Main menu:
Journal Items - Classified:
The HJ-Mann in America.
22 April 2008 .
During his visit to the US, the Pope has been talking about being pressed into the Hitler Youth (and about the sinister nature of the whole Nazi regime) when he was young.
I was brought up in democratic England in the 1950s and 60s: it requires a real effort of will for me to even begin to understand what it meant to be young in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s (and I'm grateful that I'll never grasp the full horror of it). I don't for a moment doubt Ratzinger's grounds for sincerity on the issue.
However... some time ago I referred to Ratzinger, welcoming Blair into the Roman Church, as the HJ (Hitler Youth) man. I was aware then that it was a serious insult, and I'm even more conscious of it now.
Since I don't live in Nazi Germany, my political consciousness is based on what happens in my own country. From this perspective, I can only regard Blair as at best a deluded man; I perceive that whether or not he is evil of himself, evil has come of him. Primarily, of course, I'm thinking of the war in Iraq [but also of his unfounded belief in the onward and upward progress of a mankind unfettered by reality (as evidenced by his love affair with roads and airports) or social responsibility (going to bed with unpleasant capitalists from F1 to oil)].
It has been said that it is the duty of the that church to accept all those who are truly penitent... and, for all I know, those like Blair who have shown no evidence of penitence whatsoever...
But if the priest of rome welcomes, publicly and with open arms, that Blair whom he knows is seen by billions around the world and millions in Blair's own country as an unindicted war criminal (and possibly even guilty of crimes against humanity), then I suggest that the priest learned far less about the power of subversive evil while he was in the HJ than he should have done, and that his talk about Nazism in US is rendered close to meaningless. So, to me, the HJ did its job on Ratzinger rather well, and he hasn't earned his freedom from that label.
So the slur, if such it is, stands.
'Hitler Youth' Ratzinger Pope Blair penitent
(We're told that) God Demands Cruelty.
07 April 2008 .
I have to admit that I've long since lost patience with the Allah/Jhvh/God whom some of you worship...
Abattoirs aren't the pleasantest of places, and the memory of one I saw thirty years ago still turns my stomach. Religious slaughter, however, seems almost designed to increase the horror - the animals have their throats cut while fully conscious and then choke on their own blood as it drains from their bodies: such killing is, however, exempt from the UK welfare regulations for animals (poor enough though they are) which apply otherwise. A government adviser was quoted in the Indy today, admitting (at last) that the animals die in 'very significant pain'.
Like it or not, it has seemed that we must respect primitive religious practices, whether they involve cruel killing or mutilating the genitals of infants. I would prefer completely to avoid halal and kosher meat... except that 10 or 15 years ago I discovered that I have no choice in the matter, short of avoiding meat altogether: the cuts from the killings which these paleolithic people decide are too unclean for them to eat get passed to the rest of us kaffirs to eat, through the commercial food chain. And there's no requirement for them to be labelled, so we just don't know which meat is which.
It seems that there's going to be a European labelling system introduced in the next two years which might rectify the position. Lord Rooker, a food and farming minister, has indicated strongly that he favours bled meat being marked - and there is an implication that Britain is going to play a 'full part' in discussing the new regs. I do hope so. Meanwhile, Lord Rooker is flavour of the month for me - and he doesn't even have to be slaughtered.
kaffir kosher halal 'genital mutilation' 'Lord Rooker'
Whited Sepulchre.
04 April 2008 .
In his sermon in Westminster Cathedral, Tony Blair has announced that he is going to 'awaken the world's conscience'; to all sorts of evils.
Ye Gods.
Conscience and the Fertility Bill.
22 March 2008 .
When it comes to the columnists in the Independent, Deborah Orr is probably the best of an excellent bunch - by which I mean that she usually comes round to my way of thinking. However, I think her article today, 'Believe if you will. But don't impose your ideas on others,' is misguided, notwithstanding that I wholly agree with the sentiment of the headline, because she doesn't seem to me to follow the logic of her own sentiment.
