Suzanne Evans - Religion Blog

Council of Dharmic Faiths Launched

2011-05-20T09:08:00.011+01:00

A new UK faith body, The Council of Dharmic Faiths, has been launched at the House of Commons to represent Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism.

The event was hosted by Stephen Hammond MP, who spoke on how British Hindus, British Sikhs and other communities are flourishing in the UK in their respective faiths and how well they have integrated into the British culture. The launch was also supported by Gareth Thomas MP and John Hemmings MP.

Leaders from the each faith group recited a prayer and, together with the MPs lit lamps of wisdom. The launch ended with an display of Indian dance.

For more info see http://www.ritatrust.org/dialogue/1567-council-of-dharmic-faiths-launched-in-uk.html

The Life and Near Death of a Magazine

2011-04-12T10:27:00.004+01:00

Wonderful article by Alfred Tong about the death and resurrection of his new magazine, 'Eulogy.' A must read if you're in journalism, PR, advertising or religion. http://www.eulogymagazine.co.uk/

Defusing the God Debate

2011-03-07T11:42:00.002Z

Great interview with my client Geoff Crocker on how religion can have value even for atheists like him: http://thesop.org/story/20110304/judyth-piazza-chats-with-geoff-crocker-author-of-an-enlightened-philosophy.html

Pagan Prisoners and Press Prejudices

2010-12-08T12:40:00.000Z

Excellent commentary on Ekklesia today

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13713

Archbishop in the Wrong Kind of Spiral

2010-11-08T13:08:00.004Z

http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1039564/Archbishop-Canterburys-welfare-comments-attacked-a-kick-teeth-congregation

The Archbishop of Canterbury has waded into another political row, this time accusing the coalition Government of encouraging social zoning, spiraling people into despair and making them vulnerable through plans for welfare reform, including capping housing benefit and stopping benefits for those who able to do so, yet refuse to give something back to society in return.

I’m furious, not because he’s spoken out – he has every right to express his opinion – but because despite his academic background, he’s clearly just repeating the extreme left-wing line without thinking his argument through.

First and foremost, this deeply offensive rubbish about ‘social ‘zoning’ is particularly insulting coming from the Archbishop. I’m usually happy to put my money, voluntarily, into the collection plate every week to contribute towards keeping him and his fellow bishops living in luxury in their Palaces - when they’re not making daft political statements they usually do a good job. But he has no right to tell tax payers such as myself that we are wrong to question why we should continue to subsidize benefit claimants to the tune of up to £100,000 a year to live in houses we couldn’t even dream of buying or renting. Labour’s election slogan, ‘a future fair for all,’ isn’t remotely fair if people on benefits have better choices that those who aren’t.

Under Iain Duncan-Smith’s plans, absolutely no one is going to be homeless, or driven out of ‘smart’ areas into slums. I did the maths: on a tax-free income of almost £21,000 a year – the ceiling amount the Government will put on housing benefit claims – I could pay my mortgage, my home insurance, water, gas, electric and phone bills, and still have enough money left over to buy a brand new Mercedes ‘C’ class. That’s hardly an ungenerous amount to be given in return for doing absolutely nothing at all. Why shouldn’t you make what contribution you can in return?
Welfare reform will achieve precisely the opposite of what the Archbishop suggests. Not having a job or some meaningful work to occupy your time is what leads to vulnerability, depression and despair. Getting out into the community, living a routine, working with others, means you can get references, boost your confidence, and build skills and experience. I started my working career on unpaid work experience. I knew that was what I was going to gave to do and I did it, and I’m very glad I did. I can’t understand why the Archbishop can’t see this, instead insisting that doing community work in exchange for benefits will somehow make people feel vulnerable.

As I’ve just said to PR Week, members of the Church of England put in countless hours each week to give back to society, often in addition to demanding day-jobs. To suggest this can lead to vulnerability will be something of a kick in the teeth to those of us who try and do our bit.

Sin-licious

2010-10-29T12:56:00.004+01:00

Well, who’d have thought it? For once I agree with the National Secular Society.

They have accused the Advertising Standards Authority of effectively re-introducing the blasphemy law - abolished by Parliament three years ago – and have protested against the ASA bans on a "mildly satirical advertisement" for Antonia Federici ice cream.

Putting aside the fact I know my friend Matt O’Connor, the genius behind the ads and the ice-cream brand is rubbing his hands with glee at all the free publicity, it is ridiculous that these very funny and creative ads have been ruled ‘offensive to Catholics.’

One ad shows two priests in an embrace with the headline “We Believe in Salivation”, and another a pregnant nun. It’s all clearly a joke and in no way a threat to a powerful Church of 1.2 billion people worldwide.

I think God would have found the ads very funny, and his followers knee-jerk reactions less so.

http://tinyurl.com/39n7p9p

Rescuing the miners: PR and self-effacement

2010-10-19T10:51:00.001+01:00

A great piece from Jill Segger on Ekklesia

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13347

Unfounded Attack on Druidy

2010-10-12T18:02:00.004+01:00

My letter to the PCC following Melanie Philips' article in the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1317490/Druids-official-religion-Stones-Praise-come.html

I am writing to make a complaint under Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 12 (Discrimination) of the PCC Code of Practice regarding Melanie Phillips’ article in the Daily Mail on 4th October titled Druids as an official Religion? Stones of Praise Here We Come.

Aquarius PR has worked as PR consultants to The Druid Network (and its predecessor the British Druid Order) on a pro-bono basis for over 10 years. We do this partly because we feel we want to help counter the highly prejudicial views and misunderstandings about Paganism, views along the lines of those that have been so crassly espoused by Melanie Phillips in her article. However, it has been a long time since we encountered such an wholly irresponsible, inaccurate and discriminatory piece of journalism.

Anyone unfamiliar with Druidry reading Ms Phillips words may well conclude that Druids are fascist, communist nutters who dance naked around stones worshipping the sun; people who are left-wing, selfish, irrational, and determined to undermine ‘the bedrock creed of this country’ (whatever that might be). That they are only “a curious remnant of Britain’s ancient past, a bunch of eccentrics who annually dress up in strange robes at Stonehenge to celebrate the summer solstice.” This is a deeply inaccurate and misleading portrait of Druidry.

The Charity Commission spent over four years carefully debating whether or not Druidry is a religion. Ms Phillips swiftly dismisses these deliberations from her position of ignorance, making the nonsensical and ill-mannered claim that instead Druidry is a ‘cult,’ because to qualify as a ‘religion’ there must be a ‘supreme being that exists beyond the Earth and the Universe.’ On these grounds, nothing whatsoever would qualify as a religion - not Buddhism, which has no Supreme Being, and no other faith either, given that the existence of such a Being cannot be proven.

The prejudicial hatred that poured from Melanie Phillips’ pen is shocking. To suggest the decision of the Charity Commissioners to recognise Druidry as a religion is ‘malevolent’ and ‘beyond absurd;’ to describe Druidry as ‘totally barking mumbo-jumbo’ that is ‘historically tied up with both communism and fascism, precisely because it is a negation of reason and the bedrock values behind Western progress,’ is clearly discriminatory because these statements have no basis in fact.

I trust you will take appropriate action.

Druidry Recognised as a Religion

2010-10-01T22:41:00.000+01:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8036952/Druidry-recognised-as-religion-in-Britain-for-first-time.html

King Clone

2010-09-21T13:51:00.005+01:00

What would you do if you received a Christmas card of Jesus paying homage to Elvis? The former BBC Religious Affairs correspondent, Ted Harrison, wrote a novel.

‘King Clone’ tells the worryingly believable tale of an Elvis-obsessed couple who, having cloned Elvis and brought him up as their own son, somehow forget to tell him. When he visits Memphis on his student gap year, a practical joke goes disastrously wrong and he is hailed as the King of Rock ‘n’ Roll returned, the new Messiah of the ideologically and ethically bankrupt Cathedral Church of the Latter-Day Elvis.

The fact that Elvis worship now verges on being a religion in real life is skilfully exploited by Harrison. He encapsulates the stupidity of our 21st century obsession with celebrity and hero worship, and the cynicism of money-making religion, taking a swipe at the ‘new age’ reliance on meaningful 'coincidence' along the way.

A great satire on organised religion, spiritual exploitation and celebrity; a funny story with a darker meaning and a twist at the end…

Available from Amazon at http://tinyurl.com/2upm2b2

Religious Atheism

2010-09-21T11:26:00.003+01:00

It never ceases to amaze me how atheism is becoming more and more like a religion every day, as this Press Release attests: -

Atheist Teens Empowered by New Foundation's Gift
http://tinyurl.com/3aynoq7

Money, Sex and Power - How the Church has Failed

2010-08-17T13:59:00.003+01:00

An interesting critique of Evangelicalism, by a respected Evangelical. http://tiny.cc/ymg5t

Watch what you say about the Scientologists, Stupid!

2010-07-28T10:17:00.004+01:00

It's reported in The Times today that Cllr John Dixon, a Lib Dem councillor on Cardiff City Council, is under investigation after a critical message on Twitter about Scientologists.
He Tweeted:

"I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off."

Scientology complained to the Ombudsman for Public Services in Wales, who found there was a case to answer under the code of conduct for councillors and has passed the matter on to Cardiff City Council's standards and ethics committee.

Frankly, I think scientology escaped lightly. He could have said a lot worse, and once again, they have done nothing but draw attention to their failings by complaining about his Tweet. Cllr Dixon has 194 followers (a much higher figure I suspect than when he first Tweeted about them!), but now thousands of people have been told how 'stupid' they are.

But this worries me - as well as my day job working with different religious and spiritual organisations, I'm also a local Councillor. Occasionally I'm called upon for comment by the media and in the past I have both critiqued Scientology and stood up for it in one particular circumstance. Where would I stand under this kind of nonsense? I trust the Standards Committee will see sense and drop this.

Meanwhile, I like the comment by my colleague David Barrett, New Religious Movements expert and author..."I think I'd like to see a law that all religions have to laugh at themselves..."

Why I'm so CROSS!

2010-04-08T09:28:00.005+01:00

You'd have thought Christianity Today magazine would get it right, but no - even they are referring to Shirley Chaplin's cross as a crucifx.

The fact this nurse, who refused to remove the cross she had worn for 30 years, has lost her religious discrimination claim, is both another example of religious stupidity and yet more evidence of ignorance on the part of journalists when it comes to religious reporting.

Despite the fact the necklace she wears in photographs is quite clearly a cross, the Press Association, the BBC and every UK national daily newspaper has called it a crucifix.

It's a fundamental error for which there really can be no excuses.

Women. Know Your Place?

2010-02-13T14:38:00.002Z

Sad to think that this is only just one of many such sermons, and even sadder is the number of women I've met who agree...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/13/be-silent-sevenoaks-vicar-tells-women

When Security Goes Mad...

2010-01-27T17:54:00.009Z

Today I was out in the freezing cold in central London, making a video for a client’s Website.

As a member of the NUJ, I know photographers and TV cameramen have been questioned by police while going about their legitimate business, on the grounds they may be planning a terrorist attack and are engaged in covert surveillance of public buildings, and joked we’d better be careful but in all honesty didn’t think the three of us involved, being middle-aged, middle class people clearly engaged in genuine work would have any problems.

In fact, we were questioned three times while filming on the Embankment. On the first occasion, three police constables approached us, one female WPC giving me a particularly hard and suspicious look. One of her colleagues asked whether we had permission to film? I have to confess I immediately saw red and replied that as it was a public place we didn’t need permission to film. They still insisted on ID nonetheless, although when my colleague had produced his NUJ card, they didn’t push for mine. The two subsequent approaches were rather more informal and friendly, but the fact is I see no reason why we should have been challenged at all.

Big Brother is not only ubiquitous, he is also sometimes very stupid and prejudiced. On the last flight I took, I was asked at security to remove my long shirt. I refused very politely on the grounds I was wearing very little underneath. This got me a jolly good frisking and the third degree. Yet as I was held up for what seemed to me a sufficient length of time to make me think twice about refusing requests to publically expose my underwear in future, a woman in a burkha sailed through completely unquestioned. Why? Well you can reach your own conclusions just as I have reached mine...

Christian Crucifix Case Not Worth Enormous Legal Fees, Lawyer Warns

2010-01-19T16:51:00.007Z

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/01/19/53745/ba-christian-crucifix-case-not-worth-enormous-legal-fees-lawyer-warns.html

Darren Sherborne, head of employment and partner at Rickerbys law firm, told Personnel Today the case - whereby devout Christian Nadia Eweida is claiming BA discriminated against her when she refused to remove her cross necklace at work - highlights employers' ability to "lose track of what's important." Absolutely right, BA were completely idiotic to try and stop her wearing it in the first place. But Ms Ewida is now being equally stubborn, pursuing her Employment Tribunal for religious discrimination in the Court of Appeal today. It's about time she stopped this legal gravy train and let it go; after all, she's had huge public and political support, was reinstated at work, saw BA change their policy, and has been wearing her Christian badge for three years now.

