Sorry- couldn't resist the play on words, but I felt the need for one more post on marriage/partnership before I change subject.
Speaking of words, I think Steve has a lot of wisdom in his observation that we live in a culture of changing words and definitions. Whatever your opinion on how certain words are used, they do alter in a changing culture, and we may well be living in a time where the meaning of the word 'marriage' is changing. We no longer live in a society or culture where the only kind of relationship which can be registered and certified is heterosexual. In a parallel universe, the language might have evolved to give us a generic term for all kinds of registered partnerships, another term for gay ones and 'marriage' for heterosexual ones. If that is how things were moving linguistically, it would be quite logical to argue that the term 'marriage' be reserved for heterosexual commitments, without any moralistic overtones.
However, that's not where we are, and refusing to acknowledge that is like, well, insisting that 'gay' doesn't mean homosexual... Although the legal rights and responsibilities of civil partnerships are now the same as those for a married couple, the term 'marriage' clearly has a siginificance for those currently denied the opportunity to use it formally. I would genuinely be interested to hear more about that from gay people. I've heard the counter-argument from both ends of the opinion spectrum - from social conservatives who wish to deny gay people any equivalence, and also from gay people who reject the historical baggage that the term 'marriage' can carry. But there does seem to be a growing consensus that marriage is becoming the generic term.
What we have seen recently in the media seems to me to be one argument dressed up as another. The case presented by the Coalition for Marriage and others uses a lot of terminological and linguistic argument, and is careful to acknowledge the right of people to register a civil partnership, However, it is clearly backed by quite a lot of people who essentially disapprove of all gay relationships, whatever they are called and however they are registered. It also alienates those whose marriages have ended in divorce, asking for the following legal definition: "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." There's a minefield there...
Maybe what we need now is simply to accept that the language is changing. How much difference will it really make in practise to the stability of traditional marriages to change the terminology? If the Christians represented by Coalition for Marriage are so passionate about supporting marriage, wouldn't the energy be better put into helping people prepare for the commitment of marriage? Or helping them cope with the external pressures upon their marriage, or maybe resolve some of the baggage that can impair a relationship? Problems with communication, finance and latterly affairs arising from relationships formed on social networks are some of the biggest factors damaging marriages. Many people don't even choose to get married, so what positive things have we got to say to commend such a commitment to them?
Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to me to suggest that gay relationships being called marriages will have any damaging effect. What possible damage would it do to my marriage or anyone else's for civil partners to call themselves married? We can still have ethical debates about what may be acceptable to particular faith communities, but do we really think this is the big issue driving social and societal disintegration? I suspect there are other battles much more worth fighting.
I do share the belief that marriage can contribute to the stability and order of society - it provides some of the structure and framework by which we know who is connected to whom, and all that goes with that. It means that relationships aren't just arbitrary and subjective but have external verification and accountability. I just don't see how excluding gay people from that framework makes for greater order and stability, or enhances heterosexual marriage. Sorry, I won't be signing up.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
A little bit of dissent
The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has been making headlines over the issue of gay marriage. In opposition to proposals supported by David Cameron, he opposes the possibility of gay marriage, stating that marriage is a bedrock of society and that it would be wrong for the definition to be changed to include same-sex couples.
I've been thinking about this issue for some time - I blogged about it back in 2009, when I suggested that the 'undermine marriage' argument against civil partnerships was unsustainable. Indeed, I suggested that having a means to register legally long-term faithful same-sex relationships should have an ordering and stabilising effect on society, rather than the opposite.
But what of the symbolism of the terminology involved? The legal status and consequences might be the same, but civil partnership doesn't sound the same as marriage. For some gay people, this is seen as a positive. I once heard a lesbian student explain why she would not want a marriage, even if it became legally available, as the term 'marriage' was tainted by patriarchal oppression of women. Likewise, there was an attempt by a heterosexual couple to change the law to allow a civil partnership. However, for others the inability to call their commitment 'marriage' is a shortcoming.