She's writing about the vote in the forthcoming fertility bill, which involves some utterly fundamental moral questions, including the possibility of combining human and animal genes in the creation of hybrid cells ('embryos') in and for research. The Conservatives and Lib-Dems have been allowed a free vote, but the Labour members have not; it seems that a number of Labour MPs, including a group of ministers who are Catholic, may resign if they're not allowed to vote with their conscience, against the bill.
'Good sense and common consensus decrees (sic) that whatever one's private beliefs, one must live under the rule of law', Ms. Orr writes. 'It is, therefore, extremely important that the rule of law is not distorted by those who consider their religious beliefs to be of greater importance than their democratic obligations as law-makers... All that is being asked is that Christians refrain from attempting to impose their own religious prejudices on others.'
The government has no mandate concerning this bill, so far as I know. What, then, if MPs - on an entirely free vote - were to reject the bill? Wouldn't that imply that the bill is distasteful to the nation? If the bill is rejected through the religious prejudices of the MPs, shouldn't Mr. Brown (and Ms. Orr) accept that they reflect the religious prejudices of the nation? If, on the other hand, only a minority of MPs allow their religion to dictate their vote, how would that offend, even if by chance their vote swung the outcome? (If it did so, it must be the case that plenty of MPs are voting 'no' for other, non-religious reasons.) Ms. Orr clearly feels that this bill must pass and she objects to the possibility that a few MPs would, by voting against it, 'impose their own religious prejudices'; without a blink she's quite prepared to demand that party discipline be used to impose her prejudices on those MPs - perhaps without understanding that, no matter how well argued, her views on these issues are based on prejudice as well .(She and I may agree that lesbians should be helped by the enacting of this bill, but at bottom that is a prejudice; likewise our agreement that embryo research is desirable.)
I hope that by the time anyone reads this, Brown will have reconsidered his position and this posting will be redundant. It has always been the case that votes in Parliament on matters clearly understood to be of conscience should be free. It's said that that tradition has never been breached... until now. The Great Helmsman And Moral Arbiter Of The Nation, if he goes ahead, will be the first party leader to be denying his party colleagues the right to vote with their conscience on such an issue... but, regrettably, it will be entirely in keeping with an authoritarian history that earned him the epithet in the first place.
'fertility bill' 'free vote' 'rule of law'
Canterbury And The Hand Of Peace.
17 February 2008 .
We would like to believe that the professed men of God are men of goodwill: on the whole, they probably are. Yet... the common ground of the three Abrahamic religions enjoys at best an uneasy peace, Christians are given to imperial adventures in Muslim lands and within my lifetime prayed in Rome for the conversion of the 'perfidious Jew', and many Muslims believe they'll get paradise and lots of sex if they kill Christians, while regarding Jews as spawn of the Devil. Even within Islam, Shia and Sunni hate and kill each other, both despising Sufism - which just about puts Islam on a par with the Christianity of not so long ago. And here in the UK, Imams, spitting with hatred, are leading British citizens to kill other British citizens (and themselves in the process). Seen from the point of view of this member of the race of demented baboons we call humanity, it's a far from godly picture.
From among the worldly princes in purple of the church in Rome, and the flinty-eyed imams and mullahs, and the fundamentalist American preacher-men, and so many other 'godly' men of no god I recognise, Canterbury stood up with message of reconciliation and coexistence.
And has been well and truly stomped on for it.
We probably get the ""religion"" we deserve.
'Abrahamic religion' 'perfidious Jew' 'men of God' imam priest fundamentalist
Police Protection...
02 February 2008 .
... for Dr. Nazir Ali, Bishop of Rochester, against death threats by those who claim (without discernable evidence) that he's disrespected Islam. (In today's news.)
But all the mega-discussion I had half expected... hasn't happened.
(With reference to: Immigration and The Bishop Of Rochester. 08 January 2008 - Classified - Population; also On Migration; On Immigration, 6 Jan.)
'Dr. Nazir Ali'
It seem that it was a silly phrase.
24 January 2008 .
It seems that Jacqui Smith's phrase for terrorism, 'anti-Islamic activities', is already coming home to roost.
This from Dr. Barham Salih, Muslim and deputy prime minister of Iraq, to Mr. Ellwood, MP., after seeing literature from mosques during a visit to Blackburn: 'I'm not surprised you British are facing so many problems with extremists. What I saw would not be allowed here in Iraq, It would be illegal.'
