Your religion and nationality do not make you smarter, more entitled, chosen or better than any one else

See the light

I am British and a Roman Catholic. I can think of nothing else I'd rather be, either as a nationality or for a faith. If push came to shove, I'd like to think I'd put my life on the line for either, although who knows until you are confronted by such a choice, what decisions you would really make.  Both work for me rather well. Both are irrelevant to what I have to say next, but I wanted to put that there, so you can read what I have to say, being informed of where I stand. 

Being born in a Western, Liberal Democracy is the nearest thing you can get to being born with a winning lottery ticket in life. For me, it means that I got a free education, a nutritious school dinner when I was hungry, free milk at school, a life untouched by war and civil insurrection, free medical care, access to the library, access to pubs, the ability to buy the records that I wanted to buy and the books I wanted to read. Such things, which us people born in Edgware General hospital in 1962 took for granted, are for some people only things to dream of. In fact, even in this country, people born a few years before me or after me will not have access to all of them. I took it all for granted and perhaps, you could say, my generation have squandered it and pulled up the drawbridge behind us. Did it make me smarter? I wish I could say it did, but I think, if anything, it made me a bit lazier than my father's generation. When he was born in 1917, most of those things were not available. His generation fought a war, so that we could have a better life. We stand on the shoulders of those giants. I see so many pages on the web misappropriating the imagery of WWII, claiming that our mollycoddled generation are in some way the same. We are not. It is for each generation to build on the achievements of our forefathers, and I can see very few nations that my generation can claim to have done that in. When we say we have pride in our country, we rarely are referring to our country now. Most people who claim to be "proud patriots" have little pride in our current generation. Not so long ago, the country was ablaze with anti immigrant riots. To my mind, terrorising women and children in hotels is despicable, when I see it compared to my fathers generation facing down Panzer tanks and Fokker Wulf fighters, I feel sick. As far as a I am concerned, you can only consider yourself a patriot if you left the country a better place than you born into. If you have made a difference somewhere, then sure, call yourself a patriot. If you just like the idea of being a British patriot is because your Dads Uncle Tony flew a Boulton Paul Defiant during the Blitz, you are just sad and deluded. JFK once said "Ask what I can do for my country, not what my country can do for me". That was his definition of being a patriot. We've lost our free milk and our free education, they want to take away our free NHS, shut our libraries and tell us what is OK to read and listen to. If you really are a Patriot, those are the things you should care about. 

When you kids say "What did you do when they wanted to charge us for education, health, when they shut our libraries and restricted our reading, listening and viewing choices" what will be your answer? If it is "nothing", you can post all the Union Jack emoji's that you like, but you are not a patriot and you have let your country down.

And then we come to religion. Belonging to a religious group can be a life enhancing experience. Many people who have faith give huge amounts of time, money and energy in the cause of making the world a better place. Many lay down their lives for the cause of peace and justice. Some of the best people I've ever met, have made massive contributions to the wellbeing of their fellow man and this was inspired by faith. But it was not 'being religious' that made them good people. It was the fact that they put something back into society. Sadly, for too many in our society, being religious is simply an excuse to pretend they are chosen, they are better or they have wisdom denied to the rest of us. Such people give religion a bad name. Their entitled attitudes and their sense of being the part of a chosen minority, for me, is sickening. I am not directing this at any one faith. All major religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc have zealots who think visibly identifying themselves and shouting loudly about their sense of entitlement is enough. They don't have compassion or feeling for their fellow man, the lesser, non chosen ones. I am not a theologian, but I do believe that God will take a very dim view of those that exploit religion for political ends, to the detriment of fellow human beings. I am perfectly happy for people to chose their attire according to their beliefs, their tribe or their musical tastes. I am comfortable with people making diet choices based on medieval texts and holy books. If people want to believe in what I consider to be completely bonkers nonsense, that is fine. Where it is not fine is when such people start feeling and acting as if they are superior to the rest of us. They are not. If God has chosen you and you have faith, all you have been chosen for is to join a particular club with like minded people. If you believe you are enlightened, it is your job to persuade the rest of us that your chosen path is right and that your lifestyle is exemplary do it by making choices that all decent human beings will applaud, not just like minded zealots in your little club. If I look at you and see someone who has something good to bring to Planet Earth, you have my respect. If your religion is simply a tool to wield power and influence that your actions do not deserve, then you are the opposite of what you purport to be. There is a saying that God moves in mysterious ways. As far as I am concerned though, the devil does not. The devil seeks to corrupt by tempting us with power and influence. Perhaps his biggest and best trick is to persuade those who claim to be ultra religious to act like complete dickheads to the rest of us (treat that as a metaphor if you are an atheist). 

In short your religion and nationality do not make you smarter, more entitled, chosen or better than any one else. It is your actions and efforts for your fellow man that you should be judged by. I happen to believe that there are too many small minded people, living in echo chambers, populated by other small minded people, reinforcing each other in the stupidity, shouting down the voices of reason. I happen to believe that most are not evil or bad. They have just insulated themselves from information and data that contradicts their viewpoint. It took me a long time to realise that the reason many people hold what I believe to be stupid and idiotic views is not that they are stupid and idiotic. It's just that the only information and data they are exposed to is data that supports their stupidity. Let me explain. For millennia, even the wisest and best educated scientists and astronomers believed the earth to be flat and the centre of the universe. There was no credible data to contradict this, so it was a perfectly reasonable and sensible view. When the likes of Copernicus proposed otherwise, wise people listened to his argument but religious authorities called on him to recant. That is the difference between closed and open minds and it tells you everything you need to know. 

My question to you is whether you are on the side of Copernicus and reason or are you on the side of the zealots of the day who persecuted him. I started this by saying I am a Roman Catholic and proud of it. I am not proud of the Catholic zealots in my religion who persecuted Copernicus and whatever religion you belong to, you should not be proud of such zealots in your faith who similarly bring it into disrepute. 

The Saturday list #268 - ten reasons why you shouldn't tell children 'white lies'

If you are a parent, you must have been there. Your small child asks you something and the answer is a bit embarrassing, so you make up a little story. At some point in the future, sometimes many years after, the white lie comes back to bite you on the backside.

Last night, we had some friends around, and I recounted how one such white lie caused a friend of mine much embarrassment at Primary School. It got me thinking, was there enough material for a full list? I think there is.

My First Communion

 1. Inclusive Sex Education.

 Lets start with the memory that kicked the list off. Picture a class of nine year old children in 1972, in St Vincents RC school in Mill Hill. In those days, sex education for such children at RC establishments was non existent and sex was never spoken of at home. The first lesson about sex came in a most embarrassing way for a friend.

Sister Gabriel, the headmistress came into the class and announced that the Bishop was coming to the school. There was to be a special mass. Such events usually meant no lessons and possibly even a cup of warm orange squash. She announced that she was forming a small choir for the event and stated that she needed boys and girls who could sing in tune and at high pitch. One of my classmates, who's name I will not mention put his hand up. Sister Gabriel said "Yes, what is it". He proudly announced "I'm a homosexual!". Sister Gabriel immediately took him to her office. We were a naive bunch, no one knew what a homosexual was. We were all a bit bemused. He emerged later, without having been slippered. At playtime, a couple of us asked what it was all about. The previous night, his family had been watching Top of The Pops. David Bowie appeared singing Starman. My friends Dad, who was virulently homophobic had shouted "Why is there a homosexual on television". My friend asked his father what a homosexual was. His Dad, not wanting to explain said "It's a man who sings in a high pitched voice. I hate men who sing in high pitched voices". He'd explained this to Sister Gabriel, who as a veteran teacher, realised that Peter had not been given an accurate description. She sought to correct this and explained that Homosexuals were men who didn't like girls. As most of the boys at the school, were of an age where they were not interested in girls, many concluded they too were homosexuals. I told my elder sister of what happened. She took great delight in setting the record straight, as it were.  So don't tell your kids that words have incorrect meanings, if you want to spare their blushes.

2. Safety.

When my Daughter was about three years old, she started to take an interest in the pond at the bottom of the garden. As you know, ponds and small children don't mix. So I told her that my Father was buried under it and if she went near his ghost would get her.  This did the trick, and none of the children ever went near it again. When she was in her mid teens, her friends were visiting. One noticed the pond and went to have a look. My daughter said "Don't go near that, my Grandad is buried under it". I realised that she hadn't twigged that it was a white lie. Don't tell lies that could result in a visit from PC Plod (not that this happened), for the record my Dad is buried in Hendon Cemetary). 

3. The cupboard.

My elder brother asked me to baby sit for him once. His younger son was about three years old. I wanted to watch the telly, but he kept coming down and annoying me. Eventually, I took him to his room and said "Now go to bed, because its after 8.30 and the monster that lives in the cupboard wakes up at 8.30 and if you get up he'll eat you". That was the end of the interruption. A couple of days later, my sister in law rang my mum in a state of rage. The poor lad was scared out of his wits at the monster in the cupboard and was refusing to go in his bedroom. I was not flavour of the month. Don't try and quell childrens fears with stories of monsters.