And on top of all of this, the Church of England still has a prominent role in registering marriages, but a very hot and ongoing internal debate on the issue of homosexual relationships. Churches and other religious groups are also concerned that they could be legally forced to celebrate same-sex unions.
Here's a suggestion: why don't we take all the legal stuff out of the hands of churches? What if everyone had to register their relationship in a civil ceremony first, in order to satisfy all the legal issues. Then religious communities could be free to celebrate (or not) the relationships their beliefs could accommodate with complete freedom. For the C of E, that could have some interesting consequences - a step towards disestablishment some might say, not to mention the fear of losing fee income. But maybe that would be a new challenge - what do we want to celebrate with members of our community and why? And where would we draw the line, and who would we leave out?
On this occasion, I don't think the Archbishop has been very wise (if he has been correctly reported). It's perfectly possible to have a dispassionate debate about the definition of the word marriage, and whether it can be applied to anything other than a heterosexual union. Linguistically and culturally one could argue that case, even if you have no objection to same-sex relationships. But that's not what people will hear from the Archbishop, and it appears he was saying more than that. I fear it will only lead to the church as a whole being portrayed (again) as bigoted and prejudiced.
I've been thinking about this issue for some time - I blogged about it back in 2009, when I suggested that the 'undermine marriage' argument against civil partnerships was unsustainable. Indeed, I suggested that having a means to register legally long-term faithful same-sex relationships should have an ordering and stabilising effect on society, rather than the opposite.
But what of the symbolism of the terminology involved? The legal status and consequences might be the same, but civil partnership doesn't sound the same as marriage. For some gay people, this is seen as a positive. I once heard a lesbian student explain why she would not want a marriage, even if it became legally available, as the term 'marriage' was tainted by patriarchal oppression of women. Likewise, there was an attempt by a heterosexual couple to change the law to allow a civil partnership. However, for others the inability to call their commitment 'marriage' is a shortcoming.
And on top of all of this, the Church of England still has a prominent role in registering marriages, but a very hot and ongoing internal debate on the issue of homosexual relationships. Churches and other religious groups are also concerned that they could be legally forced to celebrate same-sex unions.
Here's a suggestion: why don't we take all the legal stuff out of the hands of churches? What if everyone had to register their relationship in a civil ceremony first, in order to satisfy all the legal issues. Then religious communities could be free to celebrate (or not) the relationships their beliefs could accommodate with complete freedom. For the C of E, that could have some interesting consequences - a step towards disestablishment some might say, not to mention the fear of losing fee income. But maybe that would be a new challenge - what do we want to celebrate with members of our community and why? And where would we draw the line, and who would we leave out?
On this occasion, I don't think the Archbishop has been very wise (if he has been correctly reported). It's perfectly possible to have a dispassionate debate about the definition of the word marriage, and whether it can be applied to anything other than a heterosexual union. Linguistically and culturally one could argue that case, even if you have no objection to same-sex relationships. But that's not what people will hear from the Archbishop, and it appears he was saying more than that. I fear it will only lead to the church as a whole being portrayed (again) as bigoted and prejudiced.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
A test of your metal
It was good to see some more coverage on the news today about the problems of metal theft. Churches are well-acquainted with this, with rising number of thefts of roof lead and the consequential damage and rising insurance costs.
However, it's not just a problem for churches. Other public buildings have also suffered, war memorials have been vandalised, commemorative plaques have been removed from cemeteries, and the ongoing transport disruption resulting from theft of cables from railways affects many people. The tragedy is that replacing the items stolen costs far more than the scrap value received for the metal.
One simple step to make life more difficult for the thieves is to make all money transactions for scrap cashless. This means that there is an audit trail for payments made for metal, which makes transactions relating to stolen metal more traceable. It won't solve the problem, but it should mean that such thefts are no longer such easy money.
It looks like government may act, either by supporting a Private Members Bill relating to this issue or by introducing its own legislation. If you would like to encourage this move, you can add your support via an online petition on the government website.
However, it's not just a problem for churches. Other public buildings have also suffered, war memorials have been vandalised, commemorative plaques have been removed from cemeteries, and the ongoing transport disruption resulting from theft of cables from railways affects many people. The tragedy is that replacing the items stolen costs far more than the scrap value received for the metal.
