Robert Stewart Culbard

It would seem that the present is a time for remembrance of one thing or another.

Having only just recovered from the events of the present monarch’s “Diamond Jubilee”, we are now  called to remember the similar anniversary of her coronation.  We will also be remembering the suffragette, Emily Wilding Davison, and observing the centenary of her death under the hoofs of the king’s horse at the Epsom racecourse. That event has become iconic for the Women’s Movement and, though linked to royalty, is far removed from a coronation occasion. We have also recently remembered the occasion when, in late May, 1953, Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary became the first to reach the summit of Mount Everest.

Add to the above the commemoration of the famous 617 Squadron, RAF, the “Dambusters” of  “Operation Chastise” – a special and dangerous mission to  destroy the dams of the Ruhr Valley and with them the weakening of the military/industrial complex that contributed so much to the Third Reich’s Second World War effort. Special attention is also being given at this time to the importance of the last Lancaster bomber capable of flying. This aircraft was a most effective contributor to the Allies’ Second World War effort.

It would seem that the British are fond of a commemoration or two – not only involving royalty and the military – and the opportunity to remember past triumphs and glories. In only three years’ times it will be 2016 and the opportunity to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the only football World Cup triumph by a British team – England, at old Wembley, in 1966. Standby for that one!

With this in mind, I was interested in the recent announcement by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, that there are plans to spend £55m on “truly national commemorations” to mark the anniversary of the beginning of the First World War.

This news comes after Cameron spent £10m of tax-payer’s money on a state-like funeral for a former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. With the Scottish electorate to vote next year on the matter of Scotland’s independence from the UK, continuing sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and a growing tumult on the Conservative benches of the ruling Coalition Government for the UK to come out of the EU, as well as the severe austerity to which this present government is subjecting the British nation, I am not too sure what Mr Cameron means by the term “truly national commemorations”!

What is disturbing, however, is the fact that the Prime Minister has quite inappropriately compared these commemorations to the “Diamond Jubilee celebrations” and stated that their aim was to stress the British “national spirit”. What is known is that these celebrations will be run, at least in part, by former generals and ex-defence secretaries, thereby revealing just how misconceived these plans are. It is a known fact that poorly performing governments, British or otherwise, often appeal to national spirit, past glories and events of a national proportion, invariably involving royalty, the military or the church, or all three, in order to occlude their failings and machinations.

It is salutary to ask as to when it was that ordinary citizens were ever invited to a royal coronation, the celebratory banquet of a great occasion, or a church service of truly national significance. Most times the ordinary citizen is a victim, or a mere bystander, or one that is expected to cheer from the side-lines, despite the fact that it is ordinary citizens who are in the majority when it comes to “sacrificing for one’s country” – as has been shown by the history of the present war in Afghanistan, never mind the First World War and wars since!

The hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War comes around in 1914. This was hardly the “war to end all wars”, nor was it a “victory for democracy”. Without equivocation, it could be said that this war was a military disaster and a monumental waste of human lives.

Including the writer of this article, there are many who believe it to be of intrinsic importance to remember that the First World War was driven by the competition of the big powers for influence around the globe. The suffering caused by this conflict is all too clear in the statistical record of 15 million people dead and 20 million wounded. With this in mind and across the world the anniversary of the First World War will see the organisation of cultural, political and educational activities to mark the courage of many involved in that war but also to remember the almost unimaginable devastation it caused.

It has been estimated that, since the end of the war “to end all wars”, there have been approximately 130 further wars in various parts of the globe (and it will probably cause surprise to realise just how many of these involved, directly or covertly, the United States of America). Therefore, in this time of international tension it behoves concerned people to speak out for, even campaign in favour of, this anniversary to be used to promote peace and international cooperation. You may even care to register an online protest about “How we should remember World War 1: ‘the war to end all wars’?” (see ww1.stopwar.org.uk).

By the way, when Tenzing and Hillary together conquered Mount Everest, Edmund Hillary, a New Zealander, was awarded a knighthood; Tenzing Norgay, a Nepalese Sherpa, without whom the venture could not have taken place, was given the George medal! It would seem that there are some things time fails to change.

RSC

For the cricket lover the remainder of 2013 promises a feast of cricket, the highlight undoubtedly being the two  forthcoming ‘Ashes’ series between the two greatest rivals in the bat and ball game, England and Australia. Already English pundits are talking-up a double series win for England, the current possessor of the valued urn. The general view seems to be that Australian cricket – especially after the recent, somewhat humiliating, series in India, is in a mess.

One media commentator, a reputable English cricketer of the previous generation, who now plays exciting games with words rather than with a bat and ball, suggests that Australian batsmen have become ‘frail in thinking and flabby in technique’ – rather ironic seeing that he himself has the rather unenviable nick-name of ‘Beefy’! Australian pace bowlers, he considers, show ‘considerable promise but physical fallibility’. Spin bowlers from down-under don’t rate even a mention – understandable when viewed dispassionately.