4. Young ladies.

My friends Dad who was a homophobe was also a rabid anti semite. When we were about 14 we were looking at a copy of the NME and there was an attractive female singer on the cover. As you can imagine, this caused some comment, which was overheard by his father. His father grabbed the magazine, ripped it up and then told us that he wouldn't have pictures of Jewish women in the house. I was quite puzzled. He explained that all Jewish women had loose morals and would prey on innocent young Catholic lads, doing unspeakably rude things to them to make them lose their faith.  As I am sure you can imagine, the very worst way to stop teenage boys to taking an interest in a female is to say that they will do unspeakably rude things to them. Of all the lies we were told, this was the most counter productive. I was actually quite disappointed when I learned that it was not always entirely true. Never think that telling young boys that girls have loose morals will discourage interest.

5. Fleas.

Another one of my friends fathers lies concerned the late, great Marc Bolan. At St Vincents he was something of a hero. We would run around the bus stop singing Telegram Sam. My friend informed us that we shouldn't like Marc Bolan because he had fleas, his Dad had said this after a TOTP appearance. I found this to be a rather odd thing to say. So I asked my elder sister. She was very puzzled. She said "Marc Bolan is a pop star, when he goes on Top of the Pops, he has a special hairdresser who makes him up, he probably washes his hair more than any man alive". I think that this was the first time I realised that adults could talk complete nonsense. Don't make up outrageous porkies if you want to retain the trust of people.

6. The neighbours cat.

My Dad was an Aussie and virtually never lied, he'd always tell me things straight if I asked him. He took the view that world was a tough place. But three doors up the road was a family with two young, very sweet girls. Their Dad was a Headmaster, but a lovely chap. They got a cat. One day, the Head came down, very upset. The cat had been run over. He didn't want to upset his daughters. He asked my mum if he could put the cat in our dustbin, explaining that he'd tell the girls that cat had gone to live with a kindly old lady who was lonely. My mum being a kindly soul agreed. Sadly she did not tell my Dad. After dinner, he went to put the rubbish out. On opening the lid, he was greeted with the sight of a dead moggy. My Dad was raised on a farm and not sentimental about animals. He immediately picked it up, marched up the road and banged on the door. The two girls answered. My Dad exclaimed "Tell your Dad that someone run his cat over and put it in our dustbin". My mother went nuts at him when he came back, he couldn't understand what the fuss was about. The moral of this story is that even the best intentioned porkie can go horribly wrong.

7. The talentless child.

One of the saddest things I come across in my day job at the studio is the pushy parent with the talentless child. The trouble is that the parent often convinces the talentless child that they are specially gifted. This is usually fine, until it goes spectacularly wrong. There was one such poor soul, who at a young age, his parents decided was going to be the next superstar. They spent a fortune on singing lessons, drama classes, rehearsals, putting bands together that invariably lasted three rehearsals, until they realised that the poor child was completely useless. The charade continued until the first series of X Factor. The parents were desperate for their poor offspring to appear and pulled a few strings, called in a few favours and got their dream. Sadly, what they didn't realise is that the show would take great delight in humiliating the over confident and under talented mugs. There was much hilarity as the Emperors new clothes disappeared on National TV. There was however a happy ending. About a year later, the poor soul turned up at the studio. It turned out, he was actually a nice chap and was really embarrassed about the whole thing. He had however decided that he did want to make it in music, in his own way. He started drumming and was actually very good. He was also a very good songwriter and makes his living as a touring drummer and songwriter. He tells me that he realised he loved being on stage, but as he couldn't sing, the drums were just fine and he was far happier. The moral of this is that you should never let your love of your children mask the truth of their talents, unless you want nationwide ridicule./

8. The sixpence jar.

There is a sub genre of lies that really cause damage. This is the malicious elder sibling. My eldest Brother Laurie was the master of the evil lie when we were kids. He would take great pleasure in winding me up and getting me into trouble. Nothing made him more happy when this resulted in my getting a smack bottom from my Dad, who was very old school. What used to annoy me most, was that I'd always fall for his ruses. There are too many to list, but the lie that really hurt was the sixpence jar. My Brother told me that if we both put a sixpence a week in the jar, by Xmas we'd have enough for a Scalextrix set. After six months, I got a ladder, climbed up and went to count the sixpences, so I could work out how much we had. It was empty the thieving swine had spent it all on cigarettes. I was furious, everyone else thought it was funny. I waited until he had a hangover, and took my revenge by putting a cold flannel on his feet. Much as I love him, I've never forgiven him and never had a scalextrix set. I think the one lesson my brother learned was that if you continually wind up your younger siblings, sooner or later it comes back on you.

9. The Party.

Perhaps the worst of all humiliations is being the kid at school who doesn't get invited to parties. Parents will go to extraordinary lengths to try and ensure that when their kids put out the invites, those that are left out do not find out. Sadly there is another type of parent who takes great delight in stirring and if they find out that little Johnny isn't invited, then little Johnny will find out in the most embarrassing circumstances. There was one such parent that I came across. Their child was very popular but the parent was a real stirrer. As a result, childrens parties became very expensive, as the whole class had to come. One parent, who wanted to save a few pennies, decided to take a different tack and just tell the truth. "We are having a party and you child did not make the cut" would not go down too well in some quarters. So they said "there was only space for ten so we just pulled the names out of a hat, because it was fairer". Whilst this spared the feelings and those who didn't go probably guessed but didn't feel to left out, the parent who was a bit of a stirrer was not impressed. They grilled their child (who was going) and asked them to find out if it was true. The child having the party simply said "Yes I made sure mum invited all of my friends, we just didn't want to hurt anyones feelings". This was gleefully conveyed back to all and sundry. The moral of this story is that your kids won't tell porkies to spare your blushes. 

10. The Priest.

We will finish where we started. Back at St Vincents school. Back in 1972, the Parish Priest at Mill Hill was Fr Dennis Corkery. He used to visit the school every week and hold court with the children. He'd tell us stories of the good work done by Vincentian missionaries in Africa.  He told us how before the Vincentians arrived, Africa was full of savages who went around eating each other, but by the good work of the Church they were now all civilised and good Catholics. In fact they were now better Catholics than we were, as more priests were coming from Africa than Ireland. We all accepted this version of history without question. Africa had names such as the dark continent and I genuinely believed that the Church had saved the continent. Then when I got to around 14, I became aware of South Africa and Rhodesia and the injustice of Apartheid. The more I read about the British Empire, more I came to doubt that Africa had been saved. In 1974, my cousin had been ordained a Catholic Priest and spent his life working in Africa. I always held him in high esteem, but I realised that my education regarding Africa was one of pure lies. It totally undermined my faith in the Catholic Church for a very long time. I realised that like all organisations, the Church had some very good people in and some very bad people. What really stuck in my throat though was that I'd actually believed white people had saved Africa. Sadly the journey of finding out how big a lie that really is, is still a work in progress. Sadly Fr Corkery is responsible for me having very mixed feelings about the clergy. Ultimately, if you are a priest, be honest. 

The most hated Pope for a 1,000 years?

There is a report on the BBC website stating that the Pope is highly popular in over half of 43 countries surveyed.  Many commentators, who are not normally fans of Popes have written about how this new Pope is a welcome change for the better. For many Roman Catholics in the UK, who are by and large a pretty liberal bunch, it is a pleasure to be able to have a conversation with non Catholics about the Pope which doesn't involve a tiresome justification of the unjustifiable. As a member of that community, I personally can only be happy that we have a man in charge who seems genuinely concerned about dealing with issues of poverty and inequality. The fact that unlike many predecessors, he is not hung up one trying to tell people how to conducttheir sexual relationships, is perhaps the most telling sign that things have changed and changed for the better. That he has taken an active role in trying to resolve dangerous issues around the world, such as in Cuba again can only be seen as positive.

Whilst most of the citizens of Planet Earth are genuinely pleased when we see a religious leader doing his job properly, and whilst most of us afford respect to any Leader who is working for Peace, Justice and Equality, it seems that the feeling of goodwill towards Pope Francis is not universal. I'm not referring to the nutcase contingent of uber right US fundamentalists who believe that every Pope and probably every Catholic is a Satanist and an antichrist. This ragged bunch, who are probably the most damaging aspect of all of Christianity, cannot stand the fact that someone who falls foul of their rather warped ideology, could possibly be respected and seen as a force for good. I had a small insight into their mindset a while back when one engaged me in conversation on the street. They chose a bad day, when I was up for a row. The said numpty asked me if I had embraced Jesus Christ as my saviour. Generally I tell people it is none of their business. On this occasion, I made a mistake, I decided to engage in conversation. I said "Actually I am a Roman Catholic". I was immediately informed that the Pope was the AntiChrist and I would burn in hell unless I repented. I thought I'd try logic and reason so I said "Today I woke up at 6am, got the train from Mill Hill to Victoria, to spend the morning serving breakfast to the Homeless. Is that evil?" The response was "That is evil incarnate, you are trying to lure the poor homeless into your demonic religion". To this I responded that the rules of the Passage, where I volunteer, specifically ban us from trying to proseletise the clients. At this it was suggested that this was typical of the lies and subterfuge that the Prince of Liars, who was my inspiration, would come up with. At this point I thought I'd step off the back foot. So I said "Ok, it says in the bible, 'When you were hungry you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me to drink', how many homeless people have you fed today? All you are doing is making people think that peope of faith are uncaring nutcases. People like you are divisive and dangerous. You live a lie and you are like the religious elites Jesus denounced in the bible, caring only for practice of ritual and nothing for the poor and downtrodden". With that I strode off, in an even more foul mood than I'd started the conversation. But such people are not really a problem for Pope Francis. It wouldn't really matter what he did, they'd still hate him.