One simple step to make life more difficult for the thieves is to make all money transactions for scrap cashless. This means that there is an audit trail for payments made for metal, which makes transactions relating to stolen metal more traceable. It won't solve the problem, but it should mean that such thefts are no longer such easy money.
It looks like government may act, either by supporting a Private Members Bill relating to this issue or by introducing its own legislation. If you would like to encourage this move, you can add your support via an online petition on the government website.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Is theism getting a bad press?
I'm not very sure how to phrase this post correctly. I have been musing for a while about a change I've observed over the time I have been ordained. It seems that there are now significantly more atheist voices who are more vocal and critical of belief in God, especially in the media and in public life. The question is: why?
Looking at the kinds of digs atheists make online, they're not always very sophisticated or original. Some atheists even seem to mirror religious fundamentalists in their absolutism. Even when the critique is more considered, it's usually the case that Christians have been struggling with the same issues for centuries. Suffering, theodicy, Old Testament wrath vs New testament compassion, etc are all there in theology textbooks (but not any neat answers). Maybe that's the problem: people who want neat answers find a messy God difficult.
If there is a trend, my first hunch is that the percentage of people who don't believe in God may not have changed as much as we think; it's just that their presence is felt more now. It's not as if atheism was invented when Richard Dawkins started selling books about it - people who didn't believe have been around for a long time.
I also suspect that quite a lot of the British never really believed in God in any very specific way, if at all. However, at most they described themselves as agnostic. Not a few of them probably went along to church, because it was a 'good thing' and saw it as supporting community and family. The 'supernatural' bit passed them by, and there are still churchgoers for whom that is true. The stronger tag of atheist probably seemed a bit definite for those 20th century sensibilities.
If there is a trend, my first hunch is that the percentage of people who don't believe in God may not have changed as much as we think; it's just that their presence is felt more now. It's not as if atheism was invented when Richard Dawkins started selling books about it - people who didn't believe have been around for a long time.
I also suspect that quite a lot of the British never really believed in God in any very specific way, if at all. However, at most they described themselves as agnostic. Not a few of them probably went along to church, because it was a 'good thing' and saw it as supporting community and family. The 'supernatural' bit passed them by, and there are still churchgoers for whom that is true. The stronger tag of atheist probably seemed a bit definite for those 20th century sensibilities.
What's become clear in recent years is that attitudes to organised faith/religion have changed. The Church of England was once seen as basically benign, if rather odd, eccentric, ineffectual and from a different era. Church of England schools and colleges would be seen as 'nice' places to study, even by those who didn't practise the faith in any committed way. There is now a debate as to whether these institutions should receive any public support at all, or even whether churches and faith groups qualify as charities.
So why isn't theism seen as benign for wider society any more? Religious conflicts must be part of the picture. These aren't new, either, and nor is sectarian terrorism. There was plenty of that during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. However, more recent developments such as suicide bombing and the description of such as martyrdoms has pointed to a difficult question. If it is believed that human existence doesn't depend on this material world, but upon a relationship with the divine, then someone can acquire an attitude that says this life doesn't really matter. And in case Christians start getting superior at this point, that tradition is there in our faith too. It hasn't worked itself out in suicide bombing, but in medieval times, being killed on the Crusades was regarded as tantamount to martyrdom. How do we hold that 'this isn't everything', yet still value the material world as real and precious?
Ethics and values have changed the goalposts too. Churches are often seen as maintaining sexist and homophobic values in an era when society's norms and the laws of the land have moved on from traditional standpoints. If the perception out there is growing that theism = prejudice and discrimination, then it's hardly surprising to hear a more vocal critique from theosceptics. (Have I just invented that word? Must look it up later)
If my hunches bear any relation to reality, I'm not particularly worried about these shifts in attitude. One the one hand, Christians should expect opposition if they are being true to the teaching of Jesus - it certainly came his way. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be a lot more unpopular about poverty, economic exploitation and injustice.
