By Dwight Swanson

The Road Goes Ever On...

By Dwight Swanson

The mighty River Bollin

By Dwight Swanson

If you don't grasp British humour, read this: link

For a glimpse of the problems Noah faced, look at this report on an upcoming cinema version: link

By Dwight Swanson

The Daily Gazelle recently received a copy of 'M6: Sights Guide', by Mike Jackson. This is billed as a guide to ‘everything you can see from your vehicle on the motorway’, and lives up to its promise. Unfortunately, sales have not been great, and the Editor’s copy comes as a result of a garage clear-out.

Anyone who has ever driven the M6 Motorway is bound to ask the question, as did the Editor, ‘Isn’t the title an oxymoron? How can anyone put the words “M6” and “sights” together?’ All one can see from the M6 is the tail of the car in front of you, or the flashing signals warning of congestion ahead. Besides, one doesn’t need the warning ‘Drivers—do not use while travelling’ to grasp that you don’t have time to see any sights while barrelling down the tarmac at mad speeds.

Then, on second thought, the genius of the book shines through. What better companion to have on this accursed ribbon of road? Any journey on any day of the week is predetermined to include a considerable amount of time standing absolutely still. The M6 should be billed as Britain’s largest car park. Everyone, including the driver, needs just such a helpful guide to what is over the hedge.

For readers who have not experienced the delights of this highway, we offer some glimpses of the delights to be seen on the stretch between Manchester and Birmingham (pronounced ‘Birm-ing-um’, with accent on ‘Birm’; not ‘Birm-ing-ham’, with emphasis on ‘ham’). (more)

By Dwight Swanson

Part II in the Law of Unintended Consequences for Christian evangelists.

We observed in Part I how the evangelical Christian sense of obligation to ‘witness’ can lead to a use of religious jargon that is incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Now we turn to another example found in another newspaper on the same day—this time, directed at the conversion of Muslims. This article is titled ‘Preach & Run, the Campaign to Convert Muslims from their Religion’, appearing in The Muslim Weekly, which describes itself as ‘the voice for Muslims in Britain’. You can read the article here link

The author of the article describes an all-too familiar tactic of evangelicals who genuinely wish to share their faith, undoubtedly have a genuine desire to see people, including Muslims, know Christ, but who see people more as objects of witness than as people. The great error here is the failure to bother to learn anything about the people they approach, or about their beliefs. (more)

By Dwight Swanson

The discussion regarding Muslim women wearing the veil has continued to rage in the British media. This seemingly minor issue appears to be on the way to becoming a defining point in race relations and religious tolerance in Britain.

The debate largely surrounds the question of cultural integration: To what extent should people from other cultures blend in with the norms of the culture in which they live? Is the niqab (full facial coverage except for the eyes) a religious obligation to be respected, or is it a statement of refusal to become part of British society?

The responses have been as diverse as British society, much of it hysterical and reactionary. One reactionary response comes from the doyen of The Guardian, Polly Toynbee, an avowed atheist and secularist who believes religion is the root of all evil. Her viewpoint can be read here: link (more)

By Dwight Swanson

The news headlines in the British press this week have been dominated by controversy which started from an article by Jack Straw, Leader of the House of Commons, in his local Blackburn newspaper. Straw, former Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary in the present UK government, stated that he preferred Muslim women who wear the full veil to remove it when meeting with him.
This comment started a storm of criticism and backlash from all sides of the political sand religious spectra (plural of spectrum?). Today’s Manchester Evening News includes these two stories:

one link, concerning a Muslim teaching assistant who would not remove her veil when teaching children; the other link, about a British Airways employee required to remove (or cover) the cross on her necklace. Popular media opinion seems to support the school for suspending the Muslim woman, and the Christian woman for her right to wear a cross publicly.



Are these matters of principle? Of life and death? (more)

By Dwight Swanson

Keeping options open

By Dwight Swanson

As Muslims enter the second week of Ramadan, Jews observe Yom Kippur today. Both are periods which focus on confession of sin and receiving forgiveness. Christians have traditionally sought these particularly in the season of Lent.