The big problem or Pope Francis is the fact is that it is becoming ever clearer that his own Vatican bureacracy don't like him. He gave them a severe dressing down, leaving them in no doubt as to his opinion of them. He listed 15 ailments of the government of the Catholic Church in his address to his senior staff. They were seemingly none too chuffed. Pope Francis did not work at the Vatican prior to his election as Pope. It seems to me that he's arrived and has been horrified by the extravagance of the organisation and the total disconnection from the billion followers across the world. His list of ailments highlights the fractuous, closed, inwards looking and bitchy nature of the organisation. Has any Pope in the last 1,000 years taken on his own inner circle?

Many of the elderly Cardinals who oppose the reforms and changes Pope Francis wants to bring about are completely out of touch with the daily lives of the people who live across the world and go to mass on a Sunday. Many have spent decades being mollycoddled in the Vatican, having their every need looked after, whilst being greeted with acclaim and reverence whenever they step out of the cocoon. No wonder they dislike alight being shone on their activities.

It seems to me that Pope Francis has struck a chord across the globe because he's identifed many of the issues which are of  concern to all citizens, not just Catholics. He has realised that the Church has had its reputation dragged through the mud, alienating many previously loyal and devout Catholics, by covering up child abuse scandals. He has realised that the only way to save the organisation is to completely reform the broken machine that has allowed such scandals to be swept under the carpet. Along with these reforms, he's worked to shed the image of a sex obsessed, out of touch church full of repressed and slightly odd individuals. Pehaps the biggest change is that he simply seems like a normal person. When he moved to Rome, he rang up his old newsagent to cancel his delivery of papers.

Living in London, the vast majority of my friends are Non Catholics and it is clear that Francis has made an impression. Whilst I doubt any will be seeking to convert any time soon, it is clear that they see a genuine, decent man, trying to make a difference for the good. I'd suggest that for all people who care for their fellow citizens, it would be a good thing if Pope Francis has a successful time in office. There are several reasons for this.

1.  The Pope has huge influence and if it can be used to resolve conflicts (such as US/Cuba) then this has to be good for us all.

2.  The Pope has said that part of his mission is to help those suffering from poverty, injustice and inequality. He seems to be one of the few world figures talking this language. If he can spread this message to the national leaders, then we may see real change. In the UK, these groups have been major victims of the coalition austerity policies, whilst millionaires have had tax cuts.

3. The Pope is working for better interfaith relationships. It is completely ridiculous that in the year 2014 we are still murdering each other because we interpret a few chapters of a book in different ways. Only the most sick mind can ever believe that religious persection is a good thing. Sadly the sick minds are making the headlines and the innocent generally suffer.

4. If this Pope is derailed in his attempts to reform the Catholic Church, the Church will not go away (as the likes of Richard Dawkins would like). It will simply morph into a worse organisation, which rather than using its influence for good, will simply continue the navel gazing.

One of the conversations I've had most frequently with atheist friends is the one which says that the religion is a complete anachronism, totally out of date and having no place in the modern world. I don't subscribe to this view. I was discussing this with my 17 year old daughter, who has stopped regularly attending church. She summed it up pretty well. She said although she doesn't enjoy church or get anything out of it, it can only be good that people have a centre for the community, where they are constantly badgered to do good deeds, help other people, play an active role in the community and not be selfish. I sometimes fear that we are moving to a society where we sit insulated in our house, watching TV 24x7, getting all our shopping online, oblivious to the fact that 50% of the citizens of the planet live in total poverty. Until such time as there are no people who are oppressed, in poverty, suffering injustice and being marginalised, there is a job for a Pope to remind us of them. The only issue is whether we get a bloke who is actually up to the job. The sad truth is that whilst we appear to now have a bloke who is up to the job, there are a whole load of bureacrats in the Vatican, who have had their comfy little jobs turned on their heads. Lets hope that he holds sway. He may be the most hated Pope among the curia for 1,000 years, but for the rest of us, he is a breath of fresh air.

God works for Barnet Homes !

Having had the rather interesting diversion of a theological debate on this blog, with exquisite timing Mrs Angry has discovered that Barnet Homes have engaged the services of an evangelical christian group to "help them with their work". Her blog is well worth a read - http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/obviously-god-has-plan-how-government.html - because it is truly mindboggling that such a thing is happening. It appears that officers from Barnet Homes are being trained by members of  "Christians against Poverty". This group is open in its aims of using its charity work to proseletyse victims of poverty.

Before I give my opinions, let me put my cards on the table here. I work as a volunteer for an organisation "The Passage" http://www.passage.org.uk/ , a homeless daycentre, which is a charity set up by the Catholic Church. When I read about "Christian Poverty Action" and the way they work I was shocked. The Passage is funded by Westmintser Council for some of its outreach work and is well respected in the field. This grant is provided to perform specific work and the way the cash is administered is controlled and has democratic accountability. One of the conditions is that the charity performs its role professionally and with respect to the clients. This means not proseletysing them, amongst other things. I would estimate that maybe 50% if not more of the volunteers I work with are not Roman Catholics and a fair few are of no religion at all. It is made 100% clear to all volunteers that their job is to help people, not to convert them. People are expected to be professional in their dealings with clients. In the two years I've been volunteering, I don't think I've ever once discussed religion with a client, let alone invited them to pray. The centre would not work if that sort of attitude played any part in the equation. It most certainly wouldn't work for any of the volunteers who I work with. People work at the centre because it gives the chance for people in a desperate situation to turn around their lives. I would find it repulsive if the organisation attached strings to the work it does. I hope that gives my comments a degree of context.

So returning to "Christians against Poverty". Mrs Angry highlighted the following extract from the Barnet CAP blog "We had some amazing news this month when one of our old clients decided she wanted to ACCEPT JESUS as her Lord and Saviour." http://barnetsouthcap.wordpress.com/ - On the same page we saw this comment "The picture above shows one of our money courses, teaching Barnet Homes housing officers the money course and making new friends throughout. The first one day money course was enjoyed so much, that the next day more people joined us than were booked on, and we have been invited back to do more. The CAP money course is such a good tool, and fits so perfectly with all the benefit changes coming in. Obviously God has a plan!".  Now I have no issue with religious charities conducting their business. If they wish to help people with debt, I would say that is a good thing. If they are open and honest about their methods and motivations that is also fine. Mrs Angey highlights what they see as the purpose of their work "Combining CAP's expertise with the love and message of the church we have a life transforming mix. Every year we help over 20,000 people to get out of debt and see 500 people become Christians through our Debt Help work as well as 10,000 people benefiting from our CAP Money Course."

What is not fine at all is for Barnet Homes to engage in a partnership with such a group, for the purposes of training officers. I have no issue with Barnet Homes referring people to Barnet CAP where that may be appropriate. For instance if a Barnet Homes worker comes across someone who is a committed Christian in debt, seeking assistance, then referral to them would be appropriate. The officer would have to be clear in explaining that the group are evangilical Christians in any referral. They should also explain that the group are likely to want to recruit referrals. This would be exactly the same as an elderly Jewish person being referred to a Jewish charity. There may be circumstances where a non christian may also be referred, but this should be done in such a way as to explain exactly what Barnet CAP are and how they operate. It may well be that the positive outweigh the negatives, but the client must be under no illusion as to what is being offered and why.

Where Barnet Homes have crossed the line is sending officers on training courses with Barnet CAP. This seems to me to be crossing the boundary between religion and state in a most alarming way. Whilst I am sure that charity workers withing Barnet CAP have a wealth of experience to offer in dealing with debt, and it is clearly good to share this, training Barnet Homes officers is a completely different thing.  In effect Barnet Homes, a subsidiary of Barnet Council is using public money to fund an evangelical organisation.

Now I have no issue with the BarnetCAP or its volunteers. I don't question that they are doing what they believe to be the right thing. I have a big issue with Barnet Homes entering a partneship with them. Firstly Barnet Homes was specifically set up by Barnet Council, to remove democratic accountability from their governance. They are a quango. They spend our money, but we have no say in how they do it. Secondly there is no transparency in this relationship. 

So why do I have a distrust of evangelical organisations especially in the field of training? For those new to the wonderful world of Barnet and Barnet blogs, you may be surprised to know that both myself and Mrs Angry attended the same primary school (she was a few years older than me though, Heh Heh).  This was St Vincents. It may surprise you to hear that I once had a convesation with the Ex Headmistress of St Vincents. We both had the joys of "training" by a certain Miss O'Donovan. If ever Mrs Angry gets a bit too big for her boots, I simply say "Miss O'Donovan" to her and she breaks out in a cold sweat. I suspect that anyone who suffered her "traditional" methods of education doesn't really enjoy horror films. We know that there is nothing more frightening than a small Irish woman in charge of a class of 6 year olds. I have no idea what deep psychological harm was caused by this woman. She was without peer in the way she terrified those in her care. Many people have challenged this statement, but when her methods were explained, they concurred. She was a junior teacher when Miss O'Donovan was teaching. She told me that even the staff were terrified of Miss O'Donovan. Whatever Miss O'Donovan did or didn't teach me (I am dyslexic, so not much really) she did convince me that I was a very evil person and I would go to hell. I am still not entirely sure she isn't right! Maybe the need to obsessively write blogs when I hear about Barnet Homes officers being trained by evangelical Christians is part of that damage. As I wrote this blog, I speculated how a training session for Barnet Homes officers may have proceeded if Miss O'Donovan was running it. I suspect that the officers would need counselling afterwards for post traumatic shock. That is why all sorts of alarm bells rang when I saw this. I am sure BarnetCAP are too sensible to let loose a Miss O'Donovan on anyone in a training session, but one cannot help but question whether these structures are appropriate for a taxpayer funded organisation such as Barnet Homes. As regular readers of this blog will note, I write this not as someone with a fundamental hatred of religion.