On the other hand, we also need to listen. The Bible and the Christian tradition are complex, and it's easy to confirm our own pet prejudices with careful selection of our sources. Sometimes a radical challenge from outside our comfortable circle of like-minded can jolt us into re-examining what we think and why we think it.
Perhaps most of all we need to be more willing to live more radical lives. Maybe the reason more people openly say they don't believe any more is that they can see precious little reason for belief in the lives of those who say they do.
If my hunches bear any relation to reality, I'm not particularly worried about these shifts in attitude. One the one hand, Christians should expect opposition if they are being true to the teaching of Jesus - it certainly came his way. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be a lot more unpopular about poverty, economic exploitation and injustice.
On the other hand, we also need to listen. The Bible and the Christian tradition are complex, and it's easy to confirm our own pet prejudices with careful selection of our sources. Sometimes a radical challenge from outside our comfortable circle of like-minded can jolt us into re-examining what we think and why we think it.
Perhaps most of all we need to be more willing to live more radical lives. Maybe the reason more people openly say they don't believe any more is that they can see precious little reason for belief in the lives of those who say they do.
Getting back into things
It hasn't appeared on the blog before, but friends will be aware that this autumn has been quite eventful for the Peatpeople. We had quite a full session planned anyway, but none of us could have anticipated what happened to Debbie (brain haemorrhage) on the parish weekend. It makes you realise how life can just overtake you and throw any sense you might have had about the future. Certainly we were overwhelmed as a family, and I feel I'm only just ctaching up with myself 3 months on. On the positive side, Debbie's recovery has been excellent, and there appear to be no lasting effects other than a susceptibility to get tired much more quickly than 'normal'.
This time of year is full of speculation and predictions for the coming year. My prediction would be this: 2012 will have at least on significant unexpected event for all of us, and there's probably no way of guessing its nature. All we can do is get with life on the basis of what we know, and not on what we don't.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
High Speed Trains
I'm basically a railway fan. Time and time again, strategic mistakes seem to have been made in managing our rail network, resulting in towns isolated and cities badly served. Over the last 30 years we've seen old lines re-opened and even new lines built. On top of that, Britain has been a pioneer of railway technology.
However, I am a bit of a sceptic about the need for the High Speed 2 rail route. Billions of pounds (from where?), lots of countryside chopped up and hordes of nimbys protesting for years can only follow. It's seems to me that the problem facing our railways at the moment is capacity. Trains are crowded, and there just aren't the slots for expanding services - either passenger or freight.
Wouldn't it be better to look at making our existing network better? The West Coast Main Line capacity gets limited by the double track sections in very busy areas, especially in the Midlands. Why not spend a fraction of the HS2 money on dealing with some of those bottlenecks? Some would be difficult and expensive to fix, but nowhere near the bill for HS2! Or why not look at investing to reopen some of the routes which would take the strain off currently busy ones? The Woodhead route would relieve cross-Pennine trains, the old Midland route through Derbyshire via Matlock, Bakewell and Buxton would give extra north-south capacity, or why not go the whole way with the current partial reopening of the Waverley route from Carlisle to Edinburgh via Hawick?
I want to see more railways, more trains and better routes, but is the priority really getting from London to Birmingham in record time?
However, I am a bit of a sceptic about the need for the High Speed 2 rail route. Billions of pounds (from where?), lots of countryside chopped up and hordes of nimbys protesting for years can only follow. It's seems to me that the problem facing our railways at the moment is capacity. Trains are crowded, and there just aren't the slots for expanding services - either passenger or freight.
Wouldn't it be better to look at making our existing network better? The West Coast Main Line capacity gets limited by the double track sections in very busy areas, especially in the Midlands. Why not spend a fraction of the HS2 money on dealing with some of those bottlenecks? Some would be difficult and expensive to fix, but nowhere near the bill for HS2! Or why not look at investing to reopen some of the routes which would take the strain off currently busy ones? The Woodhead route would relieve cross-Pennine trains, the old Midland route through Derbyshire via Matlock, Bakewell and Buxton would give extra north-south capacity, or why not go the whole way with the current partial reopening of the Waverley route from Carlisle to Edinburgh via Hawick?
