I happened to catch an interesting CCN-IBN special news report this evening, discussing the aftermath of the bombings in Malegon three days ago, where a Muslim cemetary was attacked during Friday prayers. We were shown footage of a Hindu man returing to buy groceries from a stall opposite the blast site. Unafraid to visit the vicinity of the attack, and unwilling to disrupt his routine, he made a point of taking his eleven-year-old son along with him. There were also scenes of Hindus queuing to give blood, to help the Muslim victims of the blast.
Whatever the religion of the interviewees, the message was unianimous: “They are trying to divide us, and we won’t let them.”
On the fifth anniversary of the atrocities on the World Trade Centre, we will ask ourselves again: “What was the aim of the hijackers when they did this? What was Osama Bin Laden’s purpose?” The attacks on the world trade centre ignited a global conflict that has polarised world opinion, and ostracised an entire race of people. Sure, we didn’t start the conflict… but I cannot help thinking that we rose to the bait. When, on 14th September 2001, George W Bush named the ‘War on Terror’, it was seen as the beginning of the Fight Back. But it was also endorsement of the enemy’s terms of reference. That was the real defeat, and it happened after only three days.
Page 286 of 328
A few days ago, I happened upon an article satirising Christian Fundamentalists, which I took to be real. Now, via Dr Crippen, we find a bona fide example of intolerance. Despite my recent suggestions to the contrary, it seems this country is capable of outlandish, misguided fundamentalism after all:
A girl aged 11 has been refused a place on a Church of England school bus because she is not baptised.
Its not quite a demand to return a donated organ, but I think the pettiness of this act might make it worse. Have these alleged ‘Christians’ never heard of the Good Samaritan? If Jesus had a mini-bus, would He really drive on by? Or is this another example of some well-meaning jobsworth making decisions without thinking through the implications?
I repeat, again, that the fight is between inclusiveness, and divisiveness. This world is made up of two types of person: those who constantly divide the population into two groups, and those who do not. Which side are you on?
Substitute teacher Clydeen Tomanio said she remains committed to the party she’s called home for 43 years. “There are some people, and I’m one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord,” Tomanio said. “I don’t care how he governs, I will support him. I’m a Republican through and through.” (CNN.com)
Andrew Sullivan says that “For the first time, one of the major parties is, at its core, a religious organization.”
The separation of Church and State is, of course, a key tenet of American democracy, enshrined in the First Ammendment. However, I heard an interesting, if counter-intuitive theory recently, which hold that this is precisely why religion has so much political influence in the USA. (Hat-tip: Barney).
Here in the UK, The State has an official religion. Our coins tell us that The Queen is ‘F.D.’ Fidor Defensor, defender of the Faith. By this, we mean the cheap, Store’s-Own-Brand of christianity, as purveyed by the Church of England. It is one of those institutions that consitutes The Establishment, that elusive and ill-defined body that runs our lives. Bishops over here are free to make political statements… but when they do, it seems slightly unseemly. Just like the Royals, they really should be above that sort of thing. Can’t be seen to be taking advantage of your position, old chap.
There are no such constraints in the US system. Religious groups are free to support whoever they wish with money and endorsements. There is no need to be fair in this distribution. The paradoxical result is that religion and religious dogma has a greater influence over policy in the US, than here in Blighty. If Ms Tomanio voiced her support for Tony Blair in such a manner, she would be considered part of the lunatic fringe and laughed out of the country. Its not that the British are all aetheists – far from it. It is just that in our system, God is part of the Establishment. She doesn’t make endorsements.
To those paranoiacs that fear an Islamic Revolution in the UK, may I suggest the following: We institutionalise an Islamic Church – or Mosque – of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, via the Queen, can appoint its head, and we will give him or her a knighthood. This should ensure that the moderates prevail, and any whisper of even the idea of Sharia Law will be deafened out… by the sound of our collective tut-tutting, and the flapping of lace curtains.
I’m annoyed. Junior Minister Tom Watson has resigned, and I have been forced to learn this from the BBC News website, like some blogless plebeian. This is despite the fact that Mr Watson has his very own blog. But at 1:50pm today, I find no response from the site at all.
Meanwhile, David Milliband has had his own efforts to embrace the new technologies foiled (via DK). His ‘Envrionmental Contract’ was supposed to be edited as a ‘Wiki’ by members of the public. Unfortunately, the ‘Wiki’ was comprehensively defaced, and DEFRA had to abandon the project.
The ‘cyber-vandalism’ was, as Milliband says, rather juvenile. I have very little sympathy, however. The use of a wiki for this purpose was ill-conceived. New internet technologies provide many different ways for people to engage in dialogues and collaboration. But that does not necessarily mean that a wiki open to millions of people, to create a government policy that will affect millions of people, is necessarily the best use of the technology! Such tools will, I believe, be much more effective when used at the lower echelons of democracy – Between civil servants around the country sharing ‘best practice’; or between the members of rural or island councils, say, who may have long distances to travel. Central government will have very little success when it tries to use the ‘Smallweb’.
This jumping on the Wiki/Blog band-wagon in this manner reminds me of the dot-com boom-and-bust we witnessed a few years ago. The people getting burned (or, in this case, custard-pied) are those who assume the new technologies can somehow overcome all laws of economics and politics. I very much doubt Milliband would make policy by standing at Speakers’ Corner with a flip-pad, writing down all the suggestions from passers-by. Sooner or later someone will begin heckling. So why try it online?
“I am very glad that the prince was born,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, who is likely to become Japan’s next prime minister. “It’s a refreshing feeling that reminds us of a clear autumn sky.”
So, the Japanese royal household has a baby boy at last. This ends years of agonising over their royal succession, and whether the constitution should be revised to allow women to inherit.
I’ve written before about this bizarre and outdated system of ‘salic primogeniture’, when the pregnancy was announced. I think the points made are worth repeating, especially in light of a subsequent debate I hosted here on the morality of the British monarchy.
[The new prince] will become third in line to the throne, leap-frogging two older sisters and his cousin Princess Aiko [the eldest child of the Crown Prince] … The message to Princess Aiko is simple: We wish you were not a girl. And the message to the country: boys are better than girls.
A monarch of the kind we see in Japan or the UK may not have much (if any) political power to change or influence the passage of law. But the institution is nevertheless a powerful symbol that can adversely affect the citizens – no, subjects – of the country in question. Therefore, its machinations should not be determined by centuries old traditions, which reflect centuries old prejudice. The issue is more noticable in Japan, which seems to have an even more conservative system than the UK. But the flaw is in the system itself, in the unequal, institutionalised relationship between the monarchy and the people. The problems that are manifesting themselves on those islands, could be repeated on these.