The fall from grace in recent years of the Australian team – from being arguably the greatest national cricket team ever assembled (certainly for Australia) to the present sorry state, has been, in the commentator’s view, astounding. There would be very few supporters of Australian cricket who would argue against the foregoing. This writer, sad to state, certainly would not.

However, the media man takes the argument a step or two further when he criticizes the Australian selectors for currently considering overseas-born players. He singles out a Pakistani leg-spinner, Fawad Ahmed, who is seeking asylum in Australia. Whilst playing Sheffield Shield cricket for Victoria (my home state), Ahmed has attracted the kind of rave notices not heard since that other great Victorian, the incomparable Shane Warne, strutted his stuff at the MCG (and every other cricket ground on which he played).

Mention is also made of the former Sri Lankan, Ashton Agar, a tall spin-bowler and batsman currently attracting attention for his performances for Western Australia. The journalist seems reasonably respectable, perhaps even slightly intimidated, with the current crop of Australian seam and fast bowlers – a list that would include, Pattinson, Starc, Cummings, Siddle, Harris and Bird – to name but a few.

Nevertheless, and returning to the poverty of the Australian batting, the commentator is, and not without good reason, bitingly critical. Apart from Michael Clarke – the Aussie captain who has been one of the top international batsmen in recent years, the writer considers that, amongst the up-and-coming Australian batting contingent, only Usman Khawaja rates much of a mention. He was born in Pakistan and came to Australia as a boy. His batting skills were honed in Australian cricket with the New South Wales state team.

So, overseas-born players are starting to figure prominently in the minds of the Australian selectors. For our media commentator this seems a retrograde step and a pointer to the failure of such institutions as Cricket Australia’s Centre of Excellence in Brisbane.

To indicate how low have become the depths to which he feels Australian cricket has sunk, the commentator mentions the appointment within Australian cricket of that one-time accumulator of huge runs on the twenty-two yard strip, Graeme Hick. It seems that Hick has been co-opted to teach Australian cricketers how to bat. To add to the ignominy, Hick is a Zimbabwean-born, naturalized Englishman who has played 65 Test matches and 120 One Day Internationals for his adopted country!

Whilst acknowledging some of the truths of this article, the implied criticism of Australian cricket now turning to overseas-born players (albeit now permanent residents in Australia) to bolster its international stocks, made me ask the question of how, over the not inconsiderable number of years of maintaining a personal interest in and the playing of cricket, English cricket has absorbed and often heavily relied on overseas-born or non-English players. Such historical names as the Nawab of Pataudi, D’Oliveira, Denness, Greig, Lewis, Jones, Smith, Lamb, Butcher, Small and Caddick, as well as current players in  Pieterson, Trott and  Morgan are but a few that come to mind.

There are, of course, many, many more who have played cricket for England but who have called the Indian sub-continent, the West Indies, southern Africa and Australasia, as well as Scotland, Wales and Ireland, ‘home’!

Numbers of these cricketers had and still have important roles with, and were outstandingly successful in, the English cricket team. Some of them courted controversy, and still do! The Zimbabwean-born Graeme Hick came to England on a cricketing scholarship. He scored a massive total of 178 centuries and 342 fifties in his first class career but, somewhat enigmatically, never really established himself as an England international, nor, surprisingly for such a successful batsman and run machine, particularly endeared himself to English cricket’s public and pundits.

Therefore, it seems to be more than a trifle disingenuous when a former highly successful English international cricketer, who is now a well-regarded media pundit, critically questions Australian cricketing authorities for considering and selecting overseas-born players to play for their adopted country. After all, like England and the rest of the United Kingdom, Australia is very much a multi-cultural nation which, again like the UK,  is starting to reap the benefits of cultivating overseas-born talent in a wide variety of sports. Why not also in cricket? Especially so if it means that the famous Ashes Urn once again resides down-under for an extended period!

Notwithstanding any of the above, what really will be something for which to look forward  is when numbers of the Koori peoples (indigenous Australians) start representing their country  cricket – as they are doing so successfully in such sports as track and field athletics, both rugby codes and Australian Rules football.

In the meantime, and with the afore-mentioned English cricket commentator in mind, isn’t there a saying somewhere that refers to ‘those who live in glass houses….’?

RSC

I recently upgraded my cell phone. As usual with upgrades of this kind, and despite my first occupation (many years ago now) as a telecommunications technician with the Australian Government (PMG’s Department), I was rather dependent on my willing and most able offspring to demonstrate to me the multitude of applications available on the new cell phone. Some of these applications I am now using.

Aided by my growing familiarity and confidence with the new cell phone, I managed to wade through a recent newspaper article dealing with the current applications available to the mobile phone user. The wealth of usage is truly amazing but, not surprisingly, my understanding was ultimately left behind in a welter of technical statistics and jargon and a plethora of applications which, with the touch of a few icons or the flick of a finger, enables a cell phone to act alternatively as telephone, television, computer or whatever, according to the whims and fancies, dexterity and wizardry of the user.

The cell phone and its applications, for example, Facebook and Twitter, are ways in which we are able to mediate our social relationships. In a most peculiar way, young people today see these applications as their actual lived experience – more than just the documentation of what life is.