But I can't let this one go - please, headline writers, it's a CROSS, not a CRUCIFIX!! There is a difference...!

Social Justice - The Need to Create a Global Movement

2010-01-11T18:26:00.003Z

Next CEMVO seminar, Thursday 28th January at 3.30pm: ‘Social Justice: the need to create a Global movement,’ with Dr. Krishna Sarda, Chief Executive of Ethnic Minority Foundation, an independent organisation seeking to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice present in society.

Venue: - The Dining Room, The Civil Service Club, 13-15 Great Scotland Yard, Westminster, London SW1A 2HJ. Nearest tubes: Charing Cross and Embankment. See www.cemvo.org.uk/seminars.asp for more details

Multiculturalsm -v- Integration

2009-11-25T16:53:00.001Z

Should diversity be celebrated? Is multiculturalism racist? Is French president Nicholas Sarkozy right to ban the burqa? Does multiculturalism make Britain a better place, or are honour killings and domestic violence being ignored under the banner of 'cultural difference'? Renowned journalist and author of 'After Multiculturalism', Yasmin Alibhai-Brown examines possibly the greatest debate of modern Britain: Multiculturalism versus Integration, at a CEMVO seminar next Wednesday 2nd December. For details see www.cemvo.org.uk/seminar.asp

C of E -v- BNP

2009-05-25T11:02:00.004+01:00

It is regrettable that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have urged us not to vote for the BNP. The Church has already voted to ban members of the BNP and other racist parties from becoming ordained – which must be a good thing – but to tell wider society not to vote for a particular political party is quite another.

In our (albeit rapidly shrinking) democracy, anyone who can put up a deposit must be allowed to stand for parliament, and we must be allowed the freedom to vote for the candidate of our choice. And while our churches of course must criticise government policy of they believe it runs counter to the teachings of their faith, I do not believe religious leaders should involve themselves in party politics. They certainly have no business telling any of us how we should vote. Their job is to preach the Gospel as they understand it, and leave us alone to judge who in the political sphere might best put the spirit of that Gospel into practice within Westminster.

I also find it worrying that the Archbishops have been so confident in criticising a political party that is intrinsically racist, misogynist and homophobic. The Church of England is not yet in a position to take the moral high ground on such matters.

The Eviction of the Climate Camp

2009-04-03T09:01:00.004+01:00

I strongly urge you to take a look at this first-person account of Wednesday's events, written by Simon Keyes from the St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconcilliation and Peace in the City of London. http://stethelburgas.blogspot.com/

BBC Religion Shake Up

2009-04-02T12:02:00.005+01:00

Last night I was fortunate enough to hear a most informative and entertaining talk on religion and the media given by Michael Wakelin, Head of Religion and Ethics at the BBC. As Michael said, it was quite probably the last presentation he would make in his current role. In a restructuring exercise, Religion and Ethics is to be merged with the BBC’s Factual unit, to create a new Factual and Religion department. Although Michael was invited to reapply for the new post of commissioning editor and head of production within the new unit, he was unsuccessful and so has became, as I understand it, the fourth out of seven executives in the religion department to lose their jobs in the past year.

Quite understandably, many of Michael’s colleagues and numerous faith leaders are furious. Many have leapt publically to his defence and called upon Director General Mark Thompson for assurances that the move does not signify yet another downgrade for religious broadcasting.

Very generously, given that he has been kicked out of a job he clearly loves, Michael was optimistic last night about the future of religion at the BBC. I do hope he is proved right.

On Michael’s watch, Religion and Ethics has produced some of its best broadcasting since what I feel was the heyday of religious broadcasting in the 1980s and early 90s. As Michael pointed out last night, most of the time at any rate, religion had a stronger and more respected role within the BBC. The flagship Heart of the Matter and Everyman strands were on almost weekly on BBC1, offering a regular slot for swift and intelligent responses to religious and ethical issues as they arose within the news agenda. What was then called Focus on Faith on the World Service (it became Reporting Religion), and the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme had a similar role. Now, the only avenue left for religious current affairs reportage is Sunday, which has of course been cut from the significant time of 7.40 - 08.55 when I worked there to what is now a clearly downgraded 45 minutes starting at 7.10.

Of course, religious broadcasting wasn’t perfect back then. There were very few non-Christians working within the department and I always wondered if there was too much coverage on the machinations of the Church of England and not enough focus on the rapidly diversifying religious landscape of Britain, with a huge rise in numbers of adherents to other major faiths and growing interest in newer religious movements. Michael Wakelin seemed to redress and get the balance right. His early commissioning of The Manchester Passion for instance was a brave and highly successful coup, showing as it did the continuing significance and relevance of Christianity. The hugely successful series, The Monastery didn’t just give remarkable insight into religious community, but also tapped into the burgeoning 21st century quest for personal development. The more recent Around the World in 80 Faiths was a brilliant and energetic tour of all that makes religion so vibrant and meaningful and utterly wonderful.

Michael will be missed. Meanwhile, I can only hope that whoever is chosen to fill his shoes continues in his vein, and doesn’t fall into the trap of attempting to explore issues within certain faith communities while ignoring or being more critical of others, or bowing to pressure from increasingly fundamentalist secularist pressure groups. And I hope they get the respect they deserve in the role from the upper echelons of the BBC.

Happiness - the best defence against breast cancer

2008-08-22T10:19:00.003+01:00

A survey out today suggests that having a positive outlook on life can reduce a woman's risk of contracting breast cancer by 25%. Meanwhile, those who are stressed increase their risk by a staggering 62%.

I strongly suspect a similar survey for other diseases would reap similar statistics. Optimism and happiness I'm quite sure have an impact on health that we cannot even begin to recognise at the moment.

And, what those who would condemn religion as 'unhealthy' should remember, is that every survey ever done on the subject suggests those who have faith are far happier than those who don't.

Religious and Animal Welfare Leaders to Announce Food, Faith Pledge

2008-08-12T09:52:00.002+01:00

Something we could be thinking about here too, I think, although not just for October!

"The Humane Society of the United States is announcing its 2008 "All Creatures Great and Small" campaign, which involves a pledge to either switch to cage-free eggs or egg substitutes for the month of October. Nearly 280 million laying hens in the United States are confined in barren, wire cages so small the birds can't even spread their wings, and consumers can reduce animal suffering by making a few simple changes in their purchasing.

The HSUS is joining with religious leaders to ask people of faith to pledge for one month to either switch to cage-free eggs or egg substitutes as a way to end the cruelest confinement systems employed by the egg industry.

In many faiths, there are notable dates in October. For example, Oct. 2 is the end of Ramadan, Oct. 4 is the feast day of St. Francis, the patron saint of animals, and Oct. 8-9 is Yom Kippur. Already, thousands have taken the online pledge at humanesociety.org/allcreatures. "

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization - backed by 10.5 million Americans, or one of every 30. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty -- On the web at humanesociety.org.

I'm A Celebrity. Get Me In Anywhere!

2008-05-08T11:18:00.002+01:00

Whether or not Karl Marx was right when he said religion was ‘the opium of the people,’ the phrase is well past its sell by date. Today, it seems to be celebrities who divert us from the harsh realities of life; celebrities by whom many benchmark their own behaviour, their status, their wealth, and their hope for the future. Even serious hard news journalists now clamour for celebrity interviews, meaning those of us who do not specialise in celebrity PR can get more than a little frustrated; the more time and space the media gives to celebrity gossip, the more our less well-known clients are likely to get left out in the cold – however engaging their stories.

It never ceases to amaze me how celebrities can get ridiculous amounts of coverage for saying absolutely nothing of any interest whatsoever on subjects they know the sum total of nothing about. Yet media bosses lap it up – even those who you might think should know better.

“If Madonna wanted to come on the show we’d definitely oblige because she’s a fascinating person at any time,” Barney Jones, editor of BBC1’s politics show, Sunday AM, told PR Week a few months back.

And they say the BBC isn’t dumbing down? In which case Barney Jones must be suffering from that now-recognised psychological disorder of ‘Celebrity Worship Syndrome.’ Maybe that is why the current series of Sunday AM now bears the more showbiz-friendly and glitzy title of ‘The Andrew Marr Show.’ Little hint of political debate in that title.

This personality cult is also bad news for good journalists, including those specialising in religion. Expert broadcasters who have worked for radio and TV channels for years are regularly replaced or overlooked for presentation work in favour of Johnny-come-lately stars lacking the slightest expertise and even less interest in developing any. Experienced but little-known narrators with beautiful, authoritative voices are shunned for the recognisable voices of the already famous, even those who sound pretty horrible. Quality falls at the first fence, closely followed by authority.

Working on the ‘if you can’t beat them, then join them’ principle, many PRs seek celebrity support to publicise their clients’ work. Not that this guarantees results, let alone those that might be desired.

Last year, when superstar singer Lulu kindly launched The Mildmay Mission hospital’s charity eBay auction, we were in raptures when key interviews were fixed for her on BBC Breakfast and ITV’s This Morning. Sadly, interviewers were clearly far more interested in talking about her previous relationship with the recently deceased George Best than they were in Mildmay’s pioneering and vitally important work.

If you can’t find celebrity backing, you have to resort to pulling a stunt. Author Isabel Losada discovered this almost immediately when she began trying to raise awareness of the plight of the 11th Panchen Lama, detained by the Tibetan authorities since the age of six and not seen since. A story worthy of international media attention in its own right, you might think, she explains in her funny and engaging book, A Beginner’s Guide to Changing the World, how she only actually managed to get the media interested by arranging a parachute jump off Nelson’s column. The press turned up in droves but again, the real issue got far too short a mention.

With celebrity obsession all around, it is no wonder that ‘to be famous’ is seen as a legitimate career choice for many. While most celebrities have enormous talent and deserve their renown, others tick the ‘no talent required’ box and are quite happy to be talked about for all the ‘wrong’ reasons to get their break. Few may be as deluded and dangerous as the 1978 serial killer who wrote to Wisconsin police asking how many more people he had to kill before the press took notice, but how mentally well-adjusted are those talentless wannabees who humiliate themselves on The X Factor, refusing to believe they do not have what it takes? And what about participants in the ‘human bear-baiting’ Jeremy Kyle has been accused of? They confront cheating partners, abusive parents and addicted children in front of millions, ostensibly to find resolution, but isn’t what they really want to be noticed and rescued from obscurity?

Up to a point, the world of religion is just as obsequious to celebrity as any other and the media fetes its own religious heroes and villains. A visiting stranger to these shores reading a national newspaper could be forgiven for thinking there were only two religions in Britain: violent Islamism and the Church of England. While the press picks up regularly on conflict in the Anglican Communion and most of what is said by spiritual A-listers the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, press officers for other church groups tell me they feel sidelined because priority is given to the C of E, while other faith groups have good reason to believe their concerns are overshadowed by Islamic issues.

Occasionally though, moments of heartening lucidity dance around this celebrity silliness. When an ordinary girl was passed off as a pop star in series 4 of Celebrity Big Brother and The Sun ran the headline: “Nobody Wins Big Brother” it was as if we had all woken up to the truth for a moment - before nodding gently back to sleep.

New Religious Movements and the Media

2008-04-17T19:19:00.000+01:00

I've just presented a paper on New Religious Movements and the Media at an international conference at the London School of Economics organised by INFORM and CESNUR. To read it, visit http://www.aquariuspr.co.uk/aquarius_site/news_pod.html

Rowan - The Aftermath

2008-02-13T17:07:00.003Z

Since my last post, I’ve had time to go through Dr Rowan Williams’ speech at the Royal Courts of Justice and look more closely at his comments on Sharia law.

The first thing I want to say is that it was hard going. As one journalist said to me this morning, “you could go over some paragraphs four or five times and still not understand what he was trying to say.” In parts, it read as if one half of his brain was talking to the other and it was anybody’s guess as to how his thoughts should be interpreted. I do find it slightly alarming that someone supposed to be the leader of an international organisation, someone who has preached countless sermons and delivered countless lectures in his lifetime can be so unintelligible. It is hardly surprising he is said to have been ‘misunderstood,’ given the nature of his lecture.

But has he really been misunderstood? While it is clear the real damage was done on his interview with The World at One, with his worrying comment that having one law for everyone was a bit of a danger, rather than in his lecture, there was an unequivocal underlying assumption made in his presentation that there is a place for Sharia within Britain and, in particular for Sharia family law.