In these days of strife, often done in the name of religion, it would be fitting for all in each of the religions of Abraham to pause to repent of our sins of hatred towards each other; of the violence our words have so often given reign to; of our arrogance in assuming we know God’s mind fully. Let us seek God’s forgiveness, and that of those we have wronged.

And, may God grant us the newness of life that transforms the weaknesses of our pasts into paths of peace and justice.

By Dwight Swanson

President George W Bush has gained the support of the US Senate for his plan to restrict the trials detainees at Guantanamo. They will be tried by specially created military commissions. The bill that has been passed will prohibit ‘blatant abuses’ of detainees, but President Bush is given the right to define what this means. The Republican majority defeated an amendment to restrict the life of the bill to five years.

There are two aspects of this which are deeply troublesome, and have been since the establishment of the camp in Cuba. The first has to do with an essential aspect of freedom which is at the core of American self-understanding—the writ of habeus corpus. The second is not merely a matter of the ‘American way of life’, but is wholly alien to the teaching of Jesus—the acceptance of torture.

Both of these are running sores on the credibility of America around the world. Americans need to grasp just how much damage these have done to all that the US has claimed to be and stand for over the past two centuries. No amount of rationalising by reference to ‘the war on terror’ is able to justify these to any other part of the world.

Regarding the first, the right of a person who has been arrested to be charged and to face the charges in court at the earliest possible time is a basic American expectation. The demand goes back to abuses at the hands of the British, when people could be left in prison indefinitely without charge at the whim of the authorities. To prevent this sort of abuse, the US constitution explicitly forbids it. When Bush speaks of the terrorists’ attack on ‘our freedoms’, and of his mission to spread democracy, he seems to miss the irony that he denies those very freedoms which derive from our democracy to those held in the various prisons around the world under US supervision. Indeed, the creation of Guantanamo was an elaborate charade to get around the US constitution.

It seems that the only freedom Bush is fighting for is that of Americans, not of anyone else.

As grievous as this attack on basic American values is, the second is all the more grievous because of the explicit Christian faith of the president. In my initial response to 9/11 (which can be read in 'An Occasional Special'), I pondered what might happen if a Christian president were to respond in keeping with the great Love Command. Based on the evidence of Bush’s actions, the Love Command has never entered his counsels. Indeed, the only reference to the role of personal faith, speaking of praying before every decision, seems to suggest that he believes that confirmed his decision.

The very idea of the torture of prisoners has always been obnoxious to Americans. In every war, the public expectation has always been that Americans treat their captives humanely, no matter what the ‘enemy’ may do. The US played a large part in enshrining this value in international law, through the Geneva Convention. It is abominable for any American president to seek to undermine that law even by implication—and certainly beyond excuse for one to redefine torture to allow ‘flexibility’ in the methods used in interrogation. I am not naïve enough to think that our secret agencies and security services have had lily-white hands throughout the history of the US. But at least public expectation and values have required the agencies to hide their work in the dark. To give public sanction from the highest office is to open the door to worse abuses than have been seen at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

Thus far, my argumentation is largely ‘political’, and has been stated by many others in prominent positions. But it is time for Christians, especially evangelical Christians, to speak up against this abuse of human beings, and to proclaim it for what it is, a sin for a Christian president to condone, let alone promote, such a policy.

This is the greatest moral issue facing America today. It is of more immediate consequence than abortion or the question of gay partnerships. It is of great importance to Christians because the whole of the Muslim world sees Bush as representative of Christianity, and all they see is violence and abuse of Muslims, most—yes, most—of whom have been innocent of any crime. To recognise this is not to give aid to terrorists (are Americans really convinced by Bush’s constant refrain?), or to be anti-American, or to be liberal. It is to judge such actions on the basis of Christian scripture and to refuse to place national policy in a box that is immune to the ethics of Christ.

If evangelical America remains silent on this issue, and prefers to restrict its concept of moral virtue to sexuality, it will soon find itself irrelevant to the world. And, wanting in moral authority.