Indeed, it is not just a prerogative of young people. Who might have thought several years ago that the present writer would one day inhabit “the world of blogging” – rehearsing things learned, recounting experiences, expressing opinions, becoming vulnerable to comments and counter-opinion and then having all of this available on a cell phone via the internet? Life is now lived much more in the public arena, under the scrutinizing gaze of others, more and more of whom are becoming significant.

However, my admiration for the extensive adaptations of the cell phone was somewhat tempered by a non-technical item that the above article discussed. Commenting on the amount of information that can be stored, used and accessed on a cell phone, and the invasion of privacy that this situation can cause, the writer of the article stated that a way of overcoming this disadvantage was in fact to enable the cell phone to tell lies. Information can be fed into the cell phone (or computer) in order t0 convey confusion or falsity – to prevent the true picture being seen or, put simply, to lie. In this way, truth is subject to expediency.

Now, I can understand the reasoning behind this move to falsify the stored information on a cell phone, in order to protect privacy or process. However, does this not also neutralize one of the stated benefits of the technological explosion vested in contemporary communications equipment, that is, to encourage greater interaction between people, to break down barriers and to spread and share information – to make  life and its experiences more accessible and transparent?

So too, and for me a major consideration, false information in any way, shape or form, implies the practice of lying. It would be counter-productive if the further development of communications technology actually encouraged the practice of falsifying, lying, deceiving or otherwise betraying the truth in the on-going process of human discourse in the shaping, sharing, understanding and application of information.

When, as a secondary teacher of Religious Ethics, I shared with the sixth form students the ideas of the German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), they had mixed feelings about following Kant’s philosophy that moral law should, indeed could, never be affected by expediency. Kant believed that “it can never be right to tell a lie”. He called the obligation to obey this moral law the “Categorical Imperative”. His dictum was that a person should “always tell the truth”, no matter what the consequences would be of doing so. Kant applied his dictum to communities as well as individuals.

Behind the wisdom of Kant was the idea that if lies were told whenever it suited the person telling, or carrying-out the practical implications of, the lie, then the world would be a far worse, exceedingly more complex, difficult and dangerous place in which to live – a world in which mistrust reigned and deceit becomes a way of life; a world, in fact, that would be a living hell for those who lived in it. For Kant, truth should never be compromised.

It is, of course, difficult for us to comprehend what the world, indeed, our individual lives, would be like if the truth were always to be told. Kant acknowledged this when the said that “only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness”. Telling the truth, living the truth, brings its own rewards – it leads to self-knowledge and enlightenment, harmony and tranquillity. Such a way of life is, however, complex, hazardous and highly challenging and, for these reasons and more, is very much a road less travelled.

We have some concrete awareness, however, of what our world is like with the prevalence of lying, deceiving and betrayal. We are aware, for example, of how the image of someone can be enhanced or diminished by air-brushing a picture or a photograph. The same holds true for stories in print.  The reputation of public figures can be made or destroyed by the stories told about them on the printed page. Scandal-type tabloid newspapers seem to be as popular today as ever they were. It has been said of fundamentalist religion that it states it conclusions and then makes the facts fit those conclusions. The scientist responds with the claim that the facts must be stated and conclusions drawn from an examination and analysis of these.

It is a common accusation against politicians that they twist the facts in order to suit their policies, if not their ideology. When a young, but very astute, journalist with The Independent newspaper recently offered an opinion to a politician that “the poor sometimes support welfare cuts because they are systematically lied to by the media”, the politician responded by accusing the writer of being “patronizing”. This was a fine slur, perhaps, but an all-too-common reaction and one that takes the reader no closer to the truth.

Within the last week a poll taken from among one thousand primary school-aged children found that 75% of those polled would cheat if doing so led to achieving a desired goal. Cheating is tantamount to lying and, if we believe the outcomes of the aforementioned poll, we learn to differentiate between telling the truth and lying at a very early age.

Now, lying is all too often a present practice, but it can have application to the past. The following story appeared in an article in From Page to Screen.  Alfred Hitchcock’s 1950 film, Stage Fright, was criticized for what became known as its “lying flashback” – a long flashback about a murder that we later learn is untrue. It would seem that audiences felt tricked and the film didn’t do well.  Speaking to fellow movie director, Francois Truffaut, Hitchcock said: “In movies, people never object if a man is telling a lie. And it is also acceptable, when a character tells a story about the past, for the flashback to show it as taking place in the present. So why is it that we can’t tell a lie through a flashback?”

It would seem an answer lies in the fact that movie audiences still want objective truth – following the old adage that ‘seeing is believing’, or that there is more to listening than mere hearing. So too, there may be the realization that lies told in the past have present and future consequences. I also believe that it is a question of how we treat others. This is one of the great ethical questions of our age. Maybe that is the reason why science fiction films are so much a part of contemporary culture. There is the view that SF, at its best, is the most appropriate way to explore the question of our treatment of others. So, when the invading aliens threaten, what do we do – blast them with such modern weaponry as high-velocity rifles, cluster bombs or nuclear weapons? SF seems to understand that there are more interesting things that can be done with and to aliens, as fans of Dr Who would appreciate.