I mention this because I have a deep distrust of zealots teaching people. I have a simple test I apply when I try and assess whether I agree with the aims and aspirations of a charity. Does the charity see a successful outcome as being good for the client or good for the charity? In the case of the Passage, we see a successful outcome as seeing someone housed. The best outcome is that we never see them again. It strikes me that BarnetCAP see a successful outcome as someone becoming an evangelical christian and member of their church.

Back to work with a bang - A few random thoughts about One Barnet

I've been away for three days in Centre Parcs in Sherwood Forest. We met Robin Hood on our travels. He was a bloke who used to rob from the rich to give to the poor. He is a big inspiration to Barnet Council. Sadly they've got it a a bit wrong. Seems to me that these days it is fashionable to rob from the poor and give to multinational corporations.

In "Barnet - The Billion Pound Gamble" we heard John Sullivan tell how his daughter gets charged £1.20 for a cup of coffee in a Church Hall by the councils provider of choice. This is the same council which is spending £1 billion of our money with Capita. Capita aim to make a 17.5% return on investment. In otherwords. In a simplistic world, we could say this means we'll give Capita shareholders approx £175 million pounds to do what the the council used to do. The leaders of Barnet Council believe that this will work out cheaper than doing it themselves. When I say they believe, this is a belief rather like my belief as a Roman Catholic in the Virgin Mary, The Holy Trinity and the Communion of Saints. The difference between my belief and that of the Leaders of Barnet Council, we will all know long before we die who was right. In fact anyone who followed the Capita Week blogs will have a pretty good idea now, how all of this will go.

Shortly before Christmas a Jehovas Witness knocked on my door. He seemed like a perfectly pleasant chap. He asked if I believed in God. I replied "Yes, I'm a Roman Catholic". I won't bore you with all of the details, but he informed me that I am destined for Hell as a result of my beliefs. Whilst he may well be correct  in his idea of my final destination, he was sadly unable to provide any tangible evidence to convince me.

I then said to him "I've listened to your sales pitch for five minutes, will you do me the courtesy of listening to mine?" He looked a little worried. I replied "Don't worry I'm happy for you to continue in your system of belief. I want to discuss the "One Barnet program". I asked if he was a Barnet resident and he said he was. I asked if he had heard about the One Barnet program and he said "No". I then explained to him what it was all about and asked if he thought it sounded like a  good idea. He was a little perplexed. He said "Well, I don't think it sounds as if they have thought it through". I agreed to take one of his leaflets and read it if he took one of mine and promised to read it. As the witnesses have a huge operation in Mill Hill and presumably many members, I suggested that they should at least familiarise themselves with what is going on. I suggested that if it all goes wrong (as I suspect it will), they will end up paying more Council tax and so have less money to pay in tithes to the religion. They are likley to have to spend more time dealing with the chaos caused  by the council and have far less time for knocking on peoples doors. This concerned him.

He then told me a very strange thing. Did you know that many large corporations and multinational firms are controlled by Satanists and are deliberately stirring up trouble on behalf of the devil? At that point the penny dropped. I had been totally unable to figure out why any sane person would sign up to One Barnet. but as reasons for signing a ten year contract, having done no public sector comparator, it is about as a good a reason as I've heard yet.

And the devils work must be done. As I sit in my office, preparing a VAT return for my business, with heavy cold, I considered all of the faith communities in Barnet. Jews, Muslims, Cristians, Jehovas Witnesses, SiKhs, Buddhists, Athiests, Hindus, Zoriastrians, to name but a few. The effects of One Barnet will affect all of us. There are people of many religions, no religion and some of us who just aren't sure. We could spend hours trying to convince each other that our own flavour of faith was the best, and I doubt any of us could stratch the surface of another persons belief. This only happens at times of great trauma.

What I do know is that in just five minutes I convinced an articulate young man, who is used to dealing with all manner of arguments, that he really should be worried about the changes Barnet council is making to the way it runs our services.

It has been suggested to me that the One Barnet Contract was finally signed sealed and delivered on the day of the Mayan apocalypse. Is it a sign ?

Belief, Faith and Religions

Last week I read a sentence that made  me think. I am still pondering what it means

"Believing is a human act, conscious and free, corresponding to the dignity of the human person"

There are three words, which many people wrongly interchange. These are belief, faith and religion. I suspect that most of us have belief. This could be belief in Athiesm, Socialism, Conservatism, Christianity, Islam or Manchester City FC. As the statement above clarifies, we can only really give this if we are free to give it. If you sign up to something in which you have no belief, then that demeans your human dignity. If you sign up to something because you have been forced to sign up to it, then that demeans us all. That is why we should all fight for an individuals right to freedom of expression and belief.

Then there is faith. Less of us have faith than belief. Faith is what sees us through difficult times. Again we can have faith in many things. I have faith in the people I love to support me through hard times. Some of us have faith in God. Some of us have faith that there is no God. Faith is good when it supports us, but we must also be open to the fact that sometimes our faith may have misguided us. Scientists have worked for centuries towards a cure for cancer. Many of these scientists have progressed down dead ends long after it was clear that science didn't support that particular line of enquiry, because they had faith in their theories. Sadly today many adherents of all manner of disproven ideas and outdated concepts are still bound to them by faith in both the secular and religious world. This takes us on to religion.

Religion is in effect a prescription of faith and belief. There are in the main three reasons why people belong to a religion. Because they are compelled to, because they receive benefit from belonging and because they believe and have faith in the teachings of that religion. Some religions prescribe terrible punishments for people who lose their faith and become "apostate". Once you lose the faith and belief, you are then living a lie and your personal religious commitment has no validity.

There is another factor which we need to throw into the mix. This is in some ways the most important element. This element is reason. The world has moved on and developed as humans have developed reason to analyse the world we live in. Many see reason as an enemy of belief, faith and religion. I do not. I see reason as a tool to make our own belief, faith and religion (if we have one) better. Reason means listening to other viewpoints, analysing evidence and improving our understanding of our existence. I do not belief that truth can ever be contradicted by truth. I do not believe that reason can contradict honesty. If honesty, truth and reason contradict the tenents of our beliefs, faiths and religions, then we have to adapt these to reflect the truth. If we believe in a God, then we cannot possibly believe that God contradicts Gods rules. If we do not believe in a God, we have only reason to validate our own beliefs and faith. We see the world through our own eyes and experience it through our own senses. These can mislead us, so we need to validate what we see.

Let me give you an example. I had a friend who believed that when he took LSD he became a visionary and he understood everything in the whole cosmosphere. He came up with a cunning plan for himself and a group of friends to have an evening where they took LSD and tape recorded all of the conversations. One person, who did not wish to partake, agreed to sit there and work the tape recorder. The LSD team had an amazing night. They managed to solve all of the problems of the world. They had a three hour debate on the subject and at the end decided that they could distill all of this into one sentence. A week later, they reconvened to listen to the tapes, convinced that they had achieved a world changing breakthrough. They were shocked to hear three hours of incredibly dull psychobabble. After three hours, they came up with the solution to all the worlds problems in one sentence "We should all be nicer to each other". This was followed by an hour of everyone saying "man, it is so simple, why has no one ever figured this out before?".

What the tape had done, rather brutally, was show them that their own perceptions of what happened had been wrong. Of course it would be lovely if we were all nicer to each other, but sadly it is more difficult than that. The mistake we often make is that when our beliefs are shattered, or we lose faith in an ideal or we lose our religion, we lose much of the good things that these things brought us. This may be companionship or it may be security. I spoke to someone who had been a committed athiest, who changed their mind about God following a near death experience. She told me that she'd fallen out with most of her friends who were athiest, who couldn't accept her new view of the world. I know many former members of churches who have had the same experience. Often it is not a choice on the part of the person who has developed their beliefs, faith or religion, but a decision on the part of the former friends to ostracise the person.

I happen to think that this is done as a defence mechanism to resist change. Anyway, what is the point of all of this, you may ask? Well I happen to believe we are all on a personal journey and each one of us will take a different route. None of us will have the same experiences and share the same views about everything. Seeking to impose our views on others is against reason and to me it lacks respect. Sometimes we do this for the highest of intentions. I happen to believe that religious groups who deny members urgent medical treatments to preserve life are evil. I would urge anyone in such a position to reconsider whether a religion which damaged their health and wellbeing could really be a force for good. I happen to believe (note the use of the word) that if God hadn't intended medicines to be used, God wouldn't make them effective. Now I have no right to impose my view on that person. They can reject my view.  Where I believe society has a right to intervene is when that group seek to impose their views on third parties, who are in no position to decide for themselves. I believe in religious freedom for the person, but where that person practising their religion causes suffering to another person, we have to say "sorry, you are now abusing the concept of religous freedom and you must desist".