I want to see more railways, more trains and better routes, but is the priority really getting from London to Birmingham in record time?
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Going the extra 1.60934 km
A few years ago we visited family in Australia, which was a great experience. Something you notice quite quickly there is that although you're driving on the left, speaking English, drinking tea and talking about cricket, something is different. All the road signs are metric. I understand that it took about 7 years to do most of it, with the final tidying up completed in the late 80s. The reason I remembered this was a line in a novel referring to something being 1km from a location in London. It's just not what you normally see.
Back here in the UK, everything I buy from the supermarket is packaged in metric quantities (except milk, unless you buy a litre), but recipes persist with ounces. I buy diesel by the litre, my car is rated at 109g of CO2 per km, but the road signs are in miles and it does 55 miles per gallon. If I buy beer in a bottle in a pub or a shop, it's usually in 250, 330 or 500ml bottles, but in a pub you buy draft beer by the pint (568ml).
My question is simply, why? What is it about pints, miles and gallons that means we have to have this messy left-over. I was learning about the metric system at primary school in the late 60s and throughout University had to use the SI system for all measurements. Why didn't we just go metric properly once and for all? Instead the old units linger. Even my kids use 2 systems.
No doubt full conversion would produce the usual anti-EU rhetoric from the more xenophobic parts of the press. Would it really rob us of our national identity to resolve the remaining issues? Not really - we have to use metric to trade with the rest of the world - it's just that market traders want to be free to sell pounds of bananas. It seems to me that the only credible objection to full conversion now would be the prohibitive cost, especially for roads and transport.
So stay calm, Britain, you can sleep peacefully in the security that you can carry on drinking beer by the pint, (as long as you don't drive any miles, burning gallons of petrol, immediately afterwards!)
Back here in the UK, everything I buy from the supermarket is packaged in metric quantities (except milk, unless you buy a litre), but recipes persist with ounces. I buy diesel by the litre, my car is rated at 109g of CO2 per km, but the road signs are in miles and it does 55 miles per gallon. If I buy beer in a bottle in a pub or a shop, it's usually in 250, 330 or 500ml bottles, but in a pub you buy draft beer by the pint (568ml).
My question is simply, why? What is it about pints, miles and gallons that means we have to have this messy left-over. I was learning about the metric system at primary school in the late 60s and throughout University had to use the SI system for all measurements. Why didn't we just go metric properly once and for all? Instead the old units linger. Even my kids use 2 systems.
No doubt full conversion would produce the usual anti-EU rhetoric from the more xenophobic parts of the press. Would it really rob us of our national identity to resolve the remaining issues? Not really - we have to use metric to trade with the rest of the world - it's just that market traders want to be free to sell pounds of bananas. It seems to me that the only credible objection to full conversion now would be the prohibitive cost, especially for roads and transport.
So stay calm, Britain, you can sleep peacefully in the security that you can carry on drinking beer by the pint, (as long as you don't drive any miles, burning gallons of petrol, immediately afterwards!)
Friday, November 25, 2011
Morecambe Parish Church Christmas Tree Festival
We're rapidly coming up to that time when our church is filled with over 50 Christmas trees from local charities, businesses, organisations and individuals.
The festival is open 7-10 Dec. Wed-Fri 2.30pm - 8pm, and Saturday 10am - 6pm. The Sunday morning services will be held in the War Memorial Hall to allow time to clear the Church building.
Details on the image below. Click for a larger version.
The festival is open 7-10 Dec. Wed-Fri 2.30pm - 8pm, and Saturday 10am - 6pm. The Sunday morning services will be held in the War Memorial Hall to allow time to clear the Church building.
Details on the image below. Click for a larger version.
It's not that bad, Mr Sainsbury
It's been quite a while since I last posted anything on the blog. To get things restarted, I thought I'd share this bit of a Sainsbury's receipt that has already done the rounds on facebook. Sometimes there are just things you can't anticipate with abbreviation and initials.