So, when faced with a situation that personally challenges or questions, how do we respond? Do we neutralize or extinguish the threat of the alien thought or activity by lying, deceiving or even ignoring? Or, do we face the situation front on, acknowledging its reality, recognizing its consequences and, in a Kantian way, truthfully seek to provide an answer, reach a solution or point out a direction for further travel? The road less travelled is often the road that leads to truth.

Surely then, it diminishes ourselves, as well as the other person(s), when we resort to lying in order to provide an answer, or seek to explain, or to justify – on our cell phones or face-to-face. Is this the way we would wish others – politicians, movie directors,  journalists, philosophers, family and friends to name but a few – to treat us?  If so, then what kind of world are we wishing on posterity? If, however, we embrace truth and truth-telling, then we are laying the foundations for a future that has integrity, even if  that future will be a more demanding one in which to live.

With all of the above in mind, I look forward with new insight and renewed enthusiasm for and, hopefully, improved skill in, using my upgraded cell phone.

RSC

The past several weeks has seen a focus on “enthronement” events. In Rome, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a Cardinal from Buenos Aires, was enthroned as Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church. A week or two later, the Most Reverend Justin Welby, the former Bishop of Durham, was enthroned as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican family of churches. During both enthronements, and despite the impressive titles of both men and the pomp and spectacle of both events, much was made of the humility of both leaders.

The new Pope’s work with the poor in Buenos Aires was constantly reiterated, although accolades stopped short of identifying him with the “liberation theology” movement in Latin America. Whilst seeming to be liberal with respect to the social ministry of the Roman Catholic Church, there would seem to be little doubt that Pope Francis will continue the conservative tradition with respect to the moral issues facing his church, for example, those to do with abortion, euthanasia, women priests, human sexuality and the traditional doctrinal issues that history, archaeology and rationality have called into contemporary question (“Limbo” being a recent casualty).

It would appear that the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury will also face testing times within the assemblies, churches and committees of the Church of England, not to mention the challenges posed by the development of Anglican communities throughout the world, notably those in conservative Africa.

Heads of organised religions, and all heads of states for that matter, claim to have the weight of authority and tradition on their side. It is well to remember, however, that authority is developed where power resides and is, therefore, open to having its legitimacy challenged where and when power relations change; tradition is open to interpretation, historical criticism and rational questioning.

The above returned to my attention whilst watching a recent edition of BBC television’s flagship ethics programme “The Big Questions”. The programme focused on a single question, “Should the United Kingdom become a secular state?” The question was effectively asking if the UK should disavow favouring any one religious faith and make all religious faiths of equal value under the law in an all-inclusive secular state. The presenting question presumed, of course, that the United Kingdom has not already become a secular country, an argument at least worth stating!

Whilst going over this question in my mind, it occurred to me that the head of the British state is the reigning monarch. By virtue of wearing the crown, the monarch also becomes the Head of the Church of England. This fact is recognised in the coronation ceremony of the British king or queen (a reminder of which recently appeared on television with a review of the present queen’s “jubilee” celebrations). The actual coronation is presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It follows from this that a Roman Catholic cannot, at present, assume the role of British monarch.

It is a further twist in the story that the Roman Catholic Church forbids leadership roles in the church for women. A woman is not presently able to become a priest, never-mind a Pope – even if she could become the British queen! The saga becomes more complex when it is realised that, at present, the Church of England does not permit women bishops. Irony of ironies, a woman cannot, at present, become a Church of England bishop, never-mind the Archbishop of Canterbury, but could become the head of that church! Apart from the anachronistic nature of this overall situation, there is also the matter of blatant forms of religious, political and social discrimination being involved on several levels.

I am of the view that the foregoing are primary reasons why the United Kingdom should become a secular state, or, to be more precise, to continue to be shaped as and by a secular state. Despite its religious institutions or the influence of organised religion on the British state, the United Kingdom could hardly be described as a “religious” country, that is, a nation-state in which the beliefs and practices of religion predominates, generally or specifically, in the life of the majority of its citizens.

This is certainly true if British national life were to be seen as orbiting around the philosophy and ethics of the Christian religion. The picture is multi-hued and far more complex. Contemporary religious life in Britain has seen the indomitable rise of non-Christian religions such as Islam, as well as the continuing presence and influence of other religions, notably Hinduism, Judaism and Sikhism, not to mention the significant numbers for whom life is underpinned by no religion, secular values or overt atheism.

Such a situation has given rise to recent complaints by notable religious personnel that the management of contemporary life in the United Kingdom is prejudiced against the Christian faith, or is becoming so, or, at least, makes it more difficult to live as a Christian. I seem to recall that a Jewish rabbi and teacher of ethics once said that the faithful would face the testing of their faith! Perhaps a faith that has been used to having a monopoly in the life of the British nation-state requires some testing, even if it is only a matter of levelling the playing field on which that faith has been practiced.