Of course there are some arguments which will never be satisfactorily resolved for everyone, but as a democracy, we have to choose to allow the majority to set the rules. For those who disagree, if they want to change the course of the debate, they must use reason. Ultimately if they have the best argument, they should have the faith to see this through. If they haven't they must accept this and either reexamine their beliefs or try and refine their arguments.

I don't really expect that too many people will agree with all I have said. Actually, I suspect that many will disagree with most of it. That doesn't matter, what matters is that we as a society have to learn to address belief, faith and religion in their proper context. A Rabbi, Imam or a Priest may have a large following. They do however only have one vote. It is the responsibility of the members of their society to ensure that these people represent the views of the community and don't use their platform to represent something entirely different. I believe that all of these must put the fight for social justice at the forefront of their work. There are many problems in the world, but while we have inequality and injsutice, I cannot believe any of them will ever be resolved. Any religious leader who is not prepared to stand up and be counted in the fight to ensure that in the eyes of the law and the state, all men are equal and we are all treated equally in matters of justice and law, to me has forfeited the right to be a community leader.

I was asked to publicise a meeting on the 7th November at 8pm at St Michaels Church in Mill Hill run by a Justice and Peace group. Paddy Lyons is giving a talk about night shelters for Homeless people run by local churches and a synagogue in Finchley.  The organisers have asked that as many local people as possible, who care about Justice and Peace attend to hear about this important work. It can only be positive for society when diverse groups come together for the common good.

Xmas Special : What is the point of organised religion?

I'm an engineer. I'm pretty practical about how I deal with problems and pretty scientific in how I analyse things. Regular readers will know that I'm a Roman Catholic (albeit a rather bad one at times). I often get emails asking me all manner of questions about what I believe and why I believe what I do. I am of the school of thought that faith is a private matter in many ways and as we are all on different journeys, I have no issue at all with whatever other people think. I don't believe any or no belief system should be forced down peoples throats and I respect all people who believe in peace, honesty decency, brotherhood (and sisterhood) of the human race. So I'm not going to give anyone a lecture today. I am just going to answer the question I posed in the title, for the simple reason that I got a very straightforward and practical answer to the question today.

One of our parish charities is "The Passage" - http://www.passage.org.uk/ - a charity that helps homeless people in London. If I hadn't have gone to mass this morning, I wouldn't have picked up the newsletter which told me that they need people to help in the kitchens with breakfast and lunch. I wouldn't have found out that I could email emma.long@passage.org.uk and offered my services to help. And if I didn't do that, someone who has had worse luck than me, might not have got a breakfast served this week as we run up to Christmas.

So if you can spare a few hours to help 7.30 - 10 am or 11.30 - 2pm In the next few weeks with Breakfast or Lunch, give it a thought. The number for the passage is 020 7592 1863 ext 231 for Emma who is the volunteering co-ordinator.

London has a homelessness crisis. This time of year, it is harsh and cold. My son's football was called off this morning, because of ice. Imagine what it is like to have to sleep in that.

Whether or not like me you attend some sort of religious service or not, we can all help. I'm glad I get the chance to get reminded that there are people in our city who need a bit of help. That is reason enough for me.

Mike Freer MP threatened at local mosque

I was rather shocked to read that Mike Freer MP (Finchley and Golders Green) was theatened at a local Mosque where he was holding a constitency surgery. There is a report on the BBC website :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15508697

Whilst I am not a member of the Mike Freer fan club, what happend is deplorable. What must be pointed out before any knee jerk reaction is that Freer was at the website as a guest of the Mosque. It appears that an extremist group entitled "Muslims against the Crusades" organised the action. It is clear that this extremist group does not understand or practice the religion they claim to follow. Mike Freer was a guest of the Mosque authorities and as such, under the laws of Islam should have been treated with respect by anyone who claims to follow the religion. Furthermore it is repeated that one of the protestors called Freer a "Jewish Homosexual Pig". To use such language in a Mosque is totally shocking. Again it displays a horrible lack of understanding of tenants of Islam. The Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) commanded that all followers of the book (ie Muslims, Christians and Jews) should be treated with respect. To use the term "Jewish" and "Pig" as an insult in a Mosque is to defy the teaching of the greatest Islamic prophet.

As to the other claims, that Freer is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims. This is clearly complete nonsense. There are many circumstances in which I would support a dignified protest against Mike Freer, but I would never condone a protest at a place of worship, when Freer was doing his job helping local constituents. Whatever you may or may not think about Mike Freer, he must be allowed to do his job and help local people.  This group of fanatics, who have no respect for Islamic teachings or traditions, have done nothing other than put people off the religion they pretend to support. It is another tenant of Islam that in a foreign country, you should obey the law and act with dignity and respect. You should set a good example to people to show that Muslims are decent people who follow a dignified religion. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK do. People such as this, who bring their faith into disrepute, should be ostracised by their community, until such time as they start acting in accordance with the teachings of their religion and start leading by example.

All Muslims are duty bound by their religion to encourage everyone they meet to convert to Islam. By taking such action in a mosque, these people have made many people think that a mosque is a place to be feared and avoided, not a place of peace and learning. I urge every reasonable and decent Moslem in the UK to explain why taking this action is doing the work of  Satan rather than God, by demonising the mosque in the eyes of the general British public.

It is clear that the Mosque authorities are reasonable, decent people. This is obvious, because they invited Mike Freer. I urge the British public to recognise that this is the case and that the people who threatened Freer are a tiny group of troublemakers. There are enough troubles in the world, without idiots like them carrying on like this.

Athiesm - The worlds dullest religion

"The world is full of crashing bores" - So wrote Morrissey. Cards on table, I'm a rather bad Roman Catholic, so yup, I'm probably biased. Am I full of doubts? Yep, riddled with them. Why did I decide that this was the religion for me? Three  reasons - firstly because it is the tradition I was brought up in, secondly because after years of soul searching, it seems to be the one which suits me best and thirdly, because it is full of cynics and other like minded people who don't perpetually seek you validition in their own beliefs.

Now there was a time in my mid twenties, when I'd probably have described myself as an athiest or an agnostic. Why? Because at the time, I guess it seemed as if common sense dictated that Athiesm was probably a rather sensible approach to faith. God is unprovable, so he can't possibly exist can he? So what made me change my mind? I woke up one day, thought about it and realised that of all the possible religious beliefs (which  Athiesm surely is, as it cannot be proven) Athiesm is the least logical and dullest. Wheras aa group of Roman Catholics on a night out will hit the bar and have a fantastic time (not mentioning religion at all), an Atheist shindig will always end in hours of ernest discussion as to "why we are so right".

I've searched the planet looking at the way people venerate what Athiests call "The big imaginary friend in the sky". I've marvelled at the sun setting behind the Blue Mosque in Istambul. I've gloried at the art in the Sistine Chapel. I've soaked up the beauty of Buddist Palaces in China and Shambala. I've been overawed at the beauty of the churches of the Kremlin, so beautiful that the Architects eyes were pulled out so he couldn't design a more lovely church for anyone else. I've enjoyed the stark serenity of Glastonbury Tor. I've marvelled at the sheer immensity of Stonehenge.

Take away our belief in God and none of these would exist. The divine inspires us. Where are the great buildings inspired by Athiesm? If God inspires us to build beautiful structures, what does Athiesm inspire? Of course there is the old chestnut about religious wars, but to my mind this is human nature. If we don't have a reason to have a fight, we'll invent one. I can remember a couple of mates in 1977 having a punch up over who was the first one to wear bondage trousers in Mill Hill.  If we look at the most murderous regimes in history, did they need religion? Pol Pot did fairly well on a communist/athiest ethos as did Mao and Stalin. Now of course I don't think the vast majority of middle class Hampstead trendies who are Athiests intend mass murder and genocide. In fact I suspect that most Athiests are, well rather like the rest of us. I just think that subscribing to a religion with no stories, no miracles, no wonder and no hope is rather dull. Every now and then at this time of year, I make my way to the Mill Field in Mill Hill at sunset. As the sun sets over St Josephs college, you get treated to one of the seven wonders of the world. I love to sit there on my own and soak up the moment. One time I was spotted by a mate, who happens to be an athiest who saw me sitting on my own watching the beauty of a brilliant sunset. I said "Have you ever seen a more beautiful sight in the world?". His response was "It's just the defraction of light over a few geological features".

Each to his or her own, I just wish we could all accept each others viewpoint and not feel threatened by it. We've all got the right to our own views, however odd they may seem. For me, I happen to think that it is no accident that if you take a piece of wood, put a couple of coils with magnets in the middle, stretch six thin pieces of wire over it and give it to Jimi Hendrix, you get the most beautiful sound in the world. I can accept some things are cosmic accidents, but whoever wrote the laws of physics to include that as part of the rules must be pretty divine. I guess that I personally can't live in a world with no place for beauty, wonder and mystery, but if we were all the same what a dull place it would be. I'm sure my beliefs seem completely bonkers to many people reading this. I'm sure a few people will tell me why. That's the great thing about a free society and freedom of speech.