What our government flatly refuses to let out of the bag is that the rural and fundamental Islam that is pushing some of the Muslims in this country is neither friendly nor normal.
Just before Christmas I heard a chap saying that he liked the idea of a great mosque at the Olympic Village. 'I love minarets,' he said. Hmmm. Last I heard, there aren't going to be any minarets; the money is going to come from Saudi Wahabis: they have more of a proclivity for killing people who build minarets.
Still: it's said that as little as three months before the invasion of Iraq, Dubya was unaware of the existence of Shi'ites and Sunnis, and was therefore unaware of the hatred between them. I only assume that by now he can discourse on Wahabis, Sufis and the rest. At least the Americans are seeing how much of the problem is coming from Britain.
'anti-Islamic activities' 'Jacqui Smith' 'Dr. Barham Salih' 'Wahabis' 'Sufis'
The Call To Prayer, Sounding Over The Rooves And Spires Of Oxford.
13 January 2008 .
The 600 or so Muslims who attend the Central Mosque in Oxford want to have the Call to Prayer, amplified, from their minaret. Church bells already sound across Oxford, of course. There are, understandably, strong opinions both ways; but it seems likely that the idea won't be allowed, for now at least.
The options which I've seen aired are whether the call should be made every day, only on Fridays or not at all; my initial thoughts go to the question of amplification. Firstly, there's the aesthetics: electronically affected church bells sound appalling (my local parish church in North London uses a recording for weddings, and it's beyond me why couples put up with it); the human voice suffers even more - the call, properly made, is heartlifting, but amplified, it can be just a noise. However, the second issue must be more important: my understanding is that Mohammed specifically chose the human voice as the means of making the call - not an electronic enhancement (and certainly not a recording). Having said which, perhaps the unaided human voice simply can't be heard in a modern city, in which case the question is rather moot.
As to whether the call should be allowed across Oxford at all, I find myself with mixed feelings - and I wonder why, as I wonder about the objectors on the spot. The bells of Oxford are beautiful; the cry of the muezzin in Cairo is haunting and evocative; the two together in Jerusalem seemed sublime. So why no call in Oxford, and why no bells in Cairo (so far as I know).
Is there really (still) a war between the religions, as so many extremists on both sides claim? Should we be resisting the encroachment of a religion which we perceive as having no love for us, our culture or our religion? Is it purely cultural conservatism? Perhaps we just don't want yet more alien noise in an already intolerable noisy environment. But if we chose the Friday only option, which is the compromise that the Muslims have offered, how would the two minutes the three times on that day which they're asking for intrude on the rest of us in any way at all? I'm in London (not far from the Finsbury Park mosque of chequered repute), not Oxford, and the two cases are different, but the fact of listening to the call would presumably be much the same.
Yet I have a difficulty, which I would not want to feel is pure prejudice. I do come to a couple of thoughts which may have some bearing. The first is the sense that those who direct Islam in this country are not nice people. I have been attracted to Sufism all my life, but I note that the bomb which killed 300 people at the Sufi mosque in Peshawar a couple of years ago (people of all beliefs, since Sufism embraces all) was planted by people with political as well as religious links to many of those on the Muslim Council of Britain. I note that a significant part of the MBC, and some of those 'community representatives' whom the government has embraced, have no wish to be my friends unless I unquestioningly accept a certain form of their religion. I note that even moderates on the MBC are sometimes slow to reassure me by action (and can say things which I thought had gone from this country by the reign of Victoria). I note that most of the Muslims I've known or met over the past twenty years not only refer to Sufism as 'not proper Islam' but believe that Sufis are apostates who deserve prison or death. I note that I can now find no record on the internet of the bomb at Peshawar, although the number of Sunnis killed in Iraq the same day (about 50) filled the news for several days. So I think it is at least in part the people who want the call (especially given the history and nastiness of my local mosque) rather than the call itself which troubles me.
The second thought is this; that giving an inch to anyone now has been proven by the government - again and again - to mean to an awful lot of people that tomorrow a mile will be given, and next week we'll be asked for more... and it's all too fast.