I cannot accept this. I do not believe there is a place in equitable British society for a scheme that allows men to have four wives and to divorce any of them simply by saying one word three times, without the same reciprocal rights for women. I can't imagine the Archbishop actually accepts this either, which makes his comments all the more concerning.

He peppered his lecture throughout with appeals to the need for universality and all due consideration of human rights, and stated that of course no one wants to see the punative, physical punishments so often associated with Sharia. This shows naivety. The head of The Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, speaking on Channel 4 recently, advocated the chopping off of thieves’ hands and the stoning of adulterers in Britain on the grounds it would stop immediately the problems this country has with thieving and adultery.

There is no doubt The Islamic Sharia Council would prefer to live in Britain as an Islamic state, with Sharia the law applicable throughout the land. Attempts are already being made to get Sharia imposed in areas where there is a high Muslim population. The Archbishop must have known this and he has fed and watered these demands in his ill-advised speech.

Most significantly of all, he has failed to stand up for the faith he heads and support those of his flock who are persecuted in many Muslim countries.

I still think he should consider his position, or at the very least, re-think his views on the matter, accept he was wrong and meditate hard on how, in future, he can do a better job of standing up for the Church and religion he leads.

The End of the Road for Rowan?

2008-02-07T18:48:00.001Z

I was delighted when Dr Rowan Williams was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. A learned theologian with progressive views, he seemed the ideal choice to inject some strong leadership and common sense into the squabbling Church of England.

Today, his comments on Sharia law question whether he is fit to hold his post. Far from being a progressive voice uniting the Church, he appears to be, to put it bluntly, tearing it further apart, not just internally, but from the State too.

First, in the eyes of many of his flock he behaves treacherously over the planned appointment of Geoffrey John as Bishop of Reading. In refusing to stand by him, despite earlier comments in favour of gay clergy, he lay himself open to allegations of hypocrisy. Then he suggested the C of E may have to “think again” on the ordination of women.

Now, he has effectively condoned the ill-treatment of gay people, women and by default members of the Jewish community, by giving credence to the idea that the practice of Sharia law is acceptable in British society; Sharia law, a system undeniably at odds with British equality laws. His comments, that “it could help social cohesion,” and that we must "face up to the fact" that some citizens do not relate to the British legal system, make him appear little short of certifiable.

There have always been people who have not accepted the British legal system. Such people are called criminals. Why should criminals with a faith position be treated any less leniently? And social cohesion? With one law for one community group and another law for another?

A man holding views as extreme and disloyal as this cannot, surely, remain at the head of a British state institution? Maybe it is time for him to go.

Dying for Jehovah - Is refusing a blood transfusion really about choice?

2007-11-07T18:45:00.000Z

I fell exhausted into bed last night after a long day on the media trail with Aquarius PR client Rachel Underhill, founder of www.exJW-reunited.com, a support group for former Jehovah’s Witnesses. We fixed up numerous press, TV and radio interviews for Rachel to comment on the tragic case of Emma Gough, 22, who died shortly after the birth of her twins, after refusing to accept a donor blood transfusion on the grounds of her religion. Having been through a very similar experience after the birth of her own twins eight years ago, Rachel was uniquely placed to offer her take on the heartbreaking story.

Media opinion, expressed both on air, in print, and privately to me and Rachel, was that this was an appalling waste of a young life. A new mum, recently married, has died, arguably in the most preventable of circumstances, leaving two babies without a mother and a father who has a lot of explaining to do.

While the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right to argue that donor blood transfusions are not without risk, to refuse them on the grounds of two Bible quotations (Genesis 9 v 3-6 and Acts 15 v 29) seems like madness, especially given that even Orthodox Jews and all other Christian denominations see no prohibition on blood transfusions in these verses.

I would be the first to defend everyone’s right to live out the faith of their choice, provided they do so within the secular law. However, there must surely come a time when religious leaders preach messages so out of kilter with others in their broader faith group, messages so alien to rational, common-sense thought, that they must be put under pressure to change? That is what Rachel, by telling her story again and again so bravely yesterday, was trying to do.

Will anyone listen? The Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed their policies on other issues in the past, so we have to hope. They used to refuse vaccinations; these are now permissible. Accepting a donor organ is no longer prohibited but seen as a personal choice.

So far, despite several deaths, they have refused to review their policy on donor blood, instead putting their hope in alternatives using blood substitutes and own-blood transfusions. They also insist every Jehovah’s Witness has a choice whether or not to accept a transfusion.

I wonder what they mean by ‘choice.’ What I find particularly galling about Emma’s case is that an elder from her place of worship admitted that Jehovah’s Witnesses who accept blood transfusions are ‘disfellowshipped’ or exiled from the religion, and will thereafter be shunned by the rest of the Witnesses’ community.

If you have been brought up from birth in the religion; had it drummed into you that receiving transfusions is wrong; believe you face eternal damnation if you do not live in accordance with the Bible and know you will be alienated from all your friends and family if you do not follow the rules, you will be a brave man or woman indeed who breaks rank. Especially if your ‘choice’ has to be made when you are lying on what might be your deathbed.

http://www.exjw-reunited.com/

New Christmas Stamps

2007-11-07T09:38:00.000Z

The new Christmas stamps were unveiled yesterday and, featuring exquisite prints of either angels or the Virgin and Child, they have been welcomed by the Church of England. The C of E railed against last years snow scene images, and some media organisations are suggesting this is why the Royal Mail has returned to religious images.

Actually the Royal Mail adopts a policy of alternating the use of ‘secular’ images one year and religious images the next, and have already announced that next years stamps will feature pantomine figures. This strikes me as being perfectly fair; after all, the secular aspects of Christmas are enjoyed by both Christians and non-Christians alike. They only detract from the message of Christmas if you choose to let them do so.

Woof Woof! Are Clergy Collars Going to the Dogs?

2007-10-08T10:27:00.000+01:00

Vicars who wear dog collars are more likely to be attacked and, to keep themselves safe, should stop wearing them. That’s according to ‘The Clergy Lifestyle Theory’ report commissioned after the murder of the fifth British priest in a decade.

Are they barking mad? In my experience socialising and working with priests, I find the majority of people defer to the dog collar and treat the wearer with a respect they would not afford to an ‘ordinary’ member of the public.

Just two weeks ago, I turned up with a priest friend at a crowded city restaurant without a booking. Having seen the melee inside, and people already waiting for a table, we fully expected to have to find somewhere else for lunch but no, we were promised a table in ten minutes and given a complimentary glass of champagne each while we waited. “It must be the dog collar,” I said, and my friend admitted that yes, it often helps, commenting how often strangers smile and say hello to him in the streets – but only when he is wearing it. Without his dog collar he fades into the crowd.

I believe firmly that one of the reasons the Church is losing its authority in society is because it has dumbed down much of its own status. While selling off old rectories may have had financial compensations, I’m not sure it was worth the true cost of effectively making a clear statement that the church and all it stands for no longer deserves a pace of primary importance at the heart of village life. And, call me old-fashioned, but when trendy vicars strip off their dog collars and cassocks in favour of jeans and T-shirts during services, I feel they are doing themselves a disservice most of the time. They are making a mistake in trying to make out they are no different to the rest of us, when they are. They have committed themselves fully to their vocation and their dog collar is a sign of that vocation, in the same way that a wedding ring is a sign of commitment in a marriage.

Any uniform gives the wearer status and, more importantly, helps them identify with their job and do that job better. The news last week that more and more schools are returning to insisting pupils wear a school uniform on the grounds that doing so seems to improve both discipline and academic results in schools, makes the point. For priests, the dog collar acts as a personal reminder of their own duty and their need to stand out and shine in society, while reminding the rest of us to offer due respect to God and God’s representatives on earth.

Sure, there are unsavoury elements in our society who will always target priests who are vulnerable because they are always expected to be on call to open their doors to the drug or alcohol addicted, but priests are trained in how to deal with these issues and most take sensible precautions to protect themselves. Anyone wearing some kind of uniform - be they policemen, paramedics, or Islamic women wearing the veil - are making a statement which some delinquents may see as a challenge and an incitement to violence. But no one has to wear a uniform all of the time and priests can exercise their own discretion.

One harsh reality is as true for priests as it is for the rest of us; all of us are most likely to be assaulted or killed by someone we already know. For priests, that inevitably includes parishioners, who presumably know who their priests are, so whether or not they are wearing a dog collar makes not one bit of difference.

Religion and Nationalism

2007-09-06T17:47:00.000+01:00

Last night I attended a fascinating talk on Religion and Nationalism at St Barnabus’ Church in Southfields, London. Dr Eric Kaufmann, a reader in Politics and Sociology at Birkbeck, University of London, took us on a swift tour of this complex subject, covering a range of conflicts from the medieval crusades to the Iraq war.

The big question, of course, was how far are so-called ‘religious’ wars in fact nationalistic, political campaigns and whether such wars are in any way more violent that ‘secular’ conflict? Inevitably, perhaps, the conclusion on both counts was that the distinction is far from clear cut. During question time after Dr Kaufmann’s talk for instance, there was serious, well-informed debate about whether Northern Ireland was really a Protestant –v- Catholic fight or whether those labels actually provided no useful indication whatsoever of actual religious adherence and depth of religious feeling, saying much more about place of birth, heritage and political affiliation.

Distinctions between religion and nationalism are hard to pinpoint, often because they are so personal – and irrational. This point was beautifully – or perhaps I should say horrifically – illustrated by the friend with whom I attended the lecture. She told the audience how her Croatian au pair, at the height of the Balkan war, recalled hiding in the cellar with her family while a mob outside called for the blood of her father, a Serb. “I listened to her story and, in my naivety,” said my friend, “asked why she and her family go back to Serbia to escape?” She replied: “Well, my family haven’t lived in Serbia for 400 years.”

Earlier, I had spotted a news story in the Times of India about a Hindu religious leader in South Africa who had caused a storm in his community by suggesting that Hindus who convert to Christianity and reject their religion will “lose their right to be Indian.” It seems a bizarre mix of religion and nationalism, yet not one that should really surprise us.

Even second and third generation immigrants in this country identify strongly with their original ‘homeland,’ while at the same time feeling British. They also understandably wish to practise the religion of their familial place of birth. I wonder whether my personal identity as a British Christian owes more to my upbringing within the native Methodist tradition, my subsequent connection with the Church of England and the worship, liturgy, art, music and heritage of Christianity in this country, or to the first century Palestinian New Testament?

It is probably the former, because were I to convert to Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism or Islam – even Judaism - I would of course still be British, but can’t help feeling that in converting I would lose some vital connection with my own land which it would be difficult to replace. Such hypothetical feelings are part of complex web of emotion and experience that it is not easy to explain, although I am clearly not alone in feeling it.

White Britons living in areas where there is a higher density of Muslims in the population are much more likely to identify themselves as Christian, said Dr Kaufmann, irrespective of whether or not they actually attend church or practice their faith. In theory, I guess that means that the potentially lethal blend of religion and nationalism becomes far more potent when the ‘home’ faith is in some way perceived to be under threat.

Homer Simpson Meets Stiff Resistance on Giant Hill

2007-08-03T09:22:00.000+01:00

As you'll probably already have heard by now, a 180ft high Homer Simpson has made a temporary appearance next to the chalk carved figure of the Cerne Abbas giant in Dorset and Pagans were said to be furious, on the grounds his image dececrated a scaret site and threatened ecological damage. I'll be discussing the rights and wrongs of this publicity stunt shortly, in my forthcoming Aquarius Debate show on www.myspiritradio.com with Martin Palmer of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation and former BBC Religious Affairs Correspondent, Ted Harrison. Meanwhile, I've climbed Giant Hill to see Homer for myself and asked some passing tourists what they thought. Listen to what they had to say here.

Shambo's Astonishing Reprieve

2007-07-16T13:41:00.000+01:00

Mr Justice Hickinbottom’s decision to grant a reprieve for Shambo, the sacred bullock currently in residence in his own purpose built shrine at the Skanda Vale temple in Wales is astonishing. Does it mean religious communities are henceforth to be granted rights over and above the secular law?

I certainly hope not. What chaos would result? It seems to me this Judgement only says that when Shambo tested positive in a routine tuberculosis test and the Welsh Assembly issued a standard notice to slaughter in accordance with standard agricultural practice, they failed as the outset to take sufficient account of the fact that Shambo is not a conventional farm animal. This meant they did not take account of whether public health concerns outweighed religious rights. The fact the Assembly claimed to have considered this subsequently probably cuts no mustard in legal circles. I sense this is more a matter of following correct legal procedure than anything else.

