This morning it looks like the governments controversial decision to build more nuclear power plants will be announced. Of course we can expect a large amount of complaints from environmentalists. However I’m reminded of Ian James comments on the subject earlier in the year that people tend to place more weight on the very small chance of a catastrophic disaster with nuclear power, as opposed to the much more massive death toll that will result from a continued reliance on pollution producing fuels such as coal and gas. Of course increasing renewables is encountering problems too with ongoing campaigns against renewable schemes over visual impact. Of course ultimately what we need to be doing is trying to use less electricity, rather than trying to generate more and more to keep up with our usage.
Category Archives: Politics
Postings related to elections and general political stuff
More God’s Next Army Discussion
It seems that I am not alone in being disturbed by God’s Next Army last night. Alongside debate in the Channel 4 forums, which includes a topic discussing the programme itself, plus a related discussion about Christians and politics. The forum also includes postings from more mainstream Christians concerned at the impression of Christianity that programmes such as God’s Next Army give to viewers.
There are a number of blogs that have posted on the subject. The Ship of Fools also has an interesting discussion, which as a Christian site starts from a slightly different standpoint.
In amongst all of these are some interesting gems – firstly there is this blog posting from a former fundamentalist Christian, who has some interesting comments:
These students almost universally had no idea how to learn (as opposed to how to be indoctinated), as they have been brought up in environments (including PHC) that discourage questioning and free thought, and reward blind obedience. How many of them even have any idea of the evolution and compilation of their own Bible? How many have even read it all through? To continue to believe in its infallibility when confronted with its numerous contradictions requires a special kind of unconsciousness.
Only an unconscious person could think that Jesus would approve of them opposing workers’ compensation for asbestosis because ot would be bad for big business. Only an unconscious person would believe that the man who rebuked his disciple for defending him by cutting off a soldier’s ear would approve of a gun-toting nation (they approve of a fully armed population).
She also makes a similar point to mine over the similarity of fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam, but in a slightly more amusing a direct way… 😀
When fundamentalists of any type start spreading their thoughts on the evils of homosexuality, or the ‘Truth’ that only they hold, I want to get them, Muslims and Christians, and sit them facing eachother, then say, ‘look. That’s you that is.’
Having said that, reading through the discussions has also highlighted a recent article from Christianity Today which indicates that all is not well at Patrick Henry College. According to the article, almost a third of their full-time faculty members are leaving following a contentious debate over the interpretation of Scripture and academic freedom.
The problems stem from the academics wish to discuss ideas and to hold different beliefs from the college founder. One academic is quoted in the article as saying:
“We are put in a hard position. We’re told this is an open dialogue, but if you engage in open dialogue, you’re in trouble. It’s infuriating because you’re an academic and want to engage in ideas. He told me that a person of the Reformed position to which I hold cannot in good conscience sign the statement of faith. When I responded that I failed to see the discrepancy between the two, he replied, ‘I define the statement of faith.’â€?
Two other of the staff, both ruling elders in their respective Churches, published an article in the campus newsletter, arguing against the notion described in the programme that the Bible is the only source of truth. Their article started with the following:
“A common misconception among American evangelicals, and one that cannot be supported by the Scriptures themselves, is that the Bible is the only source of truth. We argue that this misconception amounts to a blasphemous denial of Christ’s words in Matthew 5 that ‘he sends rain on the just and the unjust.’â€?
Needless to say that produced a swift response from the college founder.
Certainly the whole article is well worth a read, and certainly worth considering in light of the blog posting I highlighted above that asks whether the students are learning or being indoctrinated.
If you missed the programme, Channel 4 are repeating it in the early hours of Saturday morning (3:50am on 10th June) – I would certainly recommend that it is worth watching.
God’s Next Army
What would the world be like if the most powerful country in the world, was run by a regime with just as extreme religious views as fundamentalist republics such as Iran, or the former regime in Afghanistan. In the same way as in those countries, everything in this powerful country is driven or decided based purely on the scriptures of their religion without question.
This is the vision of the future that was shown by God’s Next Army, a programme looking at the phenomenon of Patrick Henry College in the USA. Despite the historic basis of the United States, in which the separation of Church and state is enshrined in the constitution, the college is aiming to ‘re-Christianise’ America, to ‘preserver the world from the sinfulness of man’. Essentially the people behind the college are looking to turn the United States into a Christian Republic. 80% of it’s students have been home schooled, kept separate from mainstream schools, and indoctrinated with their fundamentalist beliefs from an early age, with little contact with differing world views from their own – or as one participant in the programme said, protected from the ‘moral decay of the world’. They go from home schooling into a college that continues with these hardline beliefs. Worringly, students from the college are already making inroads. The college is conveniently located close enough to Washington DC that it’s students can become interns in the machinery of government – indeed the college has already provided the current White House administration with more interns than any other college. It’s students also volunteer to help with lobby groups, indeed the programme showed the students lobbying in opposition to a payment of compensation to people affected by asbestos.
Everyone at the college, both academics and students have to sign a statement of faith. Perhaps the only part you need to read is the following:
The Bible in its entirety … is the inspired word of God, inerrant in its original manuscripts, and the only infallible and sufficient authority for faith and Christian living.
However the full statement is available online. Essentially everything is claimed to be founded on biblical principles, but essentially biblical principles as viewed through the lens of fundamentalist Christianity.
For example the statement of faith has the following example with regards to property:
Private Property: As God’s image-bearers with dominion, and stewardship responsibilities, over the remainder of creation, men and women have the inalienable right to own and manage their own property, subject to government regulation only in the unusual situation where the rights of others are endangered. Government systems such as communism and socialism, which give the government primary control over property, are a violation of God’s creation order.