Having said all that; give me Sufis calling to prayer, or the Islam of Spain at its height, and they can call from the minarets as much as they like; who knows, maybe I'll hear some real church bells in response.
'Central Mosque, Oxford' 'call to prayer' 'church bells'
Blair and Rome, Part 94.
07 January 2008 .
There have been several articles and letters over the last few days supporting, or defending, blair's move to Rome and Rome's acceptance of him. Some of the more cogent of these have referred to Rome fulfilling its function in welcoming the repentant sinner.
The operative word is, of course, repentant. And the question is, the dear leader's repentance expressed to whom?
'Blair in Rome' repentence
God and blair get together!
27 December 2007 .
I don't know why I'm the slightest bit surprised or exercised at the news that the roman church has welcomed the unrepentant blair into its arms. After all, it was the same church that facilitated the escape from Europe - and from justice - those worthy (catholic) chaps Mengele, Eichmann and Barbie (inter alia), after 1945 - while still, in its prayers, referring to 'the perfidious Jew'.
[Is it extreme to conflate blair with the nazi gentlemen? Now, there's an interesting question...]
Still, it's nice to know that his blairness is in a state of grace. It'll console the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead, too.
Gott Mit Uns!.
Not Quite The End, After All?
27 December 2007 .
I note that I misunderstood the reports about The End Of Protestant England (24 Dec). It seems that there are more practicing Catholics than Anglicans; but other protestant confessions, which remain in stout health in this country, apparently swing the balance. But, judging by the letters in the papers today, either the reports were unclear or, at least, I was far from alone in misinterpreting them. Nevertheless, I think my reaction can stand.
Christmas Part II
26 December 2007 .
The Judaic religions all worship the God of Abraham; so it seems to me that, no matter how much some worshippers may deny it, they worship the same god. They all acknowledge Him as a god of obedience, redemption, hope, love and so on. However, it also seems that the religions lay stress on different aspects of His nature.
I have always felt that the Jews put emphasis on a relationship of dialogue with God. He is a god with whom one can reason, with whom Mankind's dealings are almost on the basis of a contract between reasonable beings. I was either taught or have learned to see the Old Testament as the story of our developing understanding of each other, and the core message as the unfolding of His/our covenant. He is certainly a god with whom (if you'll forgive the expression) I could do business.
My own, Christian, culture particularly emphasises the Love of God - and, intimately with that, the hope of redemption and grace. It is for this reason, I think, that Christmas seems to many of us to be the real centre of the Christian year far more than Easter. And, whether I'm right or not, and whether you love Christmas or hate it, the joy and hope it brings are more immediate and human (and, for me at least, more intense) than any other festival including Easter or Ascension Day.
One of my problems with the Catholics is that they seem to bar the personal relationship of the Jews (thus, one has to seek the intercession of saints); the Protestant beliefs seem much preferable in this respect. On the other hand, the covenant with God seems to have become the province of more fundamentalist wings of Protestantism - some of whom seem to this outsider to be among the least Loving of Christians.
One of my problems with the late prime minister is that he lays great store by his supposed Christianity, yet has not acknowledged the deep revulsion of a very large number of his own people to acts which they hold to be in direct opposition to the love of God. His flirtation with Rome is seen by some (including Catholics) as deeply offensive. Rather strangely, many of us have the impression that he felt no need for any intercession by saints due to his imagined personal hot-line to God.
I have two problems with Islam as I understand it (which, I admit, is not very well).
The first is that its special emphasis seems to be on absolute obedience. To me, that is incompatible with a personal relationship, which has to be a two-way street, at least to some extent. Besides which, I am a product of a post-Enlightenment society, which has taught me to be stroppy: I'm not prepared to obey anyone without question, not even God. (The only way I can see myself doing so, at present, is through fear; and if terrified fear is really what God wants, then I may be His slave but I won't be His servant.)
The second is its idea, as it seems to be, that redemption can be achieved by killing people. The self-righteousness with which some Muslims believe that by destroying God's creatures they assure themselves of a place in paradise is stunning. God makes a person, and you do his work by killing that person? What are you thinking of? But it's a logical absurdity anyway: God will not grant you redemption by - in the very act by which it is attained - denying the possibility to somebody else.
paradise redemption 'love of God' obedience
Christmas.