If you've read all the way down to here, you'll probably be rather surprised at the point I'm trying to make, which is actually not about religion at all (the preamble was just to get you thinking). In Egypt today, a despot and dictator has gone. A new dawn emerges. I sincerely hope that whoever or whatever replaces Mubarak, a blog such as this is tolerated. One of the key moments of the revolution was the moment when a blogger was murdered by the police. I've written all manner of things about religion, politics and life. I've never once worried about the police killing me for what I wrote. In many countries, I'd have been toast long ago. I specifically wrote about something fairly random and off the wall, to illustrate the point that in some places even this would be a criminal activity. Whatever you think of me, my views and my blog, please join me in expressing your solidarity with the people of Egypt today and lets hope (and pray if that's your thing) that whoever replaces Mubarak allows a Society to flourish where writing a blog is not a dangerous activity.

Whatever your religion (or lack of it) have a great Saturday night.

Iran and civilisation and religion

Let us put a  bit of historical context on this. 2,000 years ago it was quite acceptable to stone people who committed adultery to death. One day a renegade Jewish rabbi stumbled across an angry mob about to stone a female accused of adultery to death. As they were aware he was a bit "soft" on such issues they tried to catch him out. They asked whether he would sanction them carrying out the legal remedy for such behavior. His response? He asked that the first stone be thrown by someone without sin. The crowd skulked off.

Now it's not the purpose of this blog to indulge in religious debate. The author is far too thick and uneducated to discuss such issues. We do however do injustice and the need to challenge it. When there are bad laws and injustice, they only get changed by people making a stand. Sometimes that means standing up to an angry crowd. Sometimes it means saying something which will offend a few people. Sometimes it involves taking a few risks.

Those of you who follow international affairs, will know that a woman was scheduled to be stoned to death in Iran for adultery. She'd already been lashed 100 times and kept in prison for 5 years. The BBC reported yesterday that it looks like the Iranians have backed down - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10579121.stm. There is only one reason that the Mullahs have backed down on the sentence. International pressure. It is rather sad to note that modern Iran, one of the cradles of civilisation, seems to have become a byword for repression and injustice. It is not poverty, Iran is a rich country with massive oil generated wealth. It is not lack of education, as Iran has one of the better education systems in that part of the world. Strangely it also one of the most democratic countries in the region.

Sadly, it seems to me that all of Irans problems are down to one thing - Religion. Now at this point, for the record and in terms of fairness, I have to put on record for those who don't know, I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm not going to indulge in a "my religion is better than your religion" session here. I actually believe that having a religious state is a recipe for having a failed state. Some countries manage to pull off the trick. I think Great Britain has done it pretty well. I suspect that if you have to have a State Religion with your monach as the head, The Church of England under Queen Elizabeth II is probably about as close to the perfect set up as you are likely to get. In just about every other country on Earth, such a set up leads to religious division, conflict and strife. Sadly, it seems that the vast majority of belief systems have a "we are the one true religion and everyone else is heretics" mentality at their core (again let me say for the record I don't subscribe to this). The trouble is that once this gets enshrined in state affairs, bad laws get passed and people suffer.

All of the very worst regimes seem to have a state religion. It is a belief that we are right and everyone else is stupid and misguided. Perhaps the saddest and most perverse demonstration of this is the type of regimes that subscribe to the worlds newest major religion - Athiesm. The USSR and China inflicted unimaginable suffering on their people whilst maintaining this as their state religion.

I have a solution to all of this (like all of my solutions, one which will be completely ignored). I happen to believe that religion is a private issue, a code by which we conduct our own personal affairs. I think it has no place in the workings of ANY STATE. I think everyone should be guaranteed freedom to practise their beliefs and rituals, to a point where they don't harm anyone else. I don't think that being a religious scholar/cleric should exempt you from military service, give you a seat on the House of Lords or a say in the framing of laws. If you want that, you should be democratically elected.

In short, I believe that the job of a religious leader, be it a renegade rabbi 2,000 years ago or a Mullah today, is to ask us to examine our behaviour, ethics and morals and to ask us to conduct our business in a proper decent manner. Whether we do is up to us.

Is there a God?

As it's a Bank Holiday and it ain't too sunny, I thought I'd post something nice and thought provoking. Here's a question for you. If you were offered the chance of a flip of the coin to win £100 million pounds if you won and get immediately executed by a firing squad if you lost, would you take it?

Just think - what a choice - an end to all your problems? Either way you'd never have any financial worries ever again. So who would go for it? I guess anyone who is feeling suicidal due to financial woes would jump at the chance. Problem solved. Who else might go for it. I wondered whether a believer or an athiest might be more prone to try their luck? A believer may think that a few well placed prayers might tip the balance in their favour. If they survived it would be proof of divine intervention. As to an athiest? Would they be less or more likely to go for it? Would a person's faith make any difference to the decision? I suppose that a Muslim is forbidden from gambling, so may decline as a matter of principle.

How many people would go for the chance just to feel the buzz of such high stakes? Just suppose you got 50 atheists and 50 believers who were prepared to give it a go? Statistically 25 of each should become very rich and 25 of each should get their brains blown out. Just suppose all 50 atheists lost and all 50 believers won? Would that persuade you that God exists. What about if all 50 atheists survived and all 50 believers got the bullet? Would that persuade you that God exists and has a sense of humour? So what has all of this got to do with whether there is a God?

Well what is the first question people ask when tragedy befalls them? "Why me?" they ask. "What did I do to deserve this?". I pondered all of this and it occurred to me that it is strange that despite the billions of believers in God, no one seems to have the slightest idea of the true nature of God. Does God really intervene in the events on Planet Earth. Being of the Roman Catholic tradition, there are many logged "miracles" that people take as evidence. The problem with such miracles is they are extremely random and extremely rare, in a planet of billions of people. Any statistician will tell you that such oddities can prove nothing. What about the other side of the coin? The assumption of athiests is that there is nothing before/after/beyond this existence. All we experience is as dust. Life started as a result of random chemical reactions (which as yet are even more elusive than the search for God). Athiests strike out the religious argument as "unscientific", without being able to provide a provable scientific answer as to how life actually started. If it was as simple as passing a lightning strike through a soup of mud and water, it would have been recreated in a laboratory years ago.

The big problem for athiests is that there is a great big chunk of the jigsaw missing and you can't legitimately claim that others are basing their arguments on superstition and stupidity when you don't actually have scientific proof yourself. It got me thinking to what is the nature of God. I suppose there are two theories :-

1) A superbig megageezer in who's image and likeness we are all made

or

2) Somerthing else completely, which we are unable to fully comprehend and understand


I personally subscribe to 2). Look at how scientific knowledge and progress has changed us. Take the cleverest person alive 2,000 years ago (if we exclude people who may or may not be the son of God, based on your personal beliefs). If you gave that person a couple of hours in todays world, how would they rationalise TV, The Internet, air travel, electricity, X-rays, nuclear weapons, Taser guns?

My guess is they'd struggle to explain any of it. If we can develop so much knowledge in 2,000 years (most of it in the last 200), how far will we progress mentally in the next 2,000 years. I have a little theory that 95% of what we understand to be God is just enlightenment. I don't think religious belief changes bad things or alters bad things. I think it just gives us the enlightenment to deal with the consequences. I believe that this world is mans realm and as such we are left to get on with it. Does God have a personal relationship with us? Yes in as much as we can experience enlightenment. Does God perform miracles? I see these as opening the window to somewhere else and a little light shining in. When we draw the curtains and we see the sun, the sun warms us and lights up the room. It changes the way we see things, but the sun is 93 million miles away. Sunliht makes plants grow and our skin change colour, but we can't really get anywhere near the sun. We need the sun to survive but we need the sun to be 93 million miles away otherwise it will burn us up.

For this world to work and life to exist, you need a planet this size to be 93 million miles from a star the size of the sun (too small not enough gravity for an atmosphere, too large and the gravity would squash us). To have life on dry land, you need a moon the size of the moon to exert tidal pressures and have a marginal area between land and sea. You need the right mixture of C02, Oxygen and Nitrogen. Now I've no idea if it's true, but I was told we only have the proportion of Oxygen in the atmosphere because we have plant life. Plants can't survive in the dark in a pure C02 environment, so the earth has the atmosphere because of the plant life on it. If you want to know what sort of a planet you have without life, a moon, the wrong size and the wrong place, look at Venus or Mars.

So back to the question. Is there a God. Well if you say no, then you believe in a massive load of enormous coincidences, a massively complex chain of chemical reactions to initiate the process of life, with hugely complex bio-chemical chains being built that cannot be replicated under any conditions in any laboratory and which then have to completely change the planet  to get us where we are today.

I have my views and beliefs. I'm quite happy to discuss it and to have the flaws in my logic pointed out, but what really disturbs me is that many atheists use science and reason as a weapon against religion, when there just isn't the evidence there to support their hypothesis. I'd be perfectly happy for an atheist to say "I don't believe in God, because God doesn't fit my view of how the Universe operates" That is a perfectly vaild viewpoint. I have a problem when they say "Science, reason and logic supports the hypothesis that God doesn't exist", because as far as I can see it doesn't.