It's actually cranberry raspberry and apple flavoured sparkling water and doesn't taste bad at all.
It's actually cranberry raspberry and apple flavoured sparkling water and doesn't taste bad at all.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Don't get too excited
The recent news about the speed of light being possibly exceeded by neutrinos is bound to set off lots of silly speculation. If I remember the little bit of the theory of special relativity that I ever learned, an object's mass moves to infinity as the speed of light is approached, and ever-increasing amounts of energy are required. I think time slows down too. So you wonder how light ever gets there - those photons know a thing or two.
One line of argument that religious fundamentalists use is that all science is unproven theory - hence evolution is only an unproven theory, alongside (they would allege) creationism, which they find altogether more convincing. I suspect we'll see people suggesting that if the speed of light (or the constant, "c") isn't what science thought it was, then how can we believe archaeology and carbon dating. Well, I guess it needs some honesty on both sides.
Of course all scientific understanding is based on ideas developed from experiments, which have been refined (and on occasion overthrown) by new data or results. However, that doesn't mean all scientific results are wildly removed from the truth; they may correct, they may just be 0.001% out, or the error may be larger. So the scientific establishment always has to have some degree of humility and openness, although it's usually broadly correct. Otherwise the technology on which we all depend would be completely unavailable, (instead of a little erratic).
But the religious who are anti-scientific have to ask themselves why they are so keen to discredit those who work so hard to understand the universe we live in. There is a strong Christian tradition of exploring and scientific investigation, which saw that endeavour as godly activity. So when science first challenged what appeared to be the Bible's chronology, the obvious thing to do was ask whether we were reading the Bible correctly, or were we asking it to yield data it was never intended to impart?
In a sense the same question is relevant to the scientific method. When scientists become obsessed with a result, they can 'read' the material world in a way that suits their purpose - personal pride has been known to taint objectivity even in a laboratory. We may have to review how constant the speed of light is, or it may be folks at CERN making mistakes or even someone wanting a headline. There may not be as much dark matter as they used to think, either.
Whatever the consensus that emerges, I hope that Christians and others with religious faith don't start to see it as some sort of 'victory' over science, because it isn't. This is an exciting moment. Science may have made an important discovery that affects how we understand the Universe, and if that is a better understanding, then we are all winners.
One line of argument that religious fundamentalists use is that all science is unproven theory - hence evolution is only an unproven theory, alongside (they would allege) creationism, which they find altogether more convincing. I suspect we'll see people suggesting that if the speed of light (or the constant, "c") isn't what science thought it was, then how can we believe archaeology and carbon dating. Well, I guess it needs some honesty on both sides.
Of course all scientific understanding is based on ideas developed from experiments, which have been refined (and on occasion overthrown) by new data or results. However, that doesn't mean all scientific results are wildly removed from the truth; they may correct, they may just be 0.001% out, or the error may be larger. So the scientific establishment always has to have some degree of humility and openness, although it's usually broadly correct. Otherwise the technology on which we all depend would be completely unavailable, (instead of a little erratic).
But the religious who are anti-scientific have to ask themselves why they are so keen to discredit those who work so hard to understand the universe we live in. There is a strong Christian tradition of exploring and scientific investigation, which saw that endeavour as godly activity. So when science first challenged what appeared to be the Bible's chronology, the obvious thing to do was ask whether we were reading the Bible correctly, or were we asking it to yield data it was never intended to impart?
In a sense the same question is relevant to the scientific method. When scientists become obsessed with a result, they can 'read' the material world in a way that suits their purpose - personal pride has been known to taint objectivity even in a laboratory. We may have to review how constant the speed of light is, or it may be folks at CERN making mistakes or even someone wanting a headline. There may not be as much dark matter as they used to think, either.
Whatever the consensus that emerges, I hope that Christians and others with religious faith don't start to see it as some sort of 'victory' over science, because it isn't. This is an exciting moment. Science may have made an important discovery that affects how we understand the Universe, and if that is a better understanding, then we are all winners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)