26 December 2007 .
I don't believe that, on the whole, religion makes good or bad people. It seems to me that what it does is provide a framework by which good people are supported - or an excuse for those who would do evil.
The joy of Christmas is that each year, at least for a moment, it has the power to make us want to be better than we are.
The End Of Protestant England?
24 December 2007 .
So it's official: there are more practicing catholics in Britain now than protestants. The change has happened with almost no-one seeming to notice; yet it marks the end of a chapter which lasted nearly 500 years, possibly the pivotal chapter in the growth of our nation.
I don't know quite how to feel about it. There has sometimes been a dour smugness about this country, which manifests in odd ways even now: I think the thought-policing, the political correctness, the disapproval of people who think differently and probably a hundred other features of Britain now may all be part of human nature; but the Presbyterianism, the Non-Comformism, the general streak of puritanism which keeps popping up in odd ways, have given a framework for these features as well as for the drab tendency in our society and for the distasteful self-righteousness that pervades it. It does seem to me that the Catholic countries of Europe are more relaxed and happy.
On the other hand, some of the most fundamental concepts of liberty and the value of the individual have found fertile ground in this protestant country - and in the US, which (for all the Protestants from other traditions, Catholics, et al) shares so much common history with us. [In (largely Catholic) France, probably the great contributor to the philosophy of the Rights of Man, the struggle for Liberty has been associated with anti-clericism, which certainly isn't a coincidence.] And, being consciously a European but in a firmly English context, I am aware of the history of English Protestantism against the Catholics, and of the good reasons why we as a country have been suspicious of the Catholic church.
I have no time for the imperialism of the roman church. On the other hand, I detest the puritan iconoclasm that produced that loathsome prig Oliver Cromwell (and, bluff and honest though History may say he was, I think he clearly was a prig.). Then again, I adore the art and architecture to the glory of God which the roman church has fostered - which the English under King Henry and Protector Cromwell were so keen to eradicate, but on the other hand admire the Levellers and the Quakers which the same England produced, and allowed.
I think that the doubted king, Henry the Adulterer, aka Henry VIII, who was no man of holiness, has some claim to be the most damaging monarch in English history - which is quite an achievement. But that's an argument for another day.
-/-
To the Independent:
One grumble: You proselytise too much, and I think too uncritically, in favour of immigration, without enough regard to the fundamental changes in our society that must result.
And one question: Do you really believe that Britain (having moved, as it were, from God to Mammon), need have no concern about "some kind of spiritual invasion", but only to welcome the economic benefits (which are actually a great deal less certain for many of us than you claim)?
-/-
Final question for the whole class: How many nations in the world, through the course of history, while adhering to one confession, have actively invited so many immigrants adhering to another that their own has become a minority? Except that it's business (for cheap labour), the wealthy (for the same reason - "Such a marvellous little man/au pair, darling; hardly any English, but so cheap!") and the politicians who have done the inviting. My culture has been changed almost beyond recognition: it may well be for the better, but I haven't been asked how I feel about it.
'spiritual invasion' 'Henry VIII' 'Oliver Cromwell' 'English protestantism'
Double Standards.
21 December 2007 .
A Muslim guy, registering his antipathy to ordinary people in the UK, refers to the war in Iraq as proof of our shared perfidy.
Later, in the same conversation, he points out that, while abhorring terrorism, he cannot be held responsible for what other Muslims may choose to do.
This guy was an overly earnest young man. But, I believe I seem to have come across the same thinking a few times. From both parties...
Doing Religion (Or Not).
20 December 2007 .
Replying to a question from a reporter, Mr. Clegg of the Lib Dems told us that he doesn't believe in God.
Did he feel that he had to tell us? I ask because I found myself not wanting to know, any more than I wanted to know how much God approved of The Dear Leader blair.
We were reminded during the blair era that religious convictions are best kept out of politics in this country; I think that on that basis, atheism should be an equally personal matter. To another question during the same session, Clegg was quite happy not to answer - on the grounds that he was entitled to a private life; when he was asked about his religious beliefs, then, mightn't it have been better if he had said that it was none of our business?