However, the question of whether and when the right to practise a religion as enshrined in European Human Rights law may or may not excuse one from following the law of the relevant land is a vital and important question, one that has such potentially dramatic consequences for us all and needs to be tested in the Courts as soon as possible.

So, we will all be watching to see what happens in the Appeal Court with interest. Whether it ends there is anyone’s guess – I suspect this one may well go all the way to the European Court itself.

Meanwhile, poor old Shambo stays on sacred death row, isolated from his fellow creatures and, it seems to me, not having much of a divine life at all, despite his luxurious surroundings.

UK Terror Threat

2007-07-05T09:19:00.000+01:00

There is a great deal I would like to say on the latest terrorist threat to the UK but, frankly, this 'Comment is Free' piece in The Guardian does it better. I suggest you take a look: - Click Here

The Fast Road to Heaven?

2007-06-26T13:20:00.000+01:00

“Seek first your God – put your trust in Him” shrieked the message obscuring the back windscreen of a silver Mercedes as it sped past me earlier today on the Croydon by-pass. At least, I think it was a Mercedes and I think that is what it said, because ‘sped’ is no understatement. The car zoomed past – in spite of the red traffic light just a few metres ahead – at what I reckon was a good 20-30mph over the 40mph speed limit.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Christians out there display ‘Jesus Loves You’ and ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ bumper stickers yet seem completely unable to show any love or consideration to others sharing their piece of grey tarmac.

If you are one such hypocritical, speedophile Christian, who no doubt also believes anyone who does not turn to Christ is damned, listen to my plea: the next time you go for a drive, would you please give other drivers the time to repent, rather than doing your best to ensure they end up in hell before lunchtime, having missed the opportunity?

Thank you.

Spirituality Holds the Key to Tackling Bigotry and Violence

2007-05-03T17:03:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, Professor Charles Taylor was presented with the 2007 Templeton Prize by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, at Buckingham Palace. Later in the day he joined leading British religious figures at a press conference to explore how spirituality can be used to tackle bigotry and violence.

Some would argue this makes no sense. In the wake of the terrorist convictions of five British-born Muslim men, it is easy to denounce religion as the cause of the problem of terrorism and violence in our communities. The shrill voices of blinkered secularists get ever louder by the day – religion is the cause of all evil in our world, they argue, not the solution; without religion, the world would be a better place.

Yesterday, Charles Taylor spoke carefully chosen and timely words reminding us otherwise.

A Canadian philosopher, Professor Taylor’s work has focused on ideas of identity and spirituality and their relevance to modern society. Recently, he has begun to explore the relationship between spirituality and violence, looking specifically at how societies must reach out to disenchanted and disenfranchised young people of all backgrounds in Western communities.

Speaking at the press conference, he made the exceptionally valid point that there are violent forms of any belief system, including secular humanism.

“We can’t talk about violence in terms of religion versus non-religion,” he insisted, using in illustration the brutal regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the horror of Tamil Tiger suicide bombings. He also warned against the temptation to demonise one or other religion or belief system over another:

“No one is immune from being recruited to group violence, from the temptation to target another group which is made responsible for all our ills, from the illusion of our own purity which comes from our readiness to combat this evil force with all our might. We urgently need to understand what makes whole groups of people ready to be swept up into this kind of project.”

Charles Taylor has argued that those who pursue a secularist agenda alone prevent crucial insights which might otherwise help a global community exposed increasingly to clashes of culture, morality, nationality and religion, writing:

“Without spiritual initiatives, the best-intentioned efforts to put human history on a new and more humane footing have often turned history into a slaughter bench. It is a sobering thought that Robespierre, in the first discussion on the new revolutionary constitution for France, voted against the death penalty. Yet the path to this peaceable republic, which would spare the lives of even its worst criminals, somehow led through the nightmare of the Terror.”

Humanity will always strive for meaning and direction and look to the transcendent – thank God - however hard the secular fundamentalists will rail at humanity to do otherwise. The ‘secular society’ so trumpeted in the 1960s and beyond has proved to be largely a myth. We are just as spiritual and religious as we have ever been. All that has happened is that religion has been reinvented – again. The face of our spirituality has simply changed; we simply express it in different words and practise it with different rites.

As Charles Taylor says, what we need now is new insight into the human propensity for violence, together with an urgent understanding of how “the only way individuals can be prevented from heading for terrorism is to have a better answer to the meaningfulness of life.”

His prize is richly deserved.

Obsession with Healthy Heating: Our New Religion?

2007-02-28T10:59:00.001Z

Two research papers released this morning caught my attention. The first, that taking vitamins could actually shorten dramatically, rather than prolong your life will no doubt horrify the vitamin supplements industry even more than it will turn the stomach of those who have for decades believed in their magical promises of longevity, beginning and ending every day with a cocktail of pills. The second suggests that while eating ice cream will enhance a woman’s chance of conceiving a child, switching to ‘healthy options’ such as skimmed milk and low fat yoghurt have precisely the opposite effect, helping decrease a woman’s chance of conceiving by as much as 80%. Cue a cacophony of protest and a ferocious PR scramble on both counts.

Meanwhile, having just finished my breakfast of bananas, honey and full fat Greek yoghurt and knowing my lunchtime salad will come with a dollop of full-fat mayonnaise, I am feeling slightly smug. I gave up low-fat foodsages ago, realising they only tasted good because of the added sugar manufactures put in to compensate (check out the carbohydrate content of low as opposed to full fat yoghurt next time you’re anywhere near a pot and you’ll see what I mean).

As for vitamins, I was put off those by a former boyfriend who shunned proper food every morning in favour of a handful of vitamin tablets. He got thinner and thinner and his skin ever more sallow. A picture of health he was not. In any case, I never saw the health benefit in eating the small lumps of rubbery plastic most vitamins come encased in.

I have come to believe that eating three, moderate, healthy meals a day and avoiding high calorie snacks and processed food is the way to stay trim, happy and healthy. I’m also a firm believer in the adage that a little bit of what you fancy does you good. It’s when we get obsessed that the trouble starts, be that an overuse of prescription drugs or alcohol; eating large bars of chocolate regularly as opposed to a couple of squares once or twice a week; or developing an obsession with healthy eating and over-exercising.

It is hardly surprising we first became obsessed with food and what not to eat in the latter half of the 20th century, when we in the West, at least, were fortunate enough to have food in abundance and when society became increasingly materialistic and industrialised. When secularism is pervasive and God unimportant for many, a common certainty in salvation, heaven, or whatever religion says might be our ‘life after death,’ is lost. Yet, in the same way food manufacturers replace fat with sugar, this sense of loss too has to be replaced with something.

It seems to me this ‘something,’ our new quest for salvation, has become to strive to live for as long as possible, doing whatever it takes to achieve this goal. If this means following every piece of ‘healthy’ advice we get, regardless of common sense or evidence to the contrary, we follow, like lost sheep.

Eschewing priests, ministers and our spiritual needs, we instead feed our physical bodies as directed by our new diet doctor gods, bloating ourselves up with two unnecessary litres of water and binging on at least five huge portions of fruit and veg every day. With the passion of religious zealots, we turn to our recipe Bible, penned by the great nutritionist and spiritual guru Gillian McKeith, and chomp our way through an unappetising bowl of mung bean stew, convinced will save us from certain death. Then we worship at the altar of exercise, taking up jogging in middle age, risking torn cartilage, ripped tendons and even heart attacks.

Why do we do all this? Because, despite the risks of such behaviour, we actually believe indulging this obsessive madness will protect us from the evils of old age, illness and death, so we can once again live without fear of our ultimate demise.

Eagerly, we pounce on every new piece of research suggesting a cure for cancer is only five or ten years away. We don’t question it; we just celebrate the good news, rejoicing that salvation is at hand. We put our faith in science and our healthy lifestyles, forgetting the only certainty in life is death, however hard we try to stay alive and however many medical advances are made. Perhaps we even come to believe death can be cured within our lifetimes.

When the late Cardinal Basil Hume was diagnosed with terminal cancer and faced imminent death, he relayed the news to one of his closest confidents who replied with words along the lines of: “How wonderful! I wish I was coming with you!” The Cardinal said those words were the closest that came to summing up how he felt about his diagnosis.

The militant atheist Richard Dawkins would no doubt say Hume was deluded. I'd say his attitude was no more deluded and a lot healthier than that of those who believe the elixir of life can be found in a vitamin pill or the bottom of a glass of skimmed milk.

BA's Cross U-Turn

2007-01-23T21:39:00.000Z

So BA has climbed down over its refusal to allow a check-in desk worker to wear a cross. Now, says the company, it will allow staff to wear religious symbols openly and give "some flexibility for individuals to wear a symbol of faith on a chain".

If BA thinks this is the end of the matter, I fear the company is very much mistaken.

When BA announced it would be reviewing its policy, back in November, I was deeply concerned about their apparent intention to allow staff to wear a religious symbol on their lapel badge.

In my experience, it is mostly conservative evangelical Christians who wear a cross or ICHTHUS fish on their lapel. While I am proud to wear a cross around my neck, as more than just a piece of jewellery, I would not choose to wear a lapel badge as I would not wish to labelled 'evangelical.'

So, personally, I would have dropped the lapel idea altogether and just stuck with allowing religious jewellery. A symbol on a chain around the neck is often ambiguous. If, for instance, you saw someone wearing a cross, or a five or six pointed star on a necklace, you might not immediately think it was a religious symbol. You almost certainly wouldn’t make an issue about it and ask the wearer for more details. A lapel badge on the other hand, is a clear, unambiguous symbol of faith, one that - unless you share the wearer's faith - automatically signals that they are ‘different’ to you.

This is why I sense trouble ahead. A Wiccan wearing a five-pointed star on her lapel meets a Christian wearing a cross on his. Are they going to meet each other in a neutral way? Or is religion going to get in the way of a good working relationship?

A current court case in the USA centres on a Wiccan ex-Starbucks barista, who claims she was asked on several occasions to remove the pentacle from around her neck, despite the fact her colleagues, including her Christian Manager, all wore crosses. She claims they also refused to promote or transfer her to another branch.

I fear it won’t be long before we see a similar case here. Evangelicals in all faiths often will not accept open proselytising by those of other faiths, too often refusing to afford them the rights they demand for themselves.

How long will it be before the complaints start, complaints that Satanists, Scientologists and other minority faith group members are wearing badges when ‘they shouldn’t be allowed to?’ How long before atheists start campaigning to be allowed to wear their own badges? No doubt Nadia Eweida would be horrified by the idea, yet all faith groups have equal rights under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.

I also wonder what BA will do to stop their believing employees sharing their faith when asked by customers what their lapel badges mean?

Nadia Eweida and her supporters clearly didn’t think this through before starting their campaign and neither, in consulting only with faith groups, and mainstream faith groups at that, has BA.

The fact remains; BA should have just ignored that tiny, ambiguous silver cross. As an innocent piece of jewellery that happened to have significance for her, no one but the BA bureaucrats batted an eyelid. As a visible, unambiguous symbol on a lapel, I fear a whole new can of worms has been opened.

'Spiritual' Celebrities: Scourge or Salvation of 'Secular' Society?

2007-01-18T19:41:00.000Z

Ah, the luxury! This morning, because I was at the hairdressers, I was able to indulge my secret fascination with Hello! magazine.

Rapt with anticipation, I was desperate to read the current cover story - both Sian Lloyd and Lempit Opik MP have given their (very different) versions of what 'really' happened when he fell 'in love’ with one of the Cheeky Girls. Sadly, the brunette having her roots done has got there first so I have to settle for last weeks’ hot gossip, but still I am gripped.

Victoria Beckham reveals she doesn’t have an eating disorder. Tamara Beckwith throws an engagement party. Peter Sellers’ daughter reveals the horror of being falsely accused as a drug dealer. Fourteen pages are devoted to the wedding of Holby City actress Tina Hobley. “Top British fashion designer Amanda Wakeley opens the doors to her dramatic monochrome apartment in London.”

That apartment! Wow! Even her dog matches the décor. The photographs are amazing; the copy starts off in familiar adulatory style. Then, suddenly, wham! Bang! In comes the ‘Big Question’: “Do you apply any spiritual philosophy to your surroundings?”

“I’m into Eastern philosophy,” replies Amanda, daughter of the second Baronet of Liss. “I travel to India and China for my work and am inspired by the way people there live so contentedly with few possessions,” she continues, in somewhat ironic vein, sprawled as she is across the fur coverlet in the bedroom of this dream of a home, refurbished, I suspect, on a budget that would buy my entire house and leave some change over to put in a good offer on next door. “I also believe in feng shui and the healing power of crystals.”