The defenders of the view that the United Kingdom is, or should remain, a religious, if not overtly Christian, country would claim that the philosophical and ethical super-structure of the nation-state has been built on Christian foundations. A critical account of how or to what degree the UK is a Christian nation would need to recognise that there are multiple versions of Christianity now practiced within the nation-state, with significant differences in doctrine, ethics, politics and social concern. Culturally, Christianity, especially in a multi-cultural state such as is the United Kingdom, no longer has a single identity. There is no guarantee that today’s Christians, British or otherwise, share the same religious views as their spiritual ancestors or would wish to live under the same religious authority as they once did.

The Christianity of Western Europe has been radically reshaped by the views and events of the Enlightenment, political, cultural and social revolution, and the advancements in mass education. It can no longer be claimed that, at root, all Christians believe and practice the same form of religion. They do not. Indeed, the very foundations of the historical and formative stages of what is today called the Christian religion are being called into question as never before.

Therefore, the argument that all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on the Christian heritage of the United Kingdom should be abolished is both strong and forceful. The primacy previously afforded the Christian religion would be replaced by an all-inclusive secularism where no single faith or group of faiths, for example, the Judaeo-Christian duopoly, predominates or is given special privileges.

If this transformation were to take place then substantial outcomes would follow. The development of all faith schools would be curtailed, especially where those schools are funded by the British tax-payer. Similarly, tax credits should be withdrawn from non-state funded public (private?) schools – credits that were initially given so that charities could establish education amongst the poor, not to subsidise a privileged education for the wealthy. The call of the muezzin would be given the same place and respect as the peal of church bells, or none at all for both. All faiths would be subject to the law of the land, a legal framework that would gradually slough-off the remaining vestiges of rules and regulations framed by a religious reference to life and national culture that can no longer claim eternal veracity or relevancy.

Further, the link between the reigning monarch and the Church of England, a link formed from the vagaries of the rule of the Tudor king, Henry VIII, would be abolished. The Church of England would be dis-established and, if the monarchy is to survive, perchance in a form radically different to its present appearance, then it should be open to persons of whatever or no faith. This is the situation in many countries that enjoy an advanced form of democracy and who enjoy a secular head of state. If this were to happen then the privilege accorded the Church of England in having some of its bishops presiding in the House of Lords would be withdrawn. In a democracy, all institutions would be free of any form of discrimination and deference would be accorded only to those which, by practice and example, earn respect.

That is not to say that organised religion should be proscribed. On the contrary, all forms of religion should be present and practised as an expression of the diversity of the social and cultural life of the nation – a phenomenon of the continuing social and cultural evolution of the British nation-state (as, indeed, of any nation-state). Each religion would be free under the law to express itself, practice its beliefs, develop its future and subject its fortunes to the demands of the market-place. However, this would be done within the freedom of secular state laws that treated all religions equally and sought to shape a harmonious reality for all religious belief and practice.

Should the United Kingdom become a secular state? It would seem to me that an honest appraisal of the situation would strongly suggest that it has already become so!

RSC

Being a retired person of limited means and, therefore, someone who continues to struggle with the question as to whether I should purchase online with Amazon, I read with some interest that HM Revenue and Customs has published a name-and-shame list of tax evaders.

Included in the hit-list is a Liverpool hairdresser (“Cut price”), a pipe-fitter (“No screw-ups”), a Nottingham knitwear firm (“Woolly, but warm”), and a Cheshire wine company (“9 wines for purring”).* It would seem that the amount of tax reclaimed from these master criminals is limited to a maximum of five figures for each, or, if you like, somewhat less than  the amount per year in tax reductions that the government will grant to millionaires in the new financial year.

Ah! well. I suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs to claw back revenues lost through giving gifts to his kind.

Of course, the UK’s overall financial deficit could be largely wiped-out by cancelling the £100b nuclear submarine programme (something substantial will need to happen with this project when and if Scotland becomes independent from the rest of the UK). But that might be a too-straightforward course of action and would upset that other close friend of conservative governments, the arms industry, as well as the powerful MOD. It is not too hard to understand that the firmest support for the gun lobby in the USA is from the conservative Republican Party!

On several occasions, the Treasury minister, David Gauke, has suggested that tax avoiders have nowhere to hide. That is reassuring, except if your tax dodging is brazenly out in the open – as it is with such firms as Amazon and Google! It would be a bit like counting your money whilst travelling in the glass Pope-mobile in which the Bishop of Rome sometimes travels – can be seen by the public but the thick glass cannot be penetrated. Is this perhaps a question of untouchability?

Is it not amazing that the government can imperil the lives of millions of British citizens with its austerity programme – in such areas as social welfare spending – yet finds difficulty in devising a taxation programme that might challenge multi-national companies or, for that matter, putting a check on the increasingly rampant spending on the multi-member monarchy!

What if a wealthy friend of one of those being shamed by HM Revenue and Customs were to hire the tax lawyers used by Google or Amazon. Would that pipe fitter stand to enjoy receiving a multi-thousand-pound rebate rather than signing-over a cheque for £10,986 to HMRC? Now, that is something to think about!