'Nick Clegg'
Music In The Mall, Again.
18 December 2007 .
I was convinced that Harrods has used (Christian) sacred music in its advertising; following on from an earlier item (Sleighbells At The Mall, Wassail, 12 Dec) I was getting ready to have a rant. It seems I was doing Harrods an injustice. But it also seems that I'm not alone in my loathing of the commercial trivialisation of our culture; while I was trawling the web, I came across this, which I think is cogent and worth reading: http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/articles/griffiths.htm
I had to go to the mall this evening to help a friend. I thought I might do some of my Christmas shopping - which I admit I don't enjoy at the best of times; but that inescapable tape was so distracting (I think I can almost say 'distressing', while acknowledging that I may be reacting more extremely than most) that I gave up in disgust. A few quid lost to the mall, but they won't notice.
Sleighbells At The Mall, Wassail.
12 December 2007 .
There's a Muslim guy, mainstream, fairly ardent, Bangla Deshi in origin but born - or certainly raised - in this country, and educated in a mainstream comprehensive; we've met occasionally - he's the friend of a friend. Conversation came around to religion the other week: it quite shocked me, the vehemence with which he refused to consider that Sufism is proper Islam; but what really interested me was his understanding of Western music and imagery, which he sees not so much as idolatrous as totally irreligious, a perverse defiance of God. To cut a long story short, I tried to convince him that a large part of the history - and of the fundamental genetics - of our art, especially of our music, is precisely the celebration of the glory of God. He wasn't having it.
Down at a shopping mall, this evening, I could understand why he thinks the way he does. The tacky noise-wallpaper, all mashed up, all playing for 12 hours a day for weeks on end, all ignored, was a hodge-podge of Christmas pop, commercial tat and mediaeval songs of joy at the birth of the Christchild sung by demented chipmunks at Adams Singers rhythm. If I were a betting man, I'd say it's the same tape as they used last year, and the year before, and as they use in the next mall along, and the next...
When I was young, I learned to regard Christmas music as special and evocative. Because of the way they are abused, there are least a couple of dozen carols which I once loved which I cannot bear to hear now under any circumstances. We may need commercialism, and advertising, but all to easily it simply taints and poisons what it touches.
The War Criminal And The HJ-Mann.
11 December 2007 .
I truly do not want to told so often, and in such detail, about our late prime minister's spiritual voyages, although I accept that the media-reading public feels differently - or at least the media think it does. Personally, I suspect that if it were ever important that we be educated about his spirituality, which we are told informed his premiership, then it surely should have been before he was ever elected.
I believe in my soul that blair is an unindicted war criminal; there is abundant prima facie evidence that he shares the responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths and that he conspired in and then took part in the launching of an aggressive and illegal war. [Not to mention the sanctimonious lecturing that he 'truly believed' that what he was doing was right and by implication that millions of his fellow citizens were wrong.]
Now, so far as I am concerned, the position is this: blair is preparing to be welcomed into the Roman Church, and he is granted personal time with the Pope... except that blair has never acknowledged that his war in Iraq was contrary to international law and launched upon (now proven) lies to the British people. It may be that the priests will instruct him to repentance within the church and then grant him absolution; of course the penance he owes is to the peoples of Iraq and Britain, and the church is no position to grant him absolution on their behalves, but with jesuitical logic the church has never let that stop it - c/f the absolutions granted to, for example, mafiosi (to say nothing of IRA bombers) who thereby felt free to continue their crimes with the support of the church, if not its blessing.
I accept that I venting my spleen rather obviously against both church and blair; so let me, in as few words as possible, outline the unedifying picture that leads me to do so: I see an unrepentant war criminal being accepted into the roman empire of the mind by an ex-member of the Hitler Youth.
When I was a child, well after Hitler's war, the Roman Church still referred in prayers to 'the perfidious Jew' and talked about how it was through that sheer perfidy that the Jew refused to accept Christ. They are not nice people, the Romans.
