.
· Licences for military exports granted to Eritrea, Ethiopia, Algeria, Sudan, Zambia, Uganda, Namibia and Somalia.
· Arms sales to South Africa that trebled last year to £114m, including components for combat aircraft, missiles and radar.
· UK arms sales to Nigeria up tenfold since 2000 to £53m, including armoured vehicles and large calibre artillery.
According to the DTI's annual reports, specific licences for arms sales to Africa total more than £631m since 2000. But experts believe the true figure is closer to £1bn when the value of 'open' licences are taken into account. Such licences allow for smaller arms sales to take place with much less scrutiny from officials.
Paul Eavis, director of Saferworld, which campaigns for the control of the arms trade, said: 'The government is to be congratulated on leading the charge on debt relief, but if it is serious about helping Africa develop as a continent, then it should think again about its arms sales policies towards these countries.

At a time when questions are being asked regarding the conduct of many African governments, I think they should also be asked of our government. Arms sales are the last thing Africa needs and it is about time that the government stopped holding arms fairs and instead stamped on these whores of death!

website

extra'>http://uk.geocities.com/tolkienaragorn/cartoons.html">extra

IRAQ - QUESTIONS STILL NEED ANSWERING

Whatever the Labour Party bigwigs wish, Iraq is an issue that won't go away. On Sunday, the Sunday Times produced further evidence that the country was deceived into going to war. Journalist Michael Smith writes;


Six weeks ago The Sunday Times published the leaked minutes of a July 2002 Downing Street meeting in which Tony Blair committed Britain to war in Iraq months before parliament was consulted.
They detailed a secret pledge to President George W Bush to help oust Saddam, showed that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, had warned such action could be illegal and that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, had thought the case for war was “thin”.

This alone is disturbing when one recalls that as with the intelligence picture, the Prime Minister presented a clearcut picture of what is revealed as having been a far from clearcut position. Even if one is uncomfortable with Michael Howard calling the Prime Minister a 'liar ' it is clear that he has certainly not told 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'

The evidence is that he has clearly trated parliament with disdain as has sadly been his practice for the past eight years. It seems that he has also failed to keep the Cabinet in the loop. The decline of Cabinet government will surely be one of the the most distressing consequences of the Blair Government. However, at this point it seems fair to add that Cabinet ministers have to bear their share of responsibility. With war, tuition fees and the assault on civil liberties, Cabinet ministers are either full partners in Blair's actions or they have placed their careers before principle.

Read on further and one finds more evidence of the duplicity of the drift to war;

The minutes showed that Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, warned Blair’s war cabinet that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”. The prime minister, who had chaired that July meeting, told the White House briefing room that “the facts were not being fixed in any shape at all”.

Now leaked documents add to this picture. Again the Sunday Times goes on;

It makes clear that both Blair and Bush have a lot to apologise for: “When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change,” it states, adding that “regime change per se is illegal”.
As a prime minister had agreed to do something that was illegal under British interpretation of international law, it was “necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support regime change”, the briefing paper says.
For Blair, “creating the conditions” meant going to the United Nations to get a unanimous resolution warning Iraq to co- operate with the inspectors or else.

I can only conclude that the arms inspections which I certainly supported, were really intended by the British Government as a part of an elaborate charade to enable war. As I watched the Prime Minister evasively face a television audience days before the General Election, I became completely convinced that this was a man who had become a stranger from the truth. The man who now speaks of his understandable joy at the fall of Saddam Hussein was also the man who said if Saddam disarmed he could stay in power. If you dear Reader can work it out, you are much wiser than me.

Some say that it is time to let go of the matter. I disagree. In Britain you can be charged with a crime many years after the event. Surely, our Government should not be let off the hook just a couple of years on. The fact is that the British people were misled and if nothing is done about it, it will happen again. Surely, we deserve a government which can be trusted on life and death matters. Yet so often we have been treated to sleight of hand.

Ultimately, the case for impeachment needs to be steeped up against the senior figures of this travesty for otherwise it becomes a scandal that in high office we have those who have literally got away with murder!

