Bel is thinking

I have been reading the report (pdf) of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, which was published yesterday. Among other things, it considers the effect of immigration on integration and cohesion.

The report is rather good at laying out the perceptions of integration and cohesion from point of view of the different players in this issue; the settled indigene, the immigrant, the voluntary sector and the State. Considering the dramatis personae in this way led me to thinking about what constitutes a just society.

I took this train of thought because I began to wonder, reading through the report, whether it was at all possible to have a society which all the above players would agree to be ‘just’.

Of course, I know that unanimity is not really possible in these things. What I mean is, is there really, as far as immigration and cohesion are concerned, a framework of rules that can be described, objectively, as ‘just’, regardless of the ‘player’ involved. So can we have a society that is ‘just’ in the eyes of the immigrant, the indigenous Briton, and even the voluntary sector? I exclude the State from consideration in this question, simply on the basis that I assume it, for these purposes, to be ‘outside’ society, in such a way as not to be affected by whether or not the society is a just one.

This train of thought led me to Rawls’s door. John Rawls was a political philosopher who did much thinking on the idea of justice. In particular, he thought a lot about what principles of justice should obtain in a society. Rawls wrote that this could be considered under a setting he called ‘the original position’. Basically, the rules of justice were determined by parties behind a ’veil of ignorance’. Put very simply, the question Rawls postulated was this: ‘what sort of society would you regard as a just one, if you did not know what role you had, or what you would be, in that society?’

So for the purposes of this post, let us try this very simple thought experiment: let us imagine the following people sitting blindfold  around a table: an Eastern European immigrant, an  Englishwoman with roots in  this country going back to the 12th century, a pensioner of limited means, a single parent, and a rich man.

None of these people know what their identities in the society would be, because they are behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. So, for example, someone at the table would have no idea whether he would be the immigrant, the rich man, the pensioner, or the single mother. The task then is this: considering that that they do not know which they would be, what laws would they then create to ensure a just society?

If, for example, someone at the table proposed a law whereby all immigrants were given free housing ahead of single parents and pensioners, and that this was to be paid for by very high taxes, it could backfire on him if he ended up being the rich man, the single parent, or the pensioner. He could only benefit from this law if he were the immigrant. However, the fact that he does not know which he would be in the new society, would force him to think carefully before he proposed such a law.

What the exercise seems to suggest is that there is a point in the middle where all the participants can agree; a consensus ad idem. It suggests that there must be a place where they would all agree that the rich man would not be taxed too much; that the pensioner, immigrant and single parent would be treated fairly according to some agreed criteria; and that whatever accommodation is made for them, it would not be such as to anger the Englishwoman whose family have given their all to this country, and who has never asked anything of the State, but the space to enjoy her country as she remembered it as a child.

So will the Commission’s report find that meeting place? I don’t know yet. I don’t even know that such a meeting place exists. I am still reading the report, and will let you know my views later.

According to the Daily Mail, Tony Blair is thinking of converting to Roman Catholicism when he leaves Downing Street. All well and good, if that’s what he wants, but a particular part of the Daily Mail story caught my attention. According to the story, Blair discussed with a local priest the possibility of him (Blair) becoming a deacon:

Mr Blair is reported as asking his confidant Father Timothy: “Would this be possible?” He was told: “It usually takes two or three years”, to which he replied: “The fact that I’m PM, could this make a difference?”

Interesting, if true. The Bible sets out the qualifications for becoming a deacon, and as far as I could remember, being the Prime Minister of Great Britain (or any other country, for that matter) was not among the criteria deemed by God to be necessary for this great office. Just to be sure, I looked up the relevant passage in the Bible, 1 Timothy 3: 8-12:

• 8. Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,
  
• 9. but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
  
• 10. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.
  
• 11. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.
  
• 12. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

So there we are, being PM does not count for anything. As to the relevant criteria, though, it is for the Roman Catholic church to judge, whether, knowing what we do of Blair, he has satisfied the above conditions.