I’m sure most people would read that, and question how that fits in with a number of biblical passages, but perhaps the clearest example is Luke 14:33:
“In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.�
The programme included a number of these theological and philosophical conflicts, which seem bemusing to those outside, but so clear cut to the students. For example when interviewed on his beliefs, one student stated his opposition to abortion, his opposition to gay marriage, both for biblical principles, and then with no hint of irony started quoting Thomas Jefferson on the right to bear arms. Bear in mind that Jefferson was also one of the chief architects of the separation of Church and State – take for example this quote from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1813 which seems somewhat apt:
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government�
Essentially, I find the prospect of a United States administration, so loaded with the single minded world view and unbending fundamentalist Christian beliefs put forward by the college just as worrying as any regime based on fundamentalist Islam, not least because in relative terms the United States has significantly more power. Whilst supporters will quite probably point to the statement on the PHC site that ‘no leader or group of leaders may ever acquire unchecked power’ as what would separate them from regimes such as Iran and Afghanistan, I’d counter that the fact that since they are specifically looking to move towards a Christian Republic fundamentally means that those members of society who are not Christian, or are not Christians from their particular wing of the Church, are improperly represented – one of the fundamental reasons for the separation for church and state put forward by Jefferson. How can a group of people who have been brought up and schooled at home, separate from the broad range of belief in society, and educated at a college that again teaches the same beliefs, separate from the broad range of belief in society, possibly be able to represent or even understand the breadth of society that a country represents.
I have no objection to Christian voices being heard in government, but it should be exactly that, voices, and should be part of a representative array of voices from all communities and groups within the country. Whilst there is much argument over the close ties between the Church of England, and the state in the UK, I would suggest that situation here is somewhat different from what Patrick Henry College is trying to establish. The Church of England is so broad that in many debates, there are a multitude of voices, with Bishops and other senior churchmen often holding opposing opinions on a multitude of issues. This broad range of belief extends to Christian politics in the UK too. I know many staunch Conservative supporters who are Christian, but equally I know Christians who regard Christianity and Socialism as being closely tied together. Indeed I know of one clergyman who around election time was renowned for preaching from the pulpit that he believed all right minded Christians should be voting Labour! The same is true of Christian education in this country. Here aside from some notable exceptions, most schools are run based on a Christian ethos, rather than being Christian schools. Hence when I was growing up, the nearby Catholic school was also popular with Muslim and Hindu families wanting a a strong ethical basis for their child’s education. This is what makes me so uneasy about Patrick Henry College, here most Christian schools will quite happily contain a breadth of Christian belief, and in many cases those with non-Christian beliefs, or no religion at all. PHC has a comprehensive set of beliefs that all staff and students must sign, and apparently no room for any breadth of opinion – and more than that, their students, indoctrinated with these beliefs are increasingly being found all across the government of the most powerful country on the planet. Worrying indeed…
Fog Light Cabbie Gets Jail
As some of you may know, one of my bugbears on the roads, is people who drive with their front fog lights on when there isn’t any fog. Whenever I mention it, it usually transpires that quite a lot of people don’t seem to realise that it’s illegal, basically because you regularly pass loads of people who use them incorrectly. However it is an offence, due to the danger of other road users being dazzled by the high intensity lights – as indeed I have been on occasions. As such it is subject to a £30 fixed penalty notice if you get caught – although as the number of people who do it shows, it’s not very high up on the list of Police priorities – hence why when Police do issue a notice, it makes the regional news.
There have been two examples recently. An unfortunate cabbie in Portsmouth made the national press with his story. He was pulled over (apparently not for the first time according to local reports), and served with a £30 fixed penalty notice. Rather than pay it, he refused, and was jailed for five days for non-payment of fines. This of course has led to all the ‘Cabbie Jailed for Leaving Fog Lights On‘ type headlines, indeed he even turned up on our local TV news complaining that it was unfair that he got fined but others were let off with a warning. He’s not alone – take a look at this video item from January – a motorist in the Midlands with forty years of trouble free motoring got ticketed for the same offence – he’s just at the point of considering not paying…
Perhaps the most amusing part of both TV items is that for the benefit of the cameras, both drivers drove up and down the road repeating the offence for the BBC. I’m sure there is something in the BBC charter about inciting people to commit a crime. 😀
Filling You With Confidence
You may have spotted on the news at the weekend that Shell have suspended the use of Chip and Pin following discovery of a £1,000,000 fraud where money was being syphoned out of customer accounts. Of course, the report is pretty non-specific as to what the problem was, with only a statement from a spokeswoman at APACS, who are behind Chip and Pin, about how the pin pads are supposed to be tamper resistant.
However, today the BBC News site posted an item containing advice from Frank Abagnale, whose exploits were immortalised in the film Catch Me If You Can, on how to avoid ID theft. Alongside his advice to not use cheques – they have all the information on them that an ID thief needs, he also laughs at Chip and Pin, highlighting that the fraudsters at Shell got their information from the un-protected magnetic strip on the back of the card. As I mentioned way back in January last year, whilst APACS will tell you how wonderfully secure the chip is, they always skip over the fact that in order to remain compatible with older terminals and cash points, all the relevant information is still in the magnetic strip on the back. I’m just surprised that it’s taken someone this long to pull off a big scam in that way.
The Abagnale article also highlights some other security loopholes with the new system. Take those snazzy wireless terminals that you often see in restaurants, those helpfully decode the information off your card, and then send it over an unencrypted radio connection back to base. Not surprisingly he has little confidence in the governments supposed foolproof ID card system – he gives it six months before someone replicates it perfectly, and with that, everything you need to pretend to be someone else is in the one place. Fills you with confidence really.