I will continue to struggle with personal purchases from Amazon, but it would be made much easier if the government would assist me by altering the tax laws so that the company, rather than my conscience, pays the legitimate price for its transactions. This is rightly a matter for government action rather than a personal financial or  moral issue.

* N.B. All puns are personal and intended, and will,  I trust, lend some humour to the gravitas of this article.

RSC

In 1993, whilst working for World Vision UK, a Christian charity, the position I occupied was made redundant.

With my young family, I had come over from Australia to work as WVUK’s Manager for Domestic Programmes – establishing, supporting, and linking community development projects in UK cities.  Though, by all objective accounts, the overall programme was very successful, I had been in the job for only two years when the redundancy occurred. Of course, it is people, not positions, that are actually made redundant.

So too, I was not alone in WVUK’s redundancies in 1993. A financial crisis within WV internationally, and the inability of WVUK to meet its share of the WVI financial target, was cited as the prime reason for the redundancies, which, ironically, also affected the fund-raising programmes of WVUK.

As the reader will imagine, my redundancy was received with significant surprise and substantial sorrow, especially as I considered that, at that time, I was at my personal and professional pinnacle for this type of work.  I remained out of work, or in part-time employment of various descriptions for three years, before becoming a secondary school teacher of Humanities. But that is another story (see my earlier blog, “A farewell to Campion speech – July 20, 2012”).

At the time of my WVUK redundancy I was an ordained Minister of Religion with the Baptist Church – a Christian denomination. Therefore, I deeply regarded my work with WVUK as a vocation, not just a job. Indeed, I viewed the WVUK appointment as the culmination, to that stage, of my life’s work as a minister 0f religion and a priest within the wider Christian Church. So, my redundancy from the position with WVUK seemed inexplicable to me and an affront to my ordination as a Christian minister. The situation was eventually to raise certain questions that challenged my personal philosophy and vocational understanding. But that, too, is another story for some future occasion.

The above was brought back to my consciousness with the recent announcement of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI from the Papacy, the Bishop of Rome.

One commentator called the announcement “bizarre, almost unbelievable”. Indeed, if one believes in God, especially the God espoused by the Roman Catholic Church, it is most bizarre that the leader of this church – supposedly the ‘Vicar of Christ’ and ‘God’s representative on earth’, claiming divine appointment and sanction, not to mention power and presence – personally decides that, for whatever reason(s), he has had enough of the responsibility. It is almost as if the God he purports to serve is unable to provide the  necessary personal and professional resources for him to continue.

One could say that God does, indeed, move in mysterious ways.

Clearly the issue was not one of organisational finances, nor one or other of the concerns of priests, retired or otherwise – accommodation, pension, job satisfaction, specific difficulties with the personal job specifications, or whatever. In retirement, Pope Benedict will have  these needs adequately met.

It seems obvious that  Benedict XVI has not been at the height of his powers.  However, could it be that Pope Benedict has simply come to the end of his tether with the demands of the job, for example, protecting paedophile priests, accommodating disillusioned and recalcitrant Anglo-Catholics, or of upholding the increasingly irrational and questionable tenets of the Roman Catholic version of Christianity, for example, opposition to birth control, abortion, homosexuality and the ordination of women priests.

However, if one does not believe in God, then maybe this was the moment when the Papacy was revealed for what many believe it is – simply a job of being a high-powered executive in a creaking, though still popular, human institution. Perhaps Pope Benedict became exhausted with being, and had the courage to admit it, the Papal puppet in a costume drama that is much indebted to ancient and medieval beliefs and practices – with their questionable histories and ethics, but increasingly  cannot cut the mustard in contemporary world society.

Mind you, he took a risk in calling it a day.  No matter how irregularly  and unwittingly it may have occurred, exposing the Papacy as  a job and not a position for an iconic and “sacrosanct heavenly ambassador” (with thanks to Deborah Orr of The Guardian for this very apposite term), was bound to have adverse outcomes.

Did Pope Benedict come to believe that his job was, despite the personal popularity and twitter following, really quite ordinary? Did he feel that all his hard work, in convocation, committee or on his knees, had no lasting value? Did Pope Benedict lose his faith? Did he come to believe that the investment in a life’s work in the priesthood did not, in the end, realise the fruits he had once imagined it would?

If so, then I have some sympathy for him, as my experience with WVUK might suggest. I am now in retirement and, being somewhat younger than Cardinal Ratzinger the retiree, alias Pope Benedict XVI, I may have more years left to me for reflection on the above matters  than has he. I look forward to these years, irrespective of what revelations and realisations they hold.

Notwithstanding, I wish the outgoing Bishop of Rome a worthwhile retirement, and trust  we both may profit from contemplating,  perhaps from different perspectives, that God might, after all,  work in mysterious ways!

RSC

Whilst on holiday overseas recently, I noticed that many of the major international news channels gave substantial coverage to the death of a British nurse who became involved in a hoax directed at royalty.