The Telegraph is reporting that Jerry Falwell, the controversial American preacher, has died.

I didn’t agree with much of what he preached. As Christians, we agreed on the basics; the Lordship of Jesus, the inerrancy of scripture, and the doctrine of salvation.

On other issues, he took what some would regard as an extreme view, and his harsher comments caused a lot of pain to many. Some of the things he said gave  a negative impression of Christianity, but in that respect, he is not alone. It is in human nature to fall short of the requirements of religion. That is, after all, the whole point of grace.

The idea behind Christianity is that we are not perfect, and we all need the grace and forgiveness of God. We are therefore not in a position to judge others, seeing as we are equally in need of mercy. Many times Falwell forgot this basic truth, and the name of Christianity suffered as a result.

That aside, he was a man of principle and of conviction. May his soul rest in peace.

Something very wrong with this proposal:

Travel restrictions could be imposed by America on 800,000 British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, it emerged yesterday.

The move has been prompted by fears that British Muslim men were behind several major bomb plots. 

I sincerely hope the Government do the right thing and reject this move, even if it means abandoning the visa waiver scheme altogether.

Once a person has acquired British citizenship, whether by birth, marriage, or any other way, that is all that matters. As far as the visa waiver scheme is concerned, the US Government is not entitled to look behind the passport and impose restrictions based on who is carrying it. That is tantamount to creating different categories of British citizens, and we should not allow that.

Under our law, every British citizen is entitled to the same rights that attend upon citizenship. We should never accept a situation that creates a dividing line between our people, that deems some holders of the passport to be somehow less worthy than others.

The Telegraph reports that the Foreign Office is uneasy about the proposal, with a spokesman stating that:

“The Muslim community, including those of Pakistani origin, are an important part of our society and we would oppose strongly any proposal to single them out in response to the actions of terrorists”.

All well and good, but that is not the point. We should resist this proposal, not because the muslim community “are an important part of our society”, but because if they are British, they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as anyone else. In other words, even if they were an unimportant and insignificant part of our society, so long as they meet the citizenship test, that should be enough.

I would advise the Foreign Office to consider carefully what is at stake here; the deliberate devaluing of our citizenship by another country. I put it as high as that.    

Now about this report in the Daily Mail yesterday:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

I spent yesterday evening thinking about it, and concluded that we should not  be surprised. After all, as the Patrick Mercer episode taught us, where Truth conflicts with political correctness, Truth must bow the knee.

The Sunday Telegraph brings news of some surprising comments by the Dean of St Albans, the Very Rev Jeffrey John. He disputes the doctrine that Jesus Christ died for sin.

They quote him as describing this teaching as ‘repulsive as well as nonsensical’. To him, the point of the crucifixion of Jesus was for him to ’share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us’.

The doctrine of the crucifixion as atonement for sin is the central message of Christianity. If the Sunday Telegraph report is true, these comments challenge the basis of Christianity, and amount to heresy.

As to the treatment of heretics, the Bible is clear: ‘A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject’.

Let the Church warn Jeffrey John about his divisive teaching. And if he persists, let them warn him again. If, after the second warning, he pays no heed, let him be excommunicated. If he wants to preach ‘another doctrine’, let him do so from outside the Church.

The Lab Gallery in New York has incurred the displeasure of the US-based Catholic League. It is displaying a milk chocolate sculpture of a naked Jesus on the cross, entitled ‘My Sweet Lord’.

My view? As a practising Christian, I am not at all bothered by the image. I can see why the Catholic League is upset, though. Catholicism seems to have a greater affinity for symbols than do other branches of Christianity. For me, the image is nothing more than what someone somewhere believes to be the likeness of Jesus. I do not expect non-Christians to have reverence for my religion. It would be nice if they did, but if they don’t, that’s also fine. If it upset me, I’d just stay away from the Lab Gallery until the sculpture was removed.

I wonder what caused the greater offence, the depiction of the sculpture at all, or the fact that it was made with chocolate. Making the sculpture in milk chocolate shouldn’t really matter. I know Jesus didn’t mean it in this context, but he did actually say in the Bible: ‘whoever eats my flesh … has eternal life’.