WHAT'S MY THEOLOGY

Have just taken a test to see where my theology fits. Result below is probably a fair reflection of my attitudes. Fascinated at a 0% for fundamentalism as on many issues I was close to that camp in my early 20s. It was the dehumanised version of Christian Zionism of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem which was advocated by some in my home circuit at that time which began my questioning. I was also helped by a splendid book by the then Chair of Cornwall District Rev Dr Stephen Dawes entitled Why Bible Believing Christians Shouldn't Eat Black Pudding. Anyhow I find myself wondering if I have overreacted to fundamentalism or whether my reading has left me particularly aware of that camp.

I am also a wee bit surprised to be so 'Roman Catholic'. That was news to me. So was my 'charismatic' score which should amuse some friends.


You scored as Emergent/Postmodern.
You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.
var img_str1="";img_str1="";
var result_str1="";
Emergent/Postmodern
79%
Roman Catholic
75%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
71%
Neo orthodox
68%
Modern Liberal
64%
Classical Liberal
54%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
36%
Reformed Evangelical
14%
Fundamentalist
0%


What would be really interesting is how much I change in coming years. Sadly I can't measure my changes in the past - probably as well!

If you want a go here's the site;


http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870

DA VINCI CODE

Going back to my recent holiday, I managed to read The Da Vinci Code. I hadn't realised how controversial it was but while away I heard that Westminster Abbey which of course is mentionedin the book, is giving out information to 'correct' Dan Brown's book.

What did I make of it? Well, firstly I found it an excellent story and it was hard to put it down. Indeed my children kept complaining at the family grump reading at the meal table etc. To be honest it grabbed at me as much as any novel I have read for some time.

But what of the book as it relates to matters of faith? Her goes with just a few quick thoughts;

1/. I found the book correct in drawing attention to the wrongs done by Christians. I hadn't realised that five million people have been killed on spurious charges of withcraft. However, I struggled with the idea that persecution wa in the first place a cynical exercise by the Christians to suppress the delightful pagans. The truth is that prior to Constantine, pagan Rome had carried out intermittent vicious persecutions against the Christians. A climax to this came with Diocletian's great Persecution which began in 295 CE. Nothing in the century that followed Constantine's 'conversion' comes close to matching the brutality of Diocletian's acolytes. Remember, also that pagan Rome was a brutal empire.

2/. Constantine did not decide what should be in the canon of Scripture. The process was well under way before his Milvian Bridge 'conversion.' Certain books were already being seen as authoritative. Furthermore, the concept of the Divinity of Christ did not begin with Constantine. It is hinted at strongly in the Gospel narratives which probably date back to the first century CE. In the years following, there were strains between the Atiocheans and the Alexandrians as to how to understand the Humanity and Divinity of Christ. Constantine certainly encouraged a resolution of such disputes but he did not personally dictate the outcome and that outcome at Nicaea owes much to three centuries of theological wrangling prior to Constantine. The idea expressed in the book that the 'Divinity of Christ' was some sort of conspiracy by Constantine does not bear scrutiny.

3/. The story of Jesus marrying Mary Magdelene is of course an old one. I see no evidence that it happened. Personally it would be no problem to me if it did. I have many sins of which I am aware but quite frankly my enjopyment of sexual intimacy with my wife is in my view not a sin. I think that the guilt trip on sexuality in much of the church is a negative matter but I think Brown along with other Holy Grail writers, is enjoying a bit of unsubstantiated sensationalism.


I am all to aware of many faults in Christian history. I question whether the 'conversion' of Constantine was a good thing as it seems to have implicated the church into power structures that have dented the message proclaimed in Galilee. I appreciate that Constantine was a ruthless ruler who murdered both his wife and his son. However, this does not make every conspiracy theory right.


My conclusion is that The Da Vinci Code is a great novel but not to be taken too seriously as theology. What is worse, its misrepresentations almost made me feel sorry for Opus Dei - almost!

THE MICHAEL JACKSON CARNIVAL

The jury remains out in the Michael Jackson trial. Meanwhile, the press are out in force with helicopters to monitor the journey to the court for the verdict of the defendant and his relatives. Much of the US press comment is full of excitement as though it were the Super Bowl final. Prison cells where Jackson may soon be held are made available for the press. Should he be convicted, every prurient deatil of his future life is for our consumption and 'entertainment.'