Two Australian radio personalities pretended to be the Queen and Prince Philip attempting to contact Kate Middleton in hospital, where she was being monitored in the early stages of pregnancy. As an apparent consequence of the hoax, the nurse is believed to have killed herself, though her involvement in the proceedings seems to have been quite minimal.

Several issues are involved here:

1. What personal state of mind possessed the nurse to take her own life – the circumstances were hardly mitigating?
2. To what extent does royalty’s desire for public interest and support, if not awe, encourage an over-emphasis on their importance and the extent to which the popular media will go to deliver stories about them?
3. When a hoax goes wrong, is it a case of shared blame, or is a scapegoat required?

Little criticism seems to have been levelled at royalty, the hospital, the nurse or the general media for being so enthusiastic in reporting the entire matter (including the nurse’s funeral in India). However, it seems that the Australian radio presenters were suspended and the radio station manager forced to issue an apology.

Perhaps also a case of Aussie-bashing…..?

*****

In the past week, I have been informed that a school in the town where I live, Northampton (UK), is the subject of a legal action by the NASUWT teachers’ union. It seems that the headteacher of the school will not renew the one-year contracts of teachers who fail to attend school on a Saturday. The contracts are already disgracefully inadequate.

The purpose of such attendance is to conduct student enrichment activities, or otherwise to prepare lessons and mark students’ work. These activities are normally carried out as a part of the teachers’ working week and some time is allocated for such duties in the five-day teaching schedule. They can also be completed by teachers in their lunchtimes or out-of-school hours.

The school in question happens to be an academy, that is, a secondary school outside the control of any Local Education Authority. Such a school is very much at the mercy of the headteacher and the school’s governing body, not to mention the insidious influence of the Secretary of State for Education.

For many, including myself, this is just another outcome of the dangers inherent in government schools becoming academies – schools that have sold their souls for a mess of pottage initially shaped by central government. The pottage bowl is now taking its own shape and is drying up.

It almost makes one glad to be teacher in retirement…..!

*****

A respected newspaper writer, who also happens to be an Anglican priest, recently wrote the following in The Guardian newspaper:

“If Christmas means anything it is that the answer to the human condition is not to be found in the stars but in the crib. Here the hope of humanity is continually renewed. God is not an old man with a beard. God is not some power that believers can borrow for their own limited, and often bigoted, schemes. If that is God, even if such a being exists, then count me among the atheists.”

So far; so good – I can go along with all of that. The writer goes on:

“What I call God is to be discovered in the vulnerability of a child, in the excessive openness and dependence upon something outside one’s own power or ability to explain.”

Now, it is with this that I have some difficulty. I believe that what is being said is that human beings fail when they depend on their own power and confidence, if not their ability for guile and deception. There are instances, of course, where the opposite can be pointed to – and not only in scientific pursuits. So too, what exactly is being determined as human failure?

Notwithstanding all of the above, what is it that the writer proffers as an alternative? He suggests vulnerability, excessive openness, a dependence upon an external power that, to all intents and purposes, cannot really be known, and a lack of understanding or ability to provide explanations. Are these qualities and characteristics able to operate at the level of even personal relationships, never-mind on an international scale?

It would seem to me that if this is the suggested answer to the human condition, then it will remain an answer to be discussed within philosophy and mythology rather than believed in and practiced within the complexities of the world in which we live.

It would seem that the question of who and what is “God” is one that is as complex to answer now as it ever has been…..!

*****

When will they ever learn?

It was recently reported that the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has stated that, when British troops are finally withdrawn from Afghanistan, he will consider deploying them in the (Persian) Gulf area. He said this as he prepared to visit several Gulf States for the purpose of sealing arms deals with such states as Oman, and defence agreements with the United Arab Emirates.

He justifies the plan to sell Typhoon aircraft to the UAE “…as a big, significant defence co-operation, which could lead to more British troops being stationed in their country.” Cameron obviously wishes to increase the presence of British troops in the region, one that already sees a British military presence in Bahrain, Qatar and the Emirates. These states are hardly bastions of democracy. So, is the United Kingdom paying a high price for enriching arms dealers and adding to the exchequer in consequence of these arms sales?

To what extent can the United Kingdom continue to regard itself as the “mother of democracy” when it colludes with dictatorial rulers, despots and anachronistic religious/royal households in consolidating their power through the sale of arms. So too, what is meant by “significant defence cooperation”? Defending who or what?

As usual, government and the military collaborate in justifying such actions, blessed by the right wing press and the state church, as historically it has sought to do with the presence of the British military in foreign fields and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would seem that for these persons and bodies, the idea of the sun setting on the British Empire is anathema…..!

*****

Speaking of the British Empire!

Awarding successful Olympic Games athletes with state honours in the recent New Years’ Honours List is one thing, but, remembering the spirit of the Olympic Games and how they are meant to bring about a community, if not oneness, of international feelings and personnel, is another.

To award British athletes with “British Empire” honours and for athletes to receive them as such, is dishonourable and a disgrace. After all, and despite the delusions of some and fond hopes of others, there is no longer a British Empire.