Postscript: Because of my vituperation against blair, I have been accused of being in sympathy with Saddam. Nothing could be further from the truth. I regarded that wholly repellent man as the worst sort of petty schoolyard bully grown powerful in his own pond, with no redeeming features. I wanted to see him gone, and all the others like him around the world. The only way that was going to happen was if the world, represented as it is by the UN, worked together to do it - and that was beginning to happen. Those two ignorant prats who took matters into their own hands set back all the work which was being done and set the whole cause back for God knows how long: who is going to dare to deal with the Kims, the Bokassas, the Pol Pots, the juntas and the Amins now?
A car is running rough. You can make the car run more smoothly by giving a proper service, or you can pour oatmeal into the oil: both actions may seem to work. Claims are being made about UK or US successes in Iraq... but what bush and blair did was the oatmeal option, and they've made us worried that all the dealers may be dodgy.
'Blair and the Pope' spirituality
The Golden Compass.
29 November 2007 .
I haven't seen the film, but I've read the books.
The papers have been talking about the film, partly because the Catholics are kicking up a fuss. Well, we still just about have free speech, so all power to them; what's not quite so easy, however, is their pressure to get the film banned (successfully in quite a few places) and to have the books removed from libraries and even bookshops. It seems that the film has been 'toned down' (according to the Catholic League - oh, and, please, Sir, do I have to give them capital initials?)
I'm engaged because I found the books thought-provoking and, in spiritual terms, quite bleak. On top of that, a few days ago I wrote an item which I then deleted in order to have a rethink (The Sue Wilson Story, 19 November), and that too was about how our opinions - in that case about evangelical christians - are affected by books and films.
It took me half a lifetime to work out just how opposed I am to organised religion. (My feeling of the moment is that the catholic church is much more a roman empire of the mind than the rock of Christ. The message about the Magisterium came across all too easily, which goes to explain why the Catholics are so riled.)
I found much quicker that I have a low opinion of evangelicals and, I regret to say, the type of Christianity evidenced in the US today - which has very little to do with Christ as I understand him. From the beginning I found slightly creepy characters asking me in the street if I had 'heard the good news' rather off-putting, but at that time I respected the requirement on them that they evangelise. The Uriah-Heepish complacency they have that 'those doing the work of God are always ridiculed' was also unattractive, especially as I don't think it was what they were doing which was ridiculed but their glow of self-righteousness. Be that as it may. Over the years I found out too much which I disliked:
a) Never mind 'Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord' - Not 'yours to exercise on My behalf'.
b) Never mind the concept of redemption, fundamental Christianity but apparently beyond so many evangelicals who seem seriously to believe that redemption is a matter of being born again - into their particular little cult.
c) Never mind the intolerable length of the lists of those sentenced, executed and then found to be wrongly convicted.
And, most directly: d) 'Thou shalt not kill' - which they roll out happily enough only when it suits them, eg, again, abortion.
But: I wonder how much I am influenced by the media. A week or two ago I saw yet another film in which, as part of the script, small-town Christians were portrayed unflatteringly. I watched the film (nothing special - it was called the Susan Wilson Story) thinking unkind thoughts about the Christians when I abruptly realised that it was the film-maker who was directing my sympathies. (I've never said I'm not sometimes a bit thick.) It's happened before, most notably in the Monkey Trial film with Spencer Tracy (Inherit the Wind). There can be some pretty creepy pro-Christian propaganda in the cinema, too. But it's got me thinking.
If this sentence is not deleted, it means I'm coming back to this subject when I've thought about it a bit more. Apologies.
* Talking of racism in the American churches. You probably know that in vast areas, many denominations have two church buildings in each town - one for whites and one for blacks: AND there are people who use the bible to justify it. But, did you hear this one (I'm sorry I can't give names and date immediately; I'll try to find them):
A white Baptist minister (sic) discovered that a child buried (with his family, I believe) in the church graveyard was of mixed race. The minister (sic) insisted, absolutely, that the body be removed and buried elsewhere.
Christians: Don't you just love them! Actually, all I want from these churches (like the Wahabis) is an unequivocal statement from an overwhelming body of their leaders that the sorts of thing I have repeated here do not represent their religion. Until then, I am bound to assume that this is how they are.
'The Golden Compass' 'Susan Wilson Story' 'Inherit the Wind' 'Southern Baptist' 'Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord'
a32.