She goes on to talk about her acupuncturist, the dowser who cleared the negative energy from her flat, the huge rose quartz crystals that ‘circulate energy,’ and how a ‘benign spirit,’ who had been there for many years, was finally sent packing.

My cynicism radar buzzes on high alert: how can anyone claim to be spiritual while 1) evicting benign spirits who presumably do no harm, 2) spending their life globetrotting to India and China (why there, I wonder?) and therefore contributing lavishly to global warming 3) priding themselves on their ability to further plunder the earth’s precious resources by splashing out on crystals - mined at considerable risk to human life - because of an almost certainly crackpot theory and 4) being able to state, aparently without irony, how much they admire people who have so little, all the while delighting in a (no doubt paid for) opportunity to so publicly display how very much they have?

On a more positive note – my Grumpy Old Woman Within has gone back to sleep now - I am thrilled and amazed Amanda Wakeley was asked the question at all. In fact, it seems Hello! Is becoming quite a spiritual resource guide; turn a few more pages and Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt explain how they are going to ‘get into Buddhism’ with their children, having ‘done’ an Orthodox Christmas.

A decade and more ago, when I was working as a religious affairs reporter, I got sick and tired of having to justify my existence in the world. “What the hell are you stuck in a dead-end, useless job like that for?” the friend of a friend had the audacity to ask at one party. Back then, society was ‘secular.’ Religion was ‘dead’ and no more worthy of serious study or reportage than the dodo. No one cared about God anymore. I’d have had more respect if I’d been a dustman. Of course it wasn’t true; I only wish an international resurgence of fundamentalism didn’t conspire to prove the point so catastrophically and violently.

Now, I tell people what I do and they are rapt attention. “How topical! How interesting! You certainly in the right place at the right time aren’t you!” they exclaim, as if I re-invented my entre personal philosophy last week and have some kind of suspect ulterior motive.

So, while I wish Amanda Wakeley and other celebrities who embrace ‘New Age’ spiritualities in particular would adhere to rather more grown-up, serious, constructive and life-changing manifestations of their faiths, ones that actually make a positive difference, this willingness of celebrities to explore their spiritual side – however superficially - shows how we are, once again, becoming a ‘spiritual nation.’ Where celebs lead, others always follow.

Personally, I welcome that. Others may not, perhaps because they disapprove of alternative spirituality or feel they cannot condone ‘shallow faith.’ As I see it, celebrity spirituality may not be perfect, but it is a start. Spirituality is a journey; we all have to follow our own paths; in our own time. Even those who believe they have all the answers, right here, right now, are on a journey of transformation and change. Who knows where Amanda Wakeley’s rather sad crystal obsession may take her ultimately? Or how even a superficial teaching of Buddhism may influence little Zahara and Maddox Pitt-Jolie’s pampered lives for the better?

Let us not judge. Instead, let us welcome the fact that spirituality is back in the mainstream, freed from the shackles of being a taboo subject confined within the walls of infrequently visited sacred buildings.

THAT Wedding ... Tom and Katie Get Hitched the Scientology Way

2006-12-11T16:42:00.000Z

A guest blog by David V Barrett, author and PR and religion consultant at Aquarius PR

Now, Tom, girls need clothes
And food and tender happiness and frills
A pan, a comb, perhaps a cat
All caprice if you will
But still they need them.
Do you then provide?
Do you?

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes were getting married. The look on the BBC Breakfast presenter’s face as I read part of their service said it all: science fiction writer and Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard was hot favourite for the 'Worst Poetry in the Known Universe' award.

This was the fourth time in four weeks I’d been in a TV studio talking about Scientology -- and I was beginning to realise that we were playing the Church of Scientology’s game. Two film stars were getting married in an Italian castle, so there was plenty of romance and glitz and glamour (and the Beckhams were there too), but the news coverage focused on the fact that they were Scientologists. The publicity value of Tom and Katie for their Church was incalculable.

Until recently Scientology had a reputation for being litigious and for wanting to control what was written about them. (I have a 9-page letter from some years ago from top libel lawyers Peter Carter-Ruck & Partners, on behalf of the Church, accusing me of multiple counts of defamation.) But now they seem to have changed their approach, and are actively courting publicity.

Scientology is based on Dianetics, a personal development or self-help technique devised by founder L Ron Hubbard. Through auditing, which has much the same effect as therapy or counselling, members are helped to deal with their hang-ups and problems. The promised benefits include better health, a better memory, clearer thinking and being in control of who you really are – effectively becoming a 'superman', which is of great appeal not just to top film stars.

It’s a progressive religion, in which members climb a “spiritual career path” through taking courses, often costing thousands of pounds each. The mythology at the heart of Scientology, only taught at the highest levels, includes science fiction stories of cosmic proportions to explain all the ills of the world.

In October Scientology opened a new church in London. The £23 million cost might have earned them a column inch or two, but the hours of TV coverage were because Tom Cruise and John Travolta were rumoured to be attending the event. I watched the increasingly weary attempts at excitement of the Sky News reporter standing in the pouring rain, every time a new huddle of people approached the building: Might this be…? But they didn’t come.

A few days ago I spoke to a senior PR official from the Church about the event. “We never said they would be there,” he said; “that was just media speculation.” True, but the Church hardly discouraged it, because without the possibility of Cruise and Travolta no one would have bothered covering the story: “Religion opens new church” (yawn).

Scientology is getting increasingly good at media manipulation, and journalists keep falling into the trap. It has also, according to the Guardian last week, been offering meals and entertainment to the City of London Police. Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley, a guest at the spectacular opening of the new church, praised Scientology as a “force for good”, saying it was “raising the spiritual wealth of society”. These quotations are pure PR gold to the Church. The police, meanwhile, are reviewing their hospitality policy.

Another trap the media fall into is taking Scientology’s claim of 10 million members worldwide at face value.

Membership figures are notoriously problematic. Are Church of England members everyone who has been baptised into it? Or all those who say they are C of E, meaning they’re not anything else? Or Christmas or Easter communicants? Or an average Sunday’s attendance? When someone quotes a religion’s membership you need to know exactly what the figure means. So what about the 120,000 members Scientology are claiming in Britain?

This astonishing figure is easily refutable. In 2001 for the first time the UK Census asked about religious affiliation. In England and Wales, 1,781 people said they were Scientologists – less than 1.5 percent of the number the Church claims. The 2001 Census figures for other English-speaking countries are similarly low: in Australia 2,032 people said they were Scientologists, in Canada only 1,525, and in New Zealand a mere 282.

Where are the other 9 million or so? They must be in the USA, Scientology’s home country. Well, no. In fact the American Religious Identification Survey estimated in 2001 that there were just 55,000 Scientologists in the USA. As the majority of Scientologists in the world are in the States, the actual worldwide membership must be under 100,000 – rather less than the claimed 10 million.

How can we account for this 100:1 disparity? Church president Heber Jentzsch let slip on a 1992 radio programme that the Church of Scientology claims as a member every single person who has ever taken even an introductory Scientology course since the Church was founded in 1954. Even leaving aside all those “members” who must now be dead, is this really membership? But 10 million make the Church of Scientology sound a lot more significant than 100,000.

Like many other new religious movements Scientology has difficulty retaining its new members. Could this partly be because they are so strongly urged to view everything that L Ron Hubbard wrote as the work of a genius? His later novels, lauded by the Church as “wonderfully wrought”, are derided by most SF readers. Let’s return to that wedding.

Then be cautioned so
And take thy own
E’en though they sleep
Beneath foul straw
And eat thin bread
And walk on pavement less than kind
And keep thy wife and they who come beside thy side.

It’s sad that members of any religion have to accept such mediocrity as the True Quill.

A version of this blog was first published in the Church Times

Abortion: Why women Must have the right to choose

2006-11-30T00:45:00.000Z

For years, I had no particularly strong feelings on abortion, except perhaps believing it to be a sometimes necessary evil that I hoped I would never have to deal with personally. Then, when I became pregnant myself, with a much-wanted child, I became and remain utterly convinced that no woman should ever, ever be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will.

The pro-life brigade seem to think women simply 'have babies,' so it's okay to persuade - or even force - a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to follow it through, and then give the baby up for adoption if she still doesn't want it. That way, there's no harm done, is there?

Well, yes. Potentially there is a great deal of harm that can be done.

I had a terrible nine months pregnancy and endless troubles beyond and, to make my point, I’m going to break a few taboos and tell you about it. So read no further if you’re squeamish or don’t want to know my deepest, darkest medical secrets.

It wasn’t just terrible because of the inevitable morning sickness that lasted all day and throughout my entire pregnancy, or the constant heartburn that eventually meant I couldn't sleep unless I was sitting up. It wasn't the piles, or the overwhelming cravings for burgers and Bakewell tart that threatened to give me a heart attack - although they were all bad enough. I also suffered an extreme form of Symphysis Pubis Dyspraxia.

This meant that from five months’ pregnant, walking was agony. I was working for the BBC at the time and I remember the accounts department – quite rightly – querying my expenses claim for a taxi journey to an interview just 500 yards away from Broadcasting House. So, although pleased they were taking care with licence payers' money, I had to explain that, actually, I couldn't have walked that far. A movement as simple as turning over in bed was near impossible and had to be done incredibly slowly. After the birth (and the inevitable third degree tear that required stitches so painful I squirmed like a fish on a slab – I swear the anaesthetic didn’t work), the symptoms disappeared miraculously but, even after a straightforward, textbook natural childbirth, I was still in trouble.

The birth left me with a prolapsed bladder, bowel and womb. The practical effect of this was that I suffered double incontinence and found my sex life suddenly became no fun at all. After five years of suffering in silence - propelled by a particularly embarrassing incident I couldn’t ignore - I plucked up courage and told my GP. He put me in touch with a specialist who said the problem could be solved, as long as I was prepared to give up any attempt to have more children. It took me another two years to make that decision.

Finally, I spent a week in hospital following an operation that sorted me out. Four days later I was rushed back into hospital with complications that left me in such pain that a passing nurse assumed I was having a late miscarriage and offered his sympathies. I couldn’t get the words out to tell him the truth. Eventually, I recovered, and got my life back. The saga isn’t yet at an end yet though; I’m told that when I hit the menopause, I am likely to find my prolapsed womb gets much worse and I will need a hysterectomy.

I was and am prepared to put with all this – In fact, I'm grateful - because I was having and now have a much-wanted child. But is there really, truly, any sadist out there who would say that any woman should be forced to go through what I went through? If you took away my complicity in everything that happened to me, wouldn’t my experience be - in another language - torture? Is torture not what women in many countries worldwide are facing because of outrageously restrictive abortion laws such as those I've detailed below?

Of course, not every woman suffers or might suffer as I did. But how do you know in advance what kind of pregnancy you will have and what might go wrong? Isn’t any pregnancy and birth a difficult, physical state to bear, even when welcome? Can you imagine the horror of a woman having to experience what I went through against her will? A woman who may have suffered rape or incest or whose partner has disowned her? A woman who already has a large family, who uses contraception diligently, yet finds she is up to fifteen in one hundred for whom it failed to work? A woman for whom pregnancy is life threatening? A woman who, because of some 'do-gooder' doesn't even have a child to hug for comfort?

I can’t imagine it and feel no woman should ever have to. That people who call themselves ‘spiritual’ and ‘Godly,’ would put a woman through this kind of torment is beyond my comprehension, especially if they are the same ‘Godly’ people who have denied her contraception in the first place.

This is why I welcome this week’s call by the UK's British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) to make abortion easier. It is a historical nonsense that two doctors must consent before a woman can have an abortion and BPAS is right to suggest that nurses be allowed to give abortion pills to women in the early stages of pregnancy without the consent of a doctor. What woman gets pregnant and then seeks an abortion deliberately? A dreadful mistake has happened and they want and have the right to deal with it as swiftly as possible.

Of course, who in their right minds wouldn’t prefer a society in which abortion was unnecessary? Don’t get me wrong; I am horrified at the number of abortions that take place each day. The figure is atrocious and we should all welcome moves both to reduce the numbers and encourage earlier abortions. But no civilised society should look for a solution to this problem that involves persecuting women by forcing them into potentially terrifying, dangerous, physically and mentally disturbing situations. We are on a very slippery slope indeed when we give greater rights to the as yet unborn than we do to the living.

Abortion around the World: -

A woman’s ability to access safe and legal abortions is restricted in law or in practice in most countries worldwide. In most countries abortion is at least allowed to save the pregnant woman’s life, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. However...