There has not been an entity or an animal with this name for a long time…..!

*****

With all of the above in mind, it is worthwhile to recall the words of that great British-born hero of the American revolution, Thomas Paine, when he said: “The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also”. He also wrote… “Government is for the living, and not for the dead; it is the living only that has any right in it.”

Now, old or new, that is a theme worth thinking about and acting on.

RSC

Dear Member of Parliament,

Thank you for your recent correspondence in which you commented on Elizabeth Windsor, the present British monarch, possessing “the right to have a personal view”.

May I say in answer to your email that I do not expect you to agree with me, even if you seem to suggest that the entire British nation supports the views you have expressed! Do the British people “fully support the Queen’s personal comments”? There may have been a time when such an opinion may have been acceptable. I am not so sure that we live in those times anymore.

Notwithstanding our apparent disagreement over this particular issue, one of the reasons for me writing to you  is to present viewpoints that may disagree with yours – my right as a citizen of a parliamentary democracy with a particular political point of view. Please note that I regard myself as a ‘citizen’ and not a ‘subject’!

So too, I wish to ensure that, in a democratic society, Parliamentary representatives (House of Commons MP’s in particular) should be aware, and at least attempt to present the views, of their constituents – views which may be contrary to the those of the MP and the political colour they represent.

I would never suggest that your answers were anything other than honest – even in these days of political scepticism and the fact that numbers of MP’s do less than justice to their political parties and the processes of the nation’s Parliament. Indeed, I have admired some of your recent stands on matters to do with the business of the House.

Yes, of course, the present monarch is entitled to a private viewpoint on whatever matter she chooses. Nevertheless, she does not hold an elected office that, unlike MP’s, can be accountable to the people of the nation. Therefore, these views should remain private and not be used to advance a particular political or social agenda. I am not surprised that the BBC person who leaked the comments has apologised.

It is in the nature of the BBC that renegade, or simply honest, journalists with a story to tell are made to retract whenever embarrassment is caused to establishment figures. The recent happenings within the BBC can be cited as evidence for this.

This would seem to especially be the case when royalty is involved. There are more than singular ways to ensure that “heads roll” or renegades are brought into line! Monarchy in the United Kingdom is meant to have a Head of State function and should not interfere in legislative or judicial matters. You would seem to agree that Elizabeth Windsor’s private statements should not be made public, but I am not convinced that you feel that they should also not be allowed to interfere with matters rightly the responsibility of Parliament and the elected representatives of the people.

Unfortunately, in my view, the fact that the UK, in contravention of genuine democratic process, does not possess a written constitution and that the government of the day holds office at the discretion of “Her Majesty”, actually gives a monarch the opportunity to interfere in the political process, albeit without the necessary constraints imposed on elected representatives of the people.

As my MP, you have stated that I “would not expect me (you) to defend one of our most important institutions”. Well, yes, in fact I would! Obviously, you do not feel that there is any need to defend the institution of monarchy. However, there are growing numbers of British people who believe that monarchy can no longer be accepted for its own sake – irrespective of the monarchy being  a part of the nation’s historical legacy, or because of its supposed popularity, or whatever other reason is advanced for its simple acceptance.

Myths and misconceptions surround the British monarchy and the time has come when the debate about monarchy needs to be opened-up – to support or refute. As a republican, I am not afraid of this debate; indeed, I welcome it.

If the monarchy is all that you appear to believe it is, then the development of this debate should be welcomed by you. To ignore the need for such a debate, or to believe that the monarchy needs no defending, is to give this institution an importance beyond what it politically, historically or culturally  merits. Is there a human institution anywhere that deserves such a pedestal?

Recently, the government’s Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, commented on some statements of the Prince of Wales to the effect that, if they were genuinely held and publicly stated by Charles Windsor, they would seriously compromise his right to succeed Elizabeth Windsor as the British monarch. Is there any reason to doubt that Charles Windsor is genuine about the public statements he makes? Is he a seriously compromised future British and Commonwealth head of state? It is my belief that both the reigning monarch and her possible successor exceed the functions for which the British retain a monarchy.

The matter of whether or not Charles Windsor is a fit person to succeed his mother as the head of the Church of England is, of course, something for the future to debate.

Unfortunately, as the recent business surrounding women bishops has demonstrated, the Church of England does not always act according to accepted public opinion, its own principles and theological beliefs, or historical precedent, even when these matters are understood per se by that church. I suggest that, in the future, monarchy may well be embroiled in a debate that far exceeds the mere disclosure of private opinions.

As a former Minister of Religion, therefore, I would trust that, in respect of its theological beliefs and practical life, the Church of England would need to seriously examine its teachings about adultery, divorce and remarriage before it appoints anyone to succeed the present monarch as its head.

I recognise that you would not agree with some, if not all, of the viewpoints I express, but, I assure you, these views are honest responses to your stated positions.

Yours sincerely,

Your constituent,

Dr Robert Culbard

RSC

(N.B.  The above article recently appeared in the BRITISH REPUBLICAN blog:    http://britishrepublicanblog.org)