Think me a prude if you will but surely I am not alone in finding all of this obscene. There is nothing entertaining about the charges. Child abuse is not a game. I don't have a clue as to Jackson's guilt or innocence (Strangely the truth may be somewhere between what the prosecution allege and what the defence counter claims) but what is at stake is more important than suggested by the carnival atmosphere. The fact is that at stake is the future of the Arviso child and Jackson himself. This is in reality a Greek tragedy in which lives can be crushed.

The sort of voyeurism which has surrounded this trial from start to finish is in short subhuman. It is the sign of a sick society which has no concern for the individuals whose lives will never be the same again but cares only for a false world of hype. If Jackson is convicted, we will see once again the falseness of the culture of celebrity which makes people into Gods and then delightes in destroying them. It is a culture which sacrifices reality for false illusions.

Britain is not yet so indoctrinated with this sickness as the United States but it is going the same way. Together we are on the same road as Rome before its fall. At times like this, I think we deserve no better ending that that once great Empire.

A DAY AT BATTLE WITH THOUGHTS OF VIOLENCE

As a child I was fascinated by the story of the Battle of Hastings. I remember as a seven year old, watching a television programme about this battle on its 900th anniversary in 1966. Indeed such was my obsession that during the same year, my class teacher made a recording of me telling the story.

So, whilst on holiday, we paid a visit to Battle and walked around the site where the conflict took place. As all those years ago, I was fascinated by the story of power politics and the bloody conclusion. Both my children shared this interest which was rather pleasing.

However, I got to thinking about things a little deeper. Some time after the Battle of Hastings, William built an abbey over where Harold had fallen. Why, I wondered did he do this. There are two possibilities that suggest themselves to me.

The first possibility is that it was to thank God for victory. As such it was a statement that God was on his side. Frankly I find the idea that God sanctions killings, somewhat disgusting. I am reminded of the verse;

Ye hypocrites are these your pranks
To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist for shame! Proceed no further!
God won't accept your thanks for murder.

The other possibility is that it was an act of contrition for the shedding of blood. I find that unlikely as there was no penance in terms of giving up what he had gained by shedding blood and indeed as King he was to shed plenty more.

But what I find most uncomfortable, is that monks and indeed the whole religious establishment went along with a sick compromise by which they effectively poured holy water on the violence of 14th October 1066 and to me this can only be a betrayal of the Prince of Peace whom Christians worship. And I find myself wondering if this still goes on today for it seems to me that the prophetic voice against violence is rarely heard and all to often excuses are found for those who take the paths of warfare and violence.

On Saturday, I bought a book by Walter Wink which warns of the myth of redemptive violence. It makes for fascinating reading and I hope to return to it before the end of the week.

CANTERBURY'S TURBULENT PRIEST

Well I'm back fron holiday and I guess thoughts from my week away, may dominate for a day or two.

A day I greatly enjoyed was the day we spent in Canterbury. In part that was because we went to see a 'Canterbury Tales' exhibition which I would recommend to anyone. The chance to experience some of these great stories by Chaucer was really great. My two children (aged 12 and 10) loved it so much that both were desperate to buy their own books of these Chaucerian tales. Interestingly, their favourite story was 'The Miller's tale' doubtless because the little darlings loved the iron hot poker up the rear end conclusion.

We also went to Canterbury Cathedral where we joined a tour. We heard much about that 'turbulent priest' Thomas Beckett. His story fascinates me. I can't say I like Henry 11 at all. His intemperate words led to Beckett's murder and got himself a well deserved flogging at the hands of the monks - I wonder which of today's power broker's deserve the penitent walk and flogging treatment!

Yet I cannot really take to Beckett. I am sure he took his responsibilities seriously as shown by the clothing he was found to have worn, after his death. However, I think you have to choose your causes to be turbulent over and frankly Beckett's cause leave me cold. Standing up for the privileges of the Church over the Crown seems to me a case of backing one baron over another.

I wonder where the Galilean carpenter fits into such a scheme of things. My guess is that his concern would be the powerless and that is a concern shared by neither the King nor the Archbishop.