In short, theories such as evolution are not a problem for me. It is fairly easy to demonstrate evolution. The AIDS virus has evolved to be drug resistant in a very short period of time. Flu viruses mutate and kill millions of us, but to extrapolate this rock solid evidence of Darwinian evolution into an explanation for every form of life on earth (and possibly beyond) is to me pushing it. Given the distinctive genetic differences between men and dogs, how long would that process have to take. If a dog had a puppy that was a cat, the cat would not survive as it would need another cat to procreate with, to establish genus Felix. The chances of two dogs having two cats at the same time are beyond the statistical probability that is possible of feasable. To apply the same logic to every genus is, even more tenuous. You can completely change the temperament and appearance of a dog in 50 generations of selective breeding, from a wolf to a pug. You can't change the genome of a dog to a cat in a hundred times that.

Now I'm not seeking to convert you to my beliefs or my way of thinking. I'm just asking you to think about these things as if you come up with some better arguments than mine, we'll both end up a little more enlightened and that will bring us both a little closer to God, regardless of whether you believe or not. For my God, the only enemies are lies and ignorance. Hope you've enjoyed your bank holiday weekend as much as I have.

Jesus, Mary and Mohammed (peace be upon him) and Facebook

Aint religion a funny old thing? Now when I was growing up as a kid in a Roman Catholic household, I went to church every week and I went to St Vincents RC Primary School on the Ridgeway. We were taught that Jesus loves you and you've got to be nice to your neighbours. We were taught to turn the other cheek and we were taught that the early church members were led, singing hymns, to be eaten by lions in Roman auditoriums. I really couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't really want to be a member of such a marvellous religion.The first little doubt crept in when I was talking to my friend Suzi who lived up the road. I guess I was seven or eight at the time. Her family were Jewish and along with all of the other families in the road (of all denominations) we were in and out of her house and didn't give it any thought. One day she said a rather strange thing to me - "My dad said that the pope says that jews eat babies". She was rather concerned about this. I didn't really know too much about the Pope then. He was a bloke who lived in Rome and wore a funny hat. My parents used to say, if I was naughty the Pope would be cross. Anyway Suzi didn't really know who the Pope was, except that he was the top bloke in the Catholic church. She was worried by this. I promised to make some enquiries. I asked my Dad "Dad, if the Pope says something, is it true". My Dad replied "Yes, he's infallible". This was bad news indeed. Now it was quite clear that Suzi didn't eat babies (given that she was disturbed by the comment her Dad made). I was pretty sure her mum and dad didn't either, so why had the Pope said it?

Anyway, we held another discussion on the subject. I lied "I asked my Dad and he said the Pope wasn't talking about your mum and dad, he was talking about someone else". Now Suzi was a bit worried, could it have been one of her uncles? Her Dad had clealry said it for a reason. There was someone in her family who her Dad didn't talk to. She said "I think I'd better ask my Dad who it is". The conference was adjourned for a couple of days. When it reconvened, she'd got the full facts. Her dad had been talking to a mate of his and made a flippant remark, not knowing she was in earshot. When he'd found out she'd heard and she'd been really upset, he was mortified. Although she was only a kid, he sat her down and explained how lies had been spread about Jewish people and one of these was that they hurt babies. He assured her that the modern Pope didn't think this, but in history there were some rather naughty popes who did bad things, especially to jewish folks. He said that now we all got on fine and were friends. He told her that lots of bad things happened in the past and we had to move on.

Anyway, Suzi duly reported this back to me. Now I was troubled by the fact that my Dad had said the Pope was infallible, but clearly there had been some naughty Popes if Suzi's Dad was telling the truth. Later I asked him "Dad, were there some Popes a few hundred years ago, who were bad people". Now my Dad was always pretty honest and this troubled him. He didn't really want to tell his eight year old son that there had been bad popes, but he didn't want to lie. "The Pope is only human, he can make mistakes. A few hundred years ago there were problems, but they changed the rules and now we've got a good pope". Well that sorted that out, but the whole incident planted a little seed of doubt. It's fair to say that as I learned more about the history of the Church, I realised that, yes there had been some naughty popes.

So what has this conversation from 40 years ago got to do with today? Well there is a massive row going on about a page on facebook called Lets Draw Mohammed. This has 200+ followers. In response an Everybody who is against Lets Draw Mohammed facebook page has sprung up. This has 9,500 + followers. This is an interesting conundrum. The supporters of the first of these pages are exercising their right to free speech. This is perfectly legal and is one of the reasons why Western Society is the choice of the vast majority of people who have a choice. However the supporters of this page are deliberately insulting 1 Billion + people. To a Muslim, this is a blasphemous and deliberate insult. Now most Muslims are actually pretty sensible about such matters. In the Islamic religion, it is blasphemous to show the image of any prophet. As Jesus is also recognised as a prophet, theoretically every Roman Catholic church is blaspheming against Islam, as every church will have images of Jesus. Muslims don't go around demanding churches are shut or starting facebook pages calling for a ban. The reason they have reacted against the Facebook page is because it is a deliberate insult. I once sat through a day in Hendon magistrates court. A Scotsman was up before the beak for punching a Policeman. He was lying on the ground in a state of inebriation when the copper kicked him and said "get up you drunken Scottish B*****d". The drunken Scottish B******d did just that and thumped him, immediately getting arrested. His defence was that if the officer had simply asked him to move along, he would have moved. As he insulted Scotland, he felt he had to thump him for the "Honour of Scotland". Both sides agreed on the facts of the case. I suspect that the magistrate was Scottish, as he said "normally I would impose a harsh custodial sentence for striking a police officer, but as I do understand how your National pride would have been insulted, I am only going to impose a £100 fine". The police were furious. The point is that if you deliberately set out to antagonise someone, bad things happen. We can all make silly comments that can have profound effects. My friends Dads comment to his friend was one such example. He not only worried the hell out of his daughter, but had the potential to cause bad feelings. When he realised she'd heard, he sensibly defused the situation. I can remember telling my Dad about the drunken Scotsman and his lucky escape from jail. My Dad laughed and said "Now there's a lesson for us all, if you don't want to get thumped, don't go around insulting people." With regards to the facebook pages, I rather think a few people have to grow up a little bit.

Papal Condoms : The message on the Doorstep in Barnet

There was a big story on the airwaves yesterday. A minor official at the foreign office wrote a spoof memo which suggested various activities the Pope could undertake on his visit, including launching a range of condoms. As I left mass last night, a couple of people mentioned it to me. Strangely the mock outrage of some commentators didn't seem to be mirrored by the parishioners of Mill Hill. In the 1970's one of Britains favourite comedians was Dave Allen. He used to mercilessly rib the church. Most Catholics found him hilarious as they got the jokes. In the 1990's Father Ted came along. Again Catholics weren't offended. So on to the Foreign office email. Now none of us whos work involves computers and emails ever send each other spoof or jokey emails do we? It is part of our nature and our culture to make such jokes. Should the official be sacked? Of course not. It's probably the best publicity the Catholic Church has had for weeks. As to the launch of a range of Condoms, one old boy of Irish extraction said this to me. "If the pope launched his own Condoms, no one would use them anyway. Who wants a Holy condom" - Boom Boom.

Are you scared by the truth?

"Jesus died for somebodies sins but not mine" This is how Patti Smith starts "Gloria" on her fantastic rendition of Van Morrison's Gloria. The clip above is taken from a gig in Germany in 1979. This is one of my favourite tracks. Now given that I'm a practising Roman Catholic, this may surprise you. How can I like a track which seems to contradict a basic tenent of faith? It's easy. It doesn't. Signing up to follow Jesus is a matter of choice. If Patti Smith decides that Jesus didn't die for her sins and she wants to keep them, thats her free will and her choice. It doesn't stop the song being a great track. What it does do is it challenges my own relationship with my behaviour. As such it can only be a positive thing. You see, I'm not scared of the truth.

One of the things which I can't get my head around as someone who believes in something after this life is "how interventionist is God". Does prayer actually work? Do only believers get miracles? When I was a kid, one of our teachers told me that the reason certain football teams were more successful than others, was because they had more Catholic supporters praying for them to win. He also explained that was why Brzil won the World cup and USSR hadn't. If you look at the list of World Cup winners, there is definately a tendency for teams from strongly Roman Catholic countries to do well. Sadly I can't buy into the theory that it's devine intervention (hand of God or not). Another teacher told me you should never pray for a football team to win, as you'd use up your allocation of miracles. That would seem extraordinarily cruel. Can you imagine having just prayed for Arsenal to score the winning penalty in the FA Cup final, and getting home to find your wife has cancer and you've used up your supply of miracles.

One of the blogs I follow is Blurred Clarity, by Daniel Hoffman-Gill. Daniel is an Athiest who regularly writes believer bashing blogs. I suspect that Daniels distate for religion is driven by the neocon fundamentalist Christian Right. I suspect that if most Christians were left wing proponents of Liberation Theology, who sought to right the worlds wrongs and used their faith as the driving force, he'd probably have less "bash the Christian" blogs and more gardening tips or whatever. I suspect he'd still be an athiest, but his well written pieces, which generally highlight the stupidity of the religious right, wouldn't find the fuel they need. I doubt that he'd have much inspiration if he had to write blogs about why William Wilberforce christian morality was a bad thing. I enjoy Daniels blogs because they are challenging, funny and well written.  He says many things I actually 100% agree with as well as a few things I disagree with. If I had the choice of having to change Daniel's view of the world or a "God hates Fags" American bible basher, I'd change the bible basher every time. You see I think they are revolting and obnoxious and do more damage than just about anything. I'm quite happy to indulge in rational debate. You can have that with Daniel, but sadly you can't with the neocon right.