Just last week, Nicaragua banned all abortion, even to save the mother's life
In El Salvador, a woman who develops an ectopic pregnancy - when a fertilized egg develops inside the fallopian tube and has no chance of survival – is kept under guard in hospital. Until a prosecutor certifies that the embryo has died or the woman's tube has ruptured (a potentially fatal event), doctors are not allowed to intervene.
In Chile, abortion is punished by three to five years in prison.
Colombia prohibits abortion in all circumstances. However, penalties are substantially lower when pregnancy is the result of rape. Judges can waive punishment on a case-by-case basis, when the abortion occurs in “extraordinary situations of abnormal motivation.”
Abortion is illegal in Argentina, although the penalty may be waived where the life or health of the pregnant woman is in danger, or where the pregnancy is the result of the rape of a mentally disabled woman.
In Mexico abortion is illegal unless the pregnant woman is a rape victim. Other exceptions apply in some penal jurisdictions
Although abortion is legal in the United States, services are not always accessible because of political opposition or legal or financial obstacles. Many states either curtail a women’s access to legal abortion (through mandatory waiting periods or mandatory—and at times manifestly inaccurate—counselling) or limit legal access to abortion to certain populations (such as rape victims or women whose lives are endangered by their pregnancy). Women with limited economic resources face additional obstacles to safe abortion, resulting particularly in discrimination against women who may already be marginalised.

Source: Human Rights Watch www.humanrightswatch.org

So you think the tabloids are terrible?

2006-11-13T23:23:00.000Z

Then think again!

Last week I spent a day in the Daily Mirror newsroom and found nothing but a solid commitment to professionalism and integrity among all the editorial staff I met. They were all brilliant at their jobs; had a staggering combined general knowledge; were great fun to be with and displayed none of the sleazy, ‘Lunchtime O’Booze’ hackery too often associated with the Fleet Street red tops. Well, not until I had gone home anyway…

No, seriously, it was a sobering lesson in how not to judge a tabloid newspaper by its reputation among the broadsheet readers. That said, I think I know for sure I might have had a very different experience had I been visiting the Daily Star rather than the Mirror, wouldn’t I?

I would certainly have liked to have been a fly on the wall on October 18th. On that day, according to NUJ magazine, The Journalist, the Star’s editor, Dawn Neesom, and proprietor Richard Desmond (who also has such titles as Asian Babes and Big Ones to his ‘credit’) gave the go-ahead for a page 6 feature headlined ‘THE DAILY FATWA.’

It is alleged the page was intended to be an outrageous spoof of ‘Islamic attitudes,’ featuring a ‘Page 3 Burkha Babe’ (who was actually wearing a niqab) and the slogan ‘We put the ‘fun’ into fundamentalism.’

However, concerned staff journalists and NUJ members (who had earlier expressed their concern but had been over-ruled) approached the Father of the NUJ Chapel, arguing that it would offend the Muslim community – possibly leading to violent reprisals - and affect the future of the paper. He called an emergency meeting; the vote expressing deep concern was carried and, eventually – with only minutes to spare before the paper went to print - the editor decided to pull the page.

So there you go: even journalists on the Daily Star have morals. Isn’t it just a shame that senior management take no notice until it is pointed out that their life and livelihood might be at risk?

Reminder for Halloween - Ghosts have feelings too

2006-10-27T12:51:00.000+01:00

A guest blog by Isadora, Pagan priestess and psychic.

Halloween is fast approaching and, as a Pagan, I celebrate the festival of Samhain (the Pagan word for Halloween). This would have been the time in the past when our ancestors would have decided which livestock to slaughter, to see them through the time when food would be short in the coming winter months. The old and sick of the tribe or village may not make it through a tough winter; there were countless reasons to think about death. This is why we believe the veil between this world and the next is thin at this time and why is an opportune moment to contact our ancestors and friends who have passed on and invite them to join us if they wish.

It is also believed that all kinds of supernatural beings walk at this time of year. Many old folk traditions live on today, including lighting lanterns and dressing up as ghosts and ghouls. I feel that this is harmless fun that at least has some connection with the folk traditions of Britain.

However, I find the increasing number of ghost hunts run by paranormal research teams, with a medium in tow, quite sickening.

I went to once in Powys. As a medium and psychic myself, I had been aware of presences during the day, watching what was happening at a mind, body and spirit fair.

Then, when everyone gathered in the theatre for the ghost hunt, the atmosphere turned to one of absolute terror and despair - not from the audience but from the disembodied spirits, once people who had lived their lives and laughed and cried in that place.

They realised they were now to be hunted and jeered at, goaded into performing tricks to prove their presence to satisfy the grisly needs of the paying public. I left in tears, feeling their pain and distress.

People forget what spirits are. They are disembodied people, for the most part. That’s right people; it could be your great grandmother; it could be a child the same age as yours who is wandering between worlds desperate for help to pass over to the light, to be reunited with their loved ones.

Very occasionally, I have met ghosts who love the attention they get during a ghost hunt. Far more concern me, particularly those who do not know they are dead and those trapped by unresolved issues. These are distressed spirits who need help to pass over. I cannot understand why, once researchers have discovered a spirit, they do not call a medium to find out what that spirit wants and then help it pass to the light? I believe this is their duty, if they are ethical.

In the Victorian era the wealthy paid to go to lunatic asylums, to poke fun at the mentally infirm. This horrifies us now and, I hope one day we will be equally appalled at the way we treat our lost spirits.

If you ever think about going on a ghost hunt, ask yourself this one question: would you pay to see a frail old lady or a child locked in a cage? One who can never feel the warmth of human touch or taste the sweetness of food and drink? Someone who is in distress because their family has disappeared and they don’t know why? A human being who will stay in this state for all eternity unless their anguished cries are heard and heeded?

If you wouldn’t support that kind of explotation, please don’t go on a ghost hunt.

BA is wrong to ban the cross

2006-10-25T16:56:00.000+01:00

British Airways check-in desk worker Nadia Eweida will learn this week whether or not she can keep her job. She is currently suspended for breaking BA’s uniform code by wearing a discreet cross around her neck.

This is the second time this year that this particular issue has risen in relation to an airline. Back in January, BMI suggested flight crew who were not prepared to remove their crucifixes or crosses and wear traditional Arab dress on flights to Saudi Arabia should be transferred to short-haul flight crews.

It is also the second time in as many weeks when the issue of wearing a cross has hit the headlines. Apparently there was heated debate in BBC boardrooms recently as to whether TV newsreader Fiona Bruce should be allowed to wear her cross when reading bulletins. It seems she is to be allowed to continue to do so. Whether BA will make the same concession to check-in worker Nadia Eweida, 55, of Twickenham, remains to be seen.
BA refused permission for Miss Eweida to wear her cross on the grounds that ‘jewellery is not allowed.’ But this is no fashion statement for her: her tiny cross, the size of a 5p piece, has deep religious significance. “I will not hide my belief in the Lord Jesus,” she told the Daily Mail. “British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf and Sikhs to wear a turban…I stand up for the rights of all citizens.”

Okay, well let’s not get carried away here Miss Eweida, because I’m not convinced you’d be first in the queue to campaign for the rights on Muslim women to wear the veil. And, as my Druid friend Mark Graham points out, there is nothing in the Bible or Christian teaching that states followers must wear crosses and that BA surely has a right to stipulate a standard uniform for employees. I agree with his conclusion; this is not strictly a religious discrimination matter.

Nevertheless, it infuriates me beyond belief. I am becoming increasingly concerned at the numerous instances in this country where expressions of religion and belief in the workplace are accepted unless that faith is Christianity. As Miss Eweida said, sometimes it feels as if Christianity is being treated as a faith that is ‘null and void,’ despite the fact that 71% of us called ourselves Christian in the 2001 census.

Since 2003 we have had legislation protecting workers from discrimination on the grounds of their religious belief and, if anyone dares complain about a Sikh turban or Muslim hijab they are, quite rightly, considered to be out of order. So why, if Sikhs must be allowed to wear their turbans and steel bangles in the workplace and Muslim women should be allowed to wear hijab, is there an issue about Christians being allowed to wear small crosses? If Miss Eweida was wearing a giant crucifix, fine. She would be well out of order. But is making a fuss about a tiny silver cross really worth all the bad publicity BA has had as a result? I don’t think so. They have made a major blunder.

And what precisely is BA worried about anyway? It seems that in prohibiting the cross from being worn “outside the uniform” BA thinks it will offend its customers. This is nonsense. Apart from a small handful of secular fundamentalists who would do away with any form of religious expression, anywhere, and turn us all into a miserable bunch of atheists, I really don’t think people care. Many non-Christians wear the cross anyway, simply as a fashion accessory and those I have spoken to of other faiths certainly don't find it offensive.

“I feel BA have acted without thinking in this matter and have placed themselves in an absurd situation, Dr Indarjit Singh, Editor of The Sikh Messenger and regular BBC Radio 4 Thought for the Day contributor, told me. “An item should not be dismissed as jewellery if it has another significance. A Cross is clearly a religious symbol and wearing one suggests that the wearer wishes to be identified with Jesus Christ's uplifting teachings. Banning it shows gross insensitivity.”

And this from Ronald Alexander:

"I was raised Catholic and am now a practicing Buddhist and ordained Zen Monk. To not allow one to wear a sign such as a cross to work on ones body and or on ones clothing is disrespectful to the rights of a spiritual person. All faiths are important and symbols are resresentations of ones faith."

Warning - Ignore God at your peril

2006-10-19T15:24:00.000+01:00

‘Is God Dead?’ The words that filled the front cover of TIME magazine on 8th April 1966 became one of the most controversial headlines in history. Religion, secularists argued, was no longer necessary. Faith, they claimed, had been superseded by science, technology and the ‘triumph’ of secular rationalism.

While ’66 was a bit before my time, the same message permeated my childhood in the 70’s, running into my time at university and work in the 80’s and 90’s. Then the ‘noughties’ hit; the twin towers fell and, so the commentators said, ‘the world changed.’ Religious hysteria and fundamentalism were ‘back’ on the political agenda.

The truth, of course, is they never went away. Religious wars never stopped; religious prejudices remained as strong as ever; persecution of religion only made matters worse; fundamentalists never stopped winning converts and religion continued to matter. All that really changed was the attitude of secularists who refused to accept religion still had a hold in society; failed to understand its power as a force for either good or ill; and influenced western governments too obsessed with fighting communism to see the dangers of future religious regimes in Iran and Afghanistan.

Those who claim not to be religious can find it impossible to understand why others embrace faith or spirituality. They also cannot understand why, if people of faith are ignored, ridiculed or persecuted, some of them will get very angry. They forget (or choose to ignore) the fact that religion impacts society in a positive way most of the time, dismissing the wealth of learning, teaching and common sense religion offers and arguing instead that it is always dysfunctional. It becomes easy for them to marginalise religion, to attempt to eliminate it and, when this happens, there is always trouble in store.

The rising tide of Islamist and other forms of fundamentalism is the inevitable harvest the West is reaping for promoting this kind of ignorance about religion, and snubbing its importance. This isn’t to condone it – let alone sanction the violence that too often erupts in God’s name – but it does point the way forward, giving clues as to how to tackle the problem. And, at long last, post 9/11 and 7/7, governments are beginning to do what they should have done decades ago; talk to people of faith; find out what they actually believe; listen to their concerns; seek their counsel; try to understand rather than condemn and aim to work with rather than in spite of them, while – importantly – refusing to compromise fundamental democratic values.

Good work is being done. The tragedy is it has come fatally late; that the overall messages are inconsistent and that different groups are so caught up in their own selfish agendas that there is no real change to seen on the horizon just yet.

Muslim leaders are too quick to focus not on challenging extremists in their midst but on lecturing non-Muslims instead, telling them their behaviour is not Islamic.

Secular authorities worry about a possible backlash if they appear to suggest otherwise and, with no skills or - so political correctness leads them to believe – the authority to critique Islam, they turn a blind eye to clear, anti-Semitic, homophobic and misogynist statements made by supposedly moderate, mainstream Muslims.

Government ministers perpetuate the double-speak, insisting Islam is a religion of peace as they wage possibly illegal wars in Islamic countries, imprison Muslims without charge and refuse to call for immediate ceasefires when more wars break out. Muslims then point the finger of blame again, this time suggesting Western foreign policy fuels terrorist acts, while conveniently ignoring or not daring to challenge the twisted foreign policy and appalling human rights records of several Islamic countries.

Meanwhile, the growing ranks of fanatics in other faiths see Muslims getting attention and impacting the political agenda. Feeling this puts their own particular version of ‘The Truth’ under attack, they step up their own extremist efforts at every opportunity, shutting down still further the cause of pluralism, damaging the sensitive process of integration and thus storing up yet more trouble for the future.

