• Wars and rumours of wars

    The message coming from France is reasonably predicatable – France is at war.

    However, I am unconvinced that states can win a war against ideas. Although Isis is very much a real body of people intent on doing harm through wicked acts, Isis is not so much a group of people as a group of ideas. It is the coherence of those ideas which makes it possible for Isis to attract people to commit its barbarous acts.

    The lack of knowledge and thinking in the West about Isis and similar religiously inspired terrorist movements frightens me very deeply.

    We know from our own history that one of the best ways to spread ideas is to persecute those who hold them. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church and all that. Bombing those sympathetic to Isis may lead to short-term military gains but it will also spread those ideas, ideas which feed off resentment against the West in the first place.

    There has been a huge amout of effort in the last 48 hours that has gone into putting out a coherent statement that these acts have nothing to do with Islam. And it is true – these acts have nothing to do with the Islam that I know locally in Glasgow, with Muslim friends or with those who are trying to seek sanctuary in this country as refugees. However, the existance of Isis is very much to do with religion and is proof positive of just how bad things can get when religion goes wrong.

    One sees from time to time the vacuous statements of those who exploit situations such as this to argue that as religion is the cause of all this then religion itself should be wiped out. However, I think that there are multiple causes for all this, many of which go back to the real colonialism of years ago alongside the neocolonialism of the actions of elite states such as the UK in our own day. Poverty, instability and injustice stoke the fires of resentment that allow extremism to flourish. Some might well take the view that religion is the cause of all this but an argument can just as easily be made that extreme fundamentalism flourishes precisely where moderate religious voices have been silenced. Attacking moderate religous people for being religious seems to me to be more likely to result in extremism flourishing rather than being overcome.

    Yet, even as we stand alongside one another we are deeply ignorant of one another and the ignorance that we have makes it very hard to have any meaningful dialogue with one another. I know why I get told about the five pillars of Islam whenever I go to a Muslim event – it is because most non-Muslims are so completely and utterly ignorant of that faith that you have to start somewhere. But the consequence is that we struggle to have a very meaningful conversation about things that do really matter.

    Do we believe in the fundamental equality of men and women or don’t we? Do we believe in freedom of expression or don’t we? Do we believe that blasphemy laws are appropriate to a modern society or don’t we? How do you deal with offensive humour? How should each of the religions (my own included) deal with its own internal contradictions and sectarianism? These are all things that need rather a lot of conversation. There is a lot to talk about and few venues for that conversation.

    For me, the clear narrative that Isis have needs to be challenged by a much clearer narrative of the kind of society that we want to have in the West. We need ideals to fight for not just enemies to fight against.

    And what do we really want? Do we settle for mere tolerance of one another. Do we want to recommit ourselves to multiculturalism? Do we have the wisdom and discernment to be able to argue for a gently secular state that allows all to thrive rather than the fundamentalist delusions of some of today’s secularist voices? There are different Islams in the world. There are different secularisms. There are different Christianities.

    Are there a set of British/Scottish/Western values that we can all articulate? Fair play, cricket and a stiff upper lip are not going to win these battles. At the very time that we need to rally behind the human rights cause that might bring us together, we have politicians in power trying to undermine the Human Rights Act.

    What kind of society do we believe in? What kind of society do we think is worth fighting for. A very great deal of thinking needs to be done to work out the answer to that question. Wars and rumours of wars seem to be coming our way. They will be won or lost not merely by the strength of our military might but by the world we chose to believe can be created.

    Now is the time to think.

    We are more likely to win with shock and awe thinking than shock and awe bombing.

2 responses to “10 Things I learned from being a General Election Candidate”

  1. Father David Avatar
    Father David

    Your second point about people knowing almost nothing about the democratic process was demonstrated admirably in a recent television programme called “Educating Joey Essex”. The young man in question who came to fame via TOWIE interviewed three leaders of Political Parties – Messrs Clegg, Miliband and Farage (Mr. Cameron declined to be interviewed). By the end of the programme Joey had learned that Parliament was an institution rather than a person.
    May I add an eleventh point to your list of ten?
    In American Presidential elections it is often said that the candidate with the most hair usually wins (that bodes well for Hillary Clinton). I will stick my head above the parapet and say that the leader who wears a tie (i.e. Looking most Statesman like) will become Prime Minister. Throughout the campaign Mr. Miliband has consistently been seen wearing a tie and a smart suit while Mr. Cameron has been seen wearing an open neck shirt with rolled up sleeves and Mr. Clegg similarly attired with open neck shirt and a casual blue jumper. I therefore foresee that Ed Miliband will gain the keys to Number 10 following tomorrow’s General Election. Despite protestations to the contrary he will probably do so with the assistance of the admirable and formidable Nicola Sturgeon who is also a model of sartorial elegance. however my theory is at its weakest when looking at the way the leader of Ukip is also similarly smartly attired but thankfully and mercifully Nigel hadn’t a hope in hell of winning! Mind what does it say of our electoral system is the SNP get 5% of the vote and are rewarded with 50 seats and Ukip get 10% of the vote and only win 2 seats? Having said that, I’m still a first past the post man.

    1. Tim Avatar

      I’m still a PR chap but that scenario is a great argument in favour of FPTP 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Speaking unto the Nation

    I’ve been in church for so very many hours this weekend that I’ve got no words left. However, you might enjoy listening to me speaking unto the nation on the wireless this morning. This link should take you to the BBC iPlayer. I wasn’t awake when this went out at 6.30 am. Either it was…

  • Even more service…

    This part of Scotland is a lucky place at the moment – we’ve just made someone else a deacon. With another one tomorrow, that’s three new deacons in the space of 10 days or so. That’s a lot of sacramental service suddenly on offer. Today is was the turn of Liz O’Ryan from St John’s…

  • Love Management – coping with change

    The world does seem to be sharply divided sometimes between people who enjoy change and people who are frightened by it. It is possible that things are not so black and white when you drill down into individual attitudes. Some of us may embrace change sometimes and be threatened by it at others. However, at…

  • More on the Blog Redesign

    Just in case anyone is interested in the technicalities of yesterday’s Blog Redesign… What you are looking at now is based on StudioPress’s Prose theme. What you were looking at before was based on a theme by Andreas Viklund  (WP-Andreas01) to whom I am grateful for offering such a good, free, stylish theme which I’ve…