Ultimately it all comes down to this question. Are you scared by the truth? The Catholic Church has had many problems and alienated many people because it has sought to hide the truth. A few examples - paedophile priests, The earth going around the sun, to name a few. I strongly believe in the power of the truth. I believe that my faith makes me a better person. I go to church to be reminded how lucky I am and to do my bit to fight injustice. Yes I do need reminding. It has made me a better person, thats why I persist with the institution for all it's faults. All I really want is a "better church". One that spends more time fighting injustice in the world and a bit less time indulging stupid neocons.

We started this blog with Patti Smith singing "Gloria". We'll end it with a clip of "Liars Beware" by Richard Hell and the Voidoids. Whenever I wonder about whether I should tell a few porkies to get on I listen to this track. Here's the lyrics to help you understand.


LIARS BEWARE
by Richard Hell and the Voidoids

Look out liars and you highlife scum
who gotta keep your victims poor and dumb--
Your motives and your methods are not disguised
by your silk, soap, sex, or your smiling lies.

Look out here
you pompous jerk
Look out here
I go berserk

Well I guess you put me in my place
but I won't forget your stupid face

They gave you power cuz they knew your needs--
soprano boys get talent when you shoot your seeds.
Well you laugh to hear what your best friends say--
Old man they laugh when you walk away.

Look out chief
ridiculous creep
Look out thief
you'll lose your teeth

Well you got power, now there's competition
and your blind side's turned to the boys with a mission.

You were sixty-five when you wiggled out--
your mind all twisted and your mom all shout.
I'm a man with his share of excess nice
but it can't be spared for drooling lice.

Look out jerk
you ancient slut
I can't endure
Your smirking smut

Well life is short so don't even try
to bother waving as we pass you by.

Has Boris gone Bonkers?

Boris Johnson had this message for the voters of London.

''Whether it's in theatre, comedy, sports, music or politics, Muslims are challenging the traditional stereotypes and showing that they are, and want to be, a part of the mainstream community," he said.

''That's why I urge people, particularly during Ramadan, to find out more about Islam, increase your understanding and learning, even fast for a day with your Muslim neighbour and break your fast at the local mosque. I would be very surprised if you didn't find that you share more in common than you thought.

''Muslims are at the heart of every aspect of society. Their contribution is something that all Londoners benefit from. Muslim police officers, doctors, scientists and teachers are an essential part of the fabric of London.

''Islamic finance is contributing to the economy by changing the way Londoners invest, save, borrow and spend. There are valuable lessons that people of all backgrounds can learn from Islam such as the importance of community spirit, family ties, compassion and helping those less fortunate, all of which lie at the heart of the teachings of Ramadan.''

This was reported in yesterdays Daily Telegraph. Whilst Boris Johnson is right that the vast majority of Muslims in London are fine upstanding citizens and some people could learn a few lessons if they read the Koran, I find it abhorrant that the Mayor of London seeks to promote a single religion in such a way. I'm a Roman Catholic and I passionately believe that community spirit, family ties, compassion and helping those less fortunate are also the cornerstone of my faith. I'm also sure that members of the Church of England, Methodists, Jews, Buddhists, Zoriastrians and all the other faiths feel exactly the same. I'm even sure that committed humanists such as Polly Toynbee and Richard Dawkins, don't feel that they need a lecture on this subject from Boris Johnson.

In my opinion, there is nothing more uplifting than attending the childrens service at my local church for the Christmas service. I love the hymns and the nativity story. Our family go every year and then we adjourn with a group of friends for a meal at one of the local restaurants (sometimes we are joined for the meal by some of our Jewish friends). I would be equally affronted if Boris promoted my faith above the other religions I've listed. It's not the role of the mayor to promote any religion. His job is to make the infrastructure of the City work properly. I'm always extremely suspicious of ANY POLITICIAN making any such public pronouncement of faith. It's a private matter. I feel it is correct for me to declare my faith in my blog, as it gives people some perspective on my views. Sometimes I mention things that this leads me to do, but I would never suggest that my faith has lessons for people of other denominations or faiths. That would be a supreme act of arrogance.

I happen to think that life is a journey. We learn things on the way. I believe that we should learn about other peoples faiths, cultures and ways. I believe we should be sensitive to other peoples beliefs and traditions. I think that if we are unhappy with aspects of our life, maybe we should seek change. If we are unhappy with what our faith does for us, maybe we should explore other faiths. What none of us needs is a lecture from Boris Johnson on the matter.

I've no idea what possessed Boris to make such a statement. I can only conclude that the pressure of the job is getting too much for him and he's losing the plot.

God and stupidity

I read a story that made me despair today. A man in the USA allowed his 11 year old daughter, Madeline to die through lack of medical care. His reason? He wanted the Lord to save her. The stupidity of some people is beyond belief. His reason

"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God"

Sadly, that's not how it works. I'd rather see scientists develop a cure for cancer than see a miraculous cure for a sick child. If God intended the holiest to survive, Darwinism would have sorted out the sinners long ago. By all means pray for miracles, but wait until all other more conventional means have been exhausted. It reminds me of a joke a Rabbi once told me on a long train journey.

A man falls off a boat into the sea. As he flounders, the boat turns around and throw him a line. He shouts "Oh Lord, Save Me". As he flounders, the boat turns around and throw him a line. He refuses to take it "The Lord will save me" he insists. Eventually the boat has to leave him. As he struggles He shouts "Oh Lord save me". At this a yatch turns up. They try and hook him with a boat hook "The lord will save me" he shouts. He pushes away the boat hook. Eventually the Yatch gives up. As he is just about to go under, he yells "Oh Lord Save Me". At this the coastguard turn up. They throw him a lifejacket, but he refuses to take it "The Lord will save me" he yells. At this he sinks under the water and disappears.

At the Pearly gates, he meets the Lord - He asks accusingly "Lord, why didn't you save me?" The Lord replied "I sent the boat back, I sent a Yatch and I sent the Coastguard". The man replied "Oh Lord, why didn't you tell me this?" God replies "Darwinism"

Who would Jesus vote for?

Firstly, let me say one thing. There is nothing which gets my goat up more than dodgy politicians using Jesus/God as a justification for any policy. Politicians should stand for policies because they are right. The arguments should be based on the merits of the policy, not on some random notion that Jesus might have liked it. Earlier this week Iain Dale did a post entitled "God doesn't do Party politics, but if he did...". It got me thinking about the issue. As it's a Saturday, I thought I'd explore the issue of religion and politics in the usual Barnet Eye way.

Extremist nutcases in the States are often featured on TV waving placards with such messages as "Jesus hates fags" and the suchlike. For people who purport to read the bible this rather puzzles me because, he didn't actually say anything in any of the Gospels about homosexuality. In effect, what they are doing is making things up and then pretending that Jesus said them, which I guess if you are a Christian, is blasphemy. It would be like me proclaiming "Jesus loves the Clash". I'd be rather pleased if he did, but as he never stood up (as far as is recorded) and said "Blessed be Joe Strummer", I just have to have a little bit of faith that he has good taste in Punk Rock bands.

Reading Iain Dale's blog, I got to thinking as to why, when we talk about faith and politics, it's always right wingers spouting nonsense like "Jesus would vote Tory because they'd ban abortions", ignoring the fact that Maggie had a nice big fat majority and never saw fit to change the law. Why do none of the other biblical Prophets get a look in? I considered a few of the important biblical figures and thought maybe we should try and ascertain how they'd vote.

Noah - I guess he'd probably vote Green. He seemed to be interested in the Environment and protecting animals. Not many people realise it, but Noah framed the 7 laws which form the basis of all of the practises of the main religions. These predate Moses 10 commandments. Interestingly enough, Noah was probably the first recorded character to recognise animal rights. Yup, I'd put him down as a Green.

Noah's Seven Laws.

1. Idolatry is forbidden.
   
2. Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden.
   
3. Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in God's image, is sacred.
4. Cursing the name of God is forbidden.
   
5. Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do with as we please.
6. Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden.
   
7. Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other useful laws or customs.

Moses. Well as he was responsible for the 10 commandments and six hundred odd other laws, he's clearly hot on Law and Order issues. I originally was going to classify him as a Tory, then I remembered that it was he who asked God for a handout and got "Manna from heaven". Now as this was not a means tested benefit and was universally available, I guess that puts him down as a Socialist. I've sort of decided that he's probably Old Labour.

As I thought about the issue, I asked myself "Which biblical figure provides the inspiration for our dynamic duo of leaders Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Barnet Council Leader Mike Freer". Now as you know I consider Mike Freer to be a Brownite. I actually believe Gordon Brown to be a Tory, but that is a blog for another day. Given the Midas touch in reverse that both of them seem to possess and the way they leg it when asked to take responsibility, there can only be one prophet for them - Jonah. Eventually Jonah got the message and did what God required. I rather hope that both Mike and Gordon get the message which I've sent them - resign for the sake of us all.

As to my question at the top of the page, who would Jesus vote for? Given the way our MP's have behaved, I suspect that if he was forced, he'd probably pick the Monster Raving Looney Party in preference to any of the others. I base this assertation on his first reported miracle, in which he turned water into 40 gallons of wine for a Jewish wedding party. The one thing we can be sure about is that he liked a party. The gospel tells us that after the wedding feast, Jesus and his followers rested for several days.