The secularists seize upon this whole ungodly shouting match as grist to their own particular fundamentalist mill, spicing the whole vicious circle with a blend of ignorance, persecution and ridicule of the kind that gave rise to the problems in the first place.

Only a world steeped in confusion such as this could construct possibly the most horrific oxymoron ever created – ‘War on Terror.’ And until this hypocrisy stops, on all sides, there will be no shortage of takers willing to do bloody battle on behalf of the gods they have created in their own image.

Should we ban the burkha?

2006-10-06T19:37:00.000+01:00

Suzanne Evans and Sadi Mehmood respond to comments by Jack Straw on the Muslim veil.

Sadi Mehmood, Director, Noble Khan Ltd.

As a Muslim Women, who doesn’t wear hijab, or a head scarf, I am stuck in the middle of this debate. It seems that Muslims are the target of every little issue. I think it’s about time we stopped targeting a particular religion and take steps to understand, integrate and mix with each other.

As a cultural training provider, I meet a lot of people who feel intimidated by the Nikab, or full veil. Then, after taking my experiential courses they come out not having any issue with it. Why? Because education and touching and feeling things in a secure environment, breaks down barriers. If people feel unnecessarily intimidated they need to talk to people who work in this field to get help combating their fears.

Those who wear Nikab may feel intimidated or insecure if they took it off. We would never expect a nun to take of her head scarf, so why do we expect Muslims, to take them off? How does a piece of clothing stop an individual from integrating? It isn’t about clothes but how we as individuals need to be educated and shown how to integrate with people. It’s OK for government to say Muslims need to integrate, but what’s stopping English people from doing it first? Rather than just tolerate each other, why don’t we start getting to understand each other?

That said, I personally do not understand the purpose of Nikab. It is not Islamic. When Muslims visit Mecca for Hajj, women have to have their head covered but their face showing. They are not allowed to cover their faces. If this is what is expected in the holiest place on earth, then why would you need to cover your face anywhere else?

The Nikab is a cultural dress, not an Islamic requirement. Some argue it started in Saudi Arabia, to offer protection from sand storms and hot weather, which is why. Saudi men dress in a similar way. Some argue the Hijab is also not something Muslims had to do, but came about because men in the days of the Prophet Mohammed decided to copy his example. The prophet would ask his wives to cover themselves when they entered out, so they would not be harmed or ogled at by men because of his high profile. Other women naturally wanted to feel of equal worth to his wives and covered themselves too. The issue of covering needs to be understood – why would we cover a precious stone? To keep it safe, dust free, and so it doesn’t get hurt or damaged by others. A similar metaphor can be seen to have been used in this case.

It is sad that this country is getting to a stage of breakdown, I used to be proud that in England we have the freedom to wear what we want and as long as we abide by the laws of this country. I enjoyed being able to wear a kameez with a pair of Jeans, without anyone making nasty remarks. Now there is debate in the Muslim community because some of us might like to wear a cross, and we may be giving the wrong image off. I’m a Muslim and I wear a cross. It doesn’t make me a blasphemer.

www.noblekhan.co.uk

Suzanne Evans

We all have the right to wear what we like although, personally, I would prefer some women covered up a bit more in public. But, yes, I too would also prefer women not to wear niqab, or the full veil with only the eyes showing. Jack Straw is right when he says it is a visible statement of separation and difference that makes positive relations between communities more difficult.

The question is why should this be so? Walking through Wimbledon Village recently, I saw a Buddhist monk from the local Thai Buddhist Temple across the street and thought how wonderful he looked in his saffron robes. An hour or so later, I found myself feeling quite different emotions as a man accompanied by two fully veiled women stood behind me at the supermarket checkout. I was quite shocked by the difference in my reactions to what were after all only two different forms of religious dress. Why should I find one inspiring while the other made me feel angry? Why would I feel happy to speak to one in the street yet avoid the other?

As Jack Straw said, it is difficult talking to someone when you can’t see their face, be it because they are wearing a veil, huge reflective sunglasses or a motorbike helmet.

I suppose I also have problems with the niqab because I know it is not actually Islamic. Neither the Koran nor the Hadith demand it, requiring simply that women dress modestly, showing only the hands and the face. As Sadi Mehmood says above, the niqab is a cultural statement, not a religious one.

For these reasons, I wonder why a Muslim woman would choose freely to hide her face?

A few years ago I conducted some research into why British women were converting to Islam. Many of them spoke of the release Islam gave them from being ‘a sex object.’ I quite understand. There is tremendous pressure on women to be slim, attractive, young-looking and always well-dressed. The success of Trinny and Susannah, a million women’s magazines and a handful of lad-mags depends upon it. I don’t like it and welcome anything that aims to stop objectifying women in this way.

Yet I feel taking the full veil stereotypes and castigates men. It hints at the insulting idea that ‘all men are rapists who can’t control themselves.’ Worse, it implies that it is up to women to change this by hiding their personal identity. My whole being rebels against this idea. The vast majority of men are not rapists and they can control themselves. And as for those who can’t, why should it be for the woman to make the sacrifices?

The veil also causes resentment and division, I think, because we might feel those women who wear it are judging the rest of us who don’t. It is as if they are engaging in a kind of spiritual one-upmanship and assuming religious and moral superiority over me and their fellow Muslims who chose not to wear the veil. Our faces are a unique physical symbol of our identity and, when these women hide their faces, we feel they are effectively saying: ‘back off, don’t come near me, I do not wish to get to know you.’ I hope this is wrong, but this is the message given out and it is not a good one if we wish to create harmonious multi-faith societies.

To read Jack Straw’s original column in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, visit

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/

BBC was right to interview militant Islamist

2006-09-22T18:03:00.000+01:00

Each time I enter a Church, the first thing I do is kneel and say a prayer of thanks for my freedom to be there.

Whether or not you hold a religious belief, I hope you agree that to be able to attend places of worship when we want to in this country (whether to worship or simply admire the art and architecture) is a state of affairs we should never take for granted. Sadly, there are those who would strip us of this freedom.

John Humphries’ interview with Islamic militant Abu Izzadeen on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning made grim listening. You will recall he was the militant Muslim who heckled John Reid earlier this week. Putting aside the one moment I laughed aloud – when John Humphries was for a change the one forced to say ‘please let me get a word in edgeways’ - I was quaking with fear. Every one of Abu Izzadeen’s words was filled with hate.

He made it quite clear he would like to see Sharia law imposed in the UK. Given his extreme views, what could that mean for someone like me?

Under Abu Izzadeen’s law, I suspect I would be forced to do more than just clothe myself head to foot in sweltering black cloth, or risk being beaten if I refused. As a woman, there is a possibility I would be expected to give up my job, my livelihood and therefore the only means I have of supporting myself and my daughter. I might be confined to my home, having no male relatives to accompany me outside it. The (male) religious police, however, may have few qualms about entering my home to destroy my precious religious library, my Bibles and prayer books, my treasured Christian icons and my inspiring Buddha statue. I may well not be allowed to drive my car (in Saudi Arabia there is a belief that a woman's female hormones make her unstable and therefore a danger on the road). Might I be forced to attend a mosque? Forced to watch brutal executions in my town square or on my local football pitch? Perhaps the news on our state-sponsored TV screens would be of the deliberate and ‘glorious’ destruction of Stonehenge.

This is what Sharia law, very rigidly interpreted, could mean. It is what happened in Afghanistan under the Taleban.

Many people emailed the Today programme to say they were appalled the BBC had given time to this man. While I found the interview distressing listening, I believe they were absolutely right to broadcast his rage and hatred. We need to hear these voices. We need to know what is going on out there and know there are people like him who would trash our freedoms. Two particular groups of people in particular need to start thinking hard:

1. Women, increasingly young women, who fail to recognise how hard women have fought for the equality we enjoy in this country and believe feminism is no longer necessary. It is.

2, Muslims who do not agree with Azadeen. I do feel they should state their disagreement more clearly, rather than just dismissing comments like Abu Izzadeen's as 'unrepresentative.’

I so badly want to live in peace and harmony with my Muslim neighbours. I so badly want everyone to accept Islam and all faiths as offering immense wisdom, truth and joy, to recognise their great potential for good. But no one should stay silent about the abuses that take place in the name of religion.

There will be those who feel we should just take no notice of these extremists, that they are in the minority and they will eventually go away and that we give them more publicity by challenging them. I don't agree. It seems sometimes to me as if apathy has gripped our nation and we can’t afford to let it. As we all know, when good people do nothing, evil triumphs. It did in Afghanistan, in Zimbabwe, in the Sudan – in many places – and, if we let it, it will rear its ugly head again.

Listen to the Today programme interview here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_abu_20060922.ram

Bishop of Bolton -v- Halloween

2006-09-18T18:56:00.000+01:00

Holy Halloween! The Bishop of Bolton has written to the five major supermarkets suggesting they re-think the way they market the old Celtic festival known originally as ‘Samhein.’

He is concerned that by selling scary masks and costumes, supermarkets are focusing on the ‘dark, negative’ side of the celebrations and urges them to consider selling bright balloons and hair braids and other more colourful costumes alongside the more traditional Halloween stuff. Doing otherwise contributes to ‘trivialising the realities of evil in the world’ and encourages anti-social behaviour, he claims.

I thinnk the Bishop should lighten up. Is he really doing himself or the Church any favours by getting so worked up about all this?

Halloween is about death, like it or not, and that’s the way it should stay. We are far too willing in this country to sweep the harsh reality of our mortality under the carpet and pretend it doesn’t happen until it hits us or someone we love smack in the face. Halloween is one festival when it comes out into the open, giving children a way to face the reality of death – and the presence of evil in the world – in a non threatening, symbolic way.

In any case, if the Bishop really wanted to remove all things dark, negative and frightening from our festival year and from our worship, he might start by launching a campaign to ban Good Friday. And get every crucifix removed from every church in the land while he's at it. As a child, I found these infinitely more chilling than Halloween.

But no need, for I suspect what this argument is really all about is the growing popularity of what is essentially, still, a Pagan festival. The Medieval witch burnings may be over but, it seems, the Church is still slogging it out with its old arch enemy in any way it can.

The religious leaders' guide to bad PR

2006-09-15T19:43:00.000+01:00

Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to quote a 14th Century Christian emperor labelling Islam as "evil and inhuman" must rank highly on the list of international PR disasters. In describing these 600 year old words as "brusque" without further qualification, the Pope set the world on tenterhooks and put his own and others’ lives at stake.

In the wake of the row over the Muhammad cartoons, an angry response could and should have been predicted. Speeches made by world leaders such as the Pope are checked for possible errors, contradictions and potentially inflammatory statements. Benedict’s advisors must have seen this speech in advance; one of them may have written it in consultation with him. It should have been run past his PR people. So what went wrong? Did they fall asleep instead of keeping watch in his hour of need?

They appeared equally slow to wake up and diffuse the situation; instead, a statement put out by chief Vatican spokesman Frederico Lombari, without an apology, exacerbated it. The Pope didn’t mean to cause offence he said, adding:

“It is clear that the Holy Father's intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam."

In which case, Mr Lombari, the Holy Father committed the first sin of PR and went way ‘off message.’ If he seriously thinks quoting the words of a 14th century Christian emperor to critique 21st century Islam is a ‘clear’ sign of ‘respect,’ then Christian-Muslim relations are in deep trouble.

It was a first-class example of how not to do PR crisis management. Yes, the Holy See did eventually apologise but the move came four days too late, during which time a nun was shot in Somalia and two churches were burnt down in Palestine. And what was going on behind the scenes? As soon as it was clear a storm was brewing, senior staff could have made diplomatic contact with respected Muslims, assuring them the Pope had made an innocent mistake and expressing hopes the matter would not be allowed to escalate into an international crisis. Yet Muslim organisations worldwide expressed anger and began making demands, suggesting this did not happen. It remains to be seen whether the Vatican PR machine will be supplying a steady stream of stories highlighting more positive Papal views of Islam over the next few months.

Back to how the Vatican got itself into this mess in the first place. Part of the problem is that Benedict’s PR advisors are too like him. As practising Roman Catholics they are at a disadvantage, as are all faith groups who consult only within their own faith communities on external affairs. Internal PR officers who share the faith of their employers are inevitably going to be less confident in challenging their leaders and be less able to assess objectively how the outside world may respond to their views.

Benedict had every right to raise the issue of Islamic Jihad and violence committed in the name of Islam in his speech focussing on reconciling faith and reason. To go further and attempt to critique Islam was more risky, but legitimate if delivered sensitively and backed perhaps by Islamic sources. But by quoting a Christian Emperor, effectively using Christian thought to critique another faith, his speech became grossly insulting. An objective PR should have picked this up.