Seriously though, my message to the Catholic League is to lighten up a bit. Let people mock your religion if they want. Surely your God is strong enough to withstand that.

On a happy note, no death threats or threats to bomb the gallery. Perhaps some other religions could learn from that.

UPDATE. The exhibition has now been cancelled.

UPDATE 2. Just seen Sky News coverage of this story, complete with pictures of the chocolate sculpture. I just wonder, would they have dared show any pictures if it were, say, a chocolate sculpture of Mohammed?

The doomsayers of climate change are not having a good week. They are being ‘beset round about’, as the Bible would put it.

First, Channel 4’s splendid documentary, and now a hard-hitting article in the Telegraph by Janet Daley. She pours scorn on their repressive tactics and self-righteous manner, and restates the case now resounding everywhere that before swallowing their burdensome dogma, we must first see scientific evidence:

I don’t know about you, but before I can feel comfortable asking people in emerging economies such as India to forgo the benefits of economic growth and mass prosperity, before I can sentence some of the poorest people in the world to living indefinitely without modern technology, before I am even prepared to ask the lower-paid of this country to give up the improvements in their quality of life to which they have only just become accustomed - I want to hear any and every argument that is to be had about this theory.

And to the comrades in the green movement, I would say this: before you slam the lid on debate, and put your invasive restrictions into place to deny people freedoms and comforts that have transformed their condition, you had better be damned sure that you are right.

And she is right. If climate change is a scientific fact, then the green movement should not be nervous about allowing debate. It is only a religion that would insist that contrary evidence be not countenanced. So far, we have seen envirofascists telling us that ‘the climate change debate is over’. It is not over. In fact, it is only just beginning. It will not be over until we have incontrovertible proof one way or the other.

If we are to accept wholesale the claims of the green lobby without investigating their veracity, then we are dealing with the subject as one would a religion. However, even in religion, there are false prophets, and every religion has guidelines for determining who are the false prophets in its midst.

I don’t know how it works in other religions, but this is the Biblical test for if a prophet is true or false: look to the evidence. We are asked to ‘examine everything carefully, [and] hold fast to that which is good’.

Yes, as far as pronouncements by prophets are concerned, not even religion (at least, not Christianity) demands unthinking acceptance. We are to be rational, use our God-given faculties, test the evidence, and then ‘hold fast’ to whatever passes that test.

So having satisfied neither the scientific nor the Biblical standards, perhaps these repressive false prophets may wish to think again.

Muslim leaders in Australia have banned five of their number from speaking to the media. Among the five is Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, the deluded bigot who claimed last year that unveiled women (whom he likened to ‘uncovered meat’) were to blame if they were sexually assaulted by men.

The muslim leaders claim that the ban is necessary to repair the relationship between the muslim community and the rest of the public. Well, maybe so. A cynical observer might interpret it as a means of keeping poisonous propaganda inhouse for the time being. After all, no sensible warrior (or jihadist, for that matter) would want their weapons of war out in the public gaze before the time for battle has come.

Gagging a mad mullah who is bent on jihad does not stop him from spreading his poison elsewhere. Preparations will continue apace, only out of the gaze of the ignorant public. I would prefer that such people were talking to the media, actually. Always better to know what they are saying.

A film director claims to have discovered a tomb containing the remains of Jesus, along with proof that Jesus had a son.

The central tenet of Christian belief is that Jesus rose from the dead, so this director’s claims go directly to the root of Christianity.

And what has been the reaction of Christians to this? Generally, quiet disagreement. Or at most, dismissing his claims and ‘laughing him to scorn’, as the Bible would put it.

That’s right, no burning flags, no burning effigies, no threats to kill, no violent demonstrations.

Hope the islamist extremists in our midst are taking note. That’s the way we do things in the civilised world, OK? Besides if you believe your God is real, you don’t need to fight any battles on his behalf.