The same criticism applies to the Muslim response. While the US headline ‘Pope Implies Islam a Violent Religion: Muslims Bomb Churches’ just about sums the extremist’s idiot image management, moderates didn’t exactly do themselves any favours.

I am deeply saddened by the fact I have seen no quotes from Muslim organisations expressing regret that Islam is perceived increasing, worldwide, as a violent religion, and questioning what more they can do to promote peaceful manifestations of Islam.

Instead, most Muslims delivered the usual, stereotypical, Pantomime ‘oh no it’s not!’ response they nearly always deliver when anyone suggests Islam encourages violence. They seem to rejoice in a now familiar ‘them versus us’ victim mentality; the very mentality that lies at the root of the problem.

In PR, when trying to improve the reputation of an individual or organisation, you start by assessing their current reputation and take that as a given - irrespective of your own or their personal opinion – before drawing up a strategy to enhance it. Simply denying the problem exists never works.

Yet Muslim groups seem determined to continue to adopt this useless strategy. Two weeks ago, PR Week magazine revealed 78% of Britons felt the best-known UK Muslim organisation, the Muslim Council of Britain, was not doing enough to prevent members of its community becoming radicalised. How did the MCB take the news?

“This is interesting. We have long suspected this might be the case and are grateful to PR Week for giving us the opportunity to assure British people we take the radicalisation of young Muslims very seriously. We are working extremely hard with the police and other authorities to do a better job in future.”

Er, no. The response of the MCB spokesman was to highlight the “very disturbing and frankly bigoted agenda” of some of the media and suggest “it is for the police alone to take actual action against extremists.” How much easier it is to point the finger of blame at others than take responsibility for getting your own act together.

In religion, as in any other subject area, nothing changes if nothing changes.

This blog entry was published in the Church of England Newspaper

TV news presenters should learn to speak properly

2006-09-07T07:40:00.000+01:00

Would you trust a doctor who had no medical training? Would you hire an accountant who couldn’t do maths? Or employ a nanny who didn’t like children?

So why is it okay for the BBC to hire a presenter who can’t speak properly?

The death of Jill Dando in 1999 was a huge shock. She and I both worked at the BBC at the same time and shared a hairdresser, so we bumped into each other occasionally. I was equally shocked, however, when Barry George was found guilty of her murder. It seemed to me that the evidence against him was in no way strong enough to secure a conviction, so I was eager to see last night’s Panorama questioning his guilt.

It was in many respects an excellent programme. The narration was strong (if a little repetitive at times) and presenter Raphael Rowe’s questions appeared probing and perceptive. Yet Rowe’s delivery made me feel almost physically sick. It was so outrageously bad that my initial instinct was to switch off after just thirty seconds. I had to force myself – literally - to watch to the end.

Although clearly an intelligent guy, Rowe came across as a moronic, lazy and ill-educated idiot, all because his powers of speech (or lack of them) let him down.

He couldn’t say his r’s and he dropped his h’s. He said ‘anythink’ instead of ‘anything.’ Unable to put a ‘g’ on the end of his words, viewers had to listen to his endless repetition of key words such as investigatin’, takin’ and meanin’ instead of what they clearly should have been. He had the same problem with t’s, so George’s coat was repeatedly called a ‘co’ and his appearances in Court were described as ‘cour’ appearances.

I was exasperated at his inability to talk of ‘news’ or ‘new’ evidence. We got ‘Noos’ and ‘Noo’ instead. His voice demonstrated almost no variation of tone, rendering his narrative mostly monotonous and dull. When he committed the ultimate sin of referring to a clergyman as ‘Reverend Howe,’ instead of either adding the obligatory first name or substituting ‘Mr’ for ‘Reverend,’ I was ready to slit my wrists. Did no one in the entire, supposedly top-notch production team notice this error?

Please don’t call me snobbish or prejudiced. These problems have nothing to do with any speech disability or regional accent on Mr Rowe’s part. I have absolutely no problem with regional accents and loathe elocution as I feel it can strip the personality. I don’t care if comedians such as Jonathan Ross speak like this. I just happen to feel strongly that presenters of flagship news programmes ought to be able to communicate with us without distracting us by their inability to speak properly. If they can’t, they shouldn’t be given such a job in the first place.

Of course Mr Rowe could, should he chose, learn to speak properly. In fact he doesn’t have any problems that couldn’t be completely sorted in less than an hour with a half-decent voice coach. So, either he’s too big-headed to take advice or no one has raised the issue with him.

Which latter case begs the question, why not? Could it possibly be something to do his violent criminal record? Are those around him just a tiny bit timorous in the face of his rather worrying past?

Whatever; Rowe should sort his speech problems. He would increase his credibility by 1000%.

If he can’t or won’t, then the BBC should give his job to someone else; someone who is capable of doing it properly; who would no doubt value the break and take pride in seeking to improve their performance.

A bad week for journalism

2006-08-09T16:39:00.000+01:00

First, Reuters terminates its relationship with Adnan Hajj, a Beirut-based freelance photographer discovered to have doctored images taken during the Israel/Hizbollah conflict. Then the News of the World looses a libel case brought by the leader of the Scottish Socialist party, Tommy Sheridan, having accused him of cheating on his wife and visiting swingers’ clubs. Then, yesterday, the same newspaper’s Royal Correspondent, Clive Goodman, is arrested on suspicion of intercepting royal phone calls.

During his libel hearing, Tommy Sheridan lambasted the News of the World as “pedlars of falsehood, promoters of untruth, concerned only with sales, circulation and profit, not people’s lives and truth.” In the light of this week’s events, you could be forgiven for thinking him completely right.

Personally, I think the first part of his statement is a pervasive myth that needs to be buried. Yes, journalists regularly get it wrong, but this has more – usually - to do with tight deadlines, their own lack of knowledge and having to take what their contributors tell them on trust without checking the facts, than any outright attempt to ignore them for the sake of a good but fabricated story.

Mr Sheridan is right about newspapers’ concern with sales, circulation and profit though. It is no exaggeration to say they are at war over the issue and this leads to some very murky behaviour.

Year on year, paid-for newspaper circulation is falling while freely available new media in the form of Internet TV and radio, interactive websites, podcasting and blogging is rising sharply. Newspapers are caught in a cleft stick: they must keep up with new technological developments, so they develop excellent websites. What else can they put online but their news content? It’s catch 22; why buy a newspaper when you can read the bits you want online, for free, and without getting newsprint on your fingers?

Having shot themselves in the foot, to get their circulation up again and maintain advertising revenue, the papers’ need for dramatic headlines becomes increasingly voracious. Competition to get the latest celebrity ‘scandal’ first or to get the most sensational picture becomes intense and the likelihood of making mistakes rises accordingly. Either that or ridiculous, unethical and possibly illegal risks, such as the one allegedly taken by the NOW’s Royal Correspondent, suddenly seem worth taking. After all, jobs are on the line if reporters don’t dish the dirt.

Correspondingly, readers’ respect for the papers falls, along with circulation, until the next salacious headline is impossible to resist in the newsagents and the vicious circle kicks in all over again.

I believe firmly that a journalist has a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards. This isn’t just a whim on my part; this is the first clause in the National Union of Journalist’s Code of Conduct and it is there for good reason.

Looking at Adnan Hajj’s photoshopped pictures, you might wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, the two didn’t look so different, did they? But it is important, as Reuters, with a reputation as a leading news agency to maintain, knows all too well.

Sadly, not all organisations are as reputable or take such as strong stand as Reuters has done. I recall a couple of years’ back watching a local TV news report of a demonstration held that day. The presenter spoke of that day’s demonstration over footage not of that day’s demonstration but footage of a demonstration organised by the same pressure group the year before, implying that the pictures were only a few hours, rather than a year old.

The picture editor concerned clearly thought this did not matter. And why should it? Isn’t a demo a demo and as long as the point of the demo is reported and the pictures match the pressure group what does it matter if they are old?

It matters a great deal. That footage represented both a fundamental untruth and the thin end of a very disagreeable wedge.

I will never forget the chilling horror of CNN showing old footage of Palestinians rejoicing after the 9/11 attack and suggesting the pictures had in fact been shot after the twin towers collapsed. Did this not matter? I suspect more of us would be willing to condemn this incident as an utterly despicable act of media manipulation, but both incidents came from the same corrupt stable of ideas.

I would defend to the death the principle of press freedom but journalists should remember this freedom comes with a huge responsibility; to ensure the information they disseminate is fair, accurate and free from the expression of comment and conjecture as established fact. Some licence may be allowed and be forgiveable or even occasionally desirable with features reporting, but not when it comes to hard news.

A missed PR opportunity!

2006-08-07T18:37:00.001+01:00

In Norfolk to support Canon Christopher Davies, the outgoing Rector of Wimbledon who was taking up a new post in the Diocese, I popped into Norwich for a quick tour of the Cathedral. No sooner had I parked the car than two exceptionally good looking, well-dressed and well-groomed young men loomed towards me, bearing banana-split smiles. At first thought were going to ask me the way to the cathedral but their first words: “how are you today?” put me straight. It was clear I was going to have to make a quick getaway, having satisfied my professional curiosity as to whether they were Moonies or Mormons.

“I’m Tom, from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints…”

Mormons then; not that I said so. They hate the phrase and I am far too polite to use it. Also out of politeness, I accepted an offer of ‘some literature’ in place of an attempted conversion.

‘Literature’ turned out to be a ridiculous misnomer. What I was actually given was one of the worst pieces of religious marketing I have ever encountered; a frighteningly old-fashioned tract with a cover featuring a strawberry-blonde haired, soft-focus Christ cradling a lamb, against a backdrop of what looked like the Tora Bora mountains and titled ‘The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’ (I’d love to show a picture but that would be breach of copyright so you’ll just have to use your imagination).

The inside was worse still. Drawings and photographs of impossibly beautiful, outrageously wholesome people you would be terrified to approach unless they told you had a hair out of place, accompanied rambling script printed in an ancient font that could have come out of the Ark, or at least been run off the printing press when the church was originally founded in the 1820s.

Why they think it would encourage any interest among anyone actually living in the 21st century is beyond me. This kind of tat is destined to attract only nostalgic over nineties or misogynist bores who want to return to the ‘good old days’ when men wouldn’t dream of wearing anything but ‘suits or nice pants’ and women and girls only ‘dresses and skirts’ (and I quote the tract here). Of course, they would be disappointed when they realised the church actually abandoned polygamy over 100 years ago.

Only later did I realise I should have bombarded them back, forcing my business card on them on the grounds that their organisation was clearly in dire need of a life-changing conversion to 21st century marketing and PR techniques. A re-design and a re-write of this travesty of a tract was the least that should be done as a matter of urgency, ahead of a complete re-brand and re-launch of the entire organisation.

Then again, other may be thrilled to hear the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hands out singularly unattractive tracts and is failing to take steps to update its image. Mark Twain once described The Book of Mormon as ‘literary chloroform’ and it seems nothing has changed since. I’ll be putting the tract to good use when I next suffer a sleepless night...

Don't believe everything you read in the papers...

2006-07-27T15:22:00.000+01:00

Three days ago, we sent out a press release about the 2006 Lammas Games, a fun event for all the family held in Oxfordshire and run by The Druid Network.

“Traditional harvest sports such as wife-carrying, spear throwing and giant cheese rolling will return to Oxfordshire this summer,” said the press release, explaining how these games originally formed part of ancient celebrations for the season of Lammas, when fairs, tournaments and rituals were held in honour of the first harvest.

The release highlighted a spear throwing festival (with an effigy of Ronald MacDonald as a target, making the political point that Lammas should be about working in harmony with nature); the availability of a new, appropriately named real ale called Druid’s Fluid, displays of Stav, an ancient martial based on rune stones and the opportunity to see a Druid Lammas Ritual.

Good exciting stuff, we thought, but was it exciting enough for the Oxford Mail? Gosh no. They upped the wow factor sky high.

Their report this morning talks of a ‘giant’ effigy of Ronald MacDonald being ‘ceremonially burnt,’ by ‘Druids in full robes,’ while others ‘fight with staves,’ ‘fuelled’ by real ale.

After the initial shock at the unrepentant hype, we and the client had a good laugh. What an imaginative scene! Okay, none of the stuff in quotation marks above was true, but we had to admit it made the games sound even more interesting and the journalist concerned had been kind enough to list full details of the event so no one was in any doubt about when and where it was to be held.

Only Fox, the spear throwing organiser is still worried sick. He’s having real trouble tracking down a ‘giant’ red-haired clown at such short notice…