Accordsing to the BBC Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets, official results show.
More than 57% of voters from 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favour of the ban, Swiss news agency ATS reported. The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People's Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.
Opponents - including all the mainstream Churches and Jewish organisations in Switzerland - say a ban would amount to discrimination and that the ballot has stirred hatred.
The Swiss Ban will serve as proof positive to those who argue that Islam and the west are set ona collision course. This analysis - shared by Jihadists and NeoCons alike - is probably best expounded by one of its American advocates Samuel P. Huntington whose book the Clash of Civilisations has been influential amongst those in the last US administration who saw a long term impasse between Islam and the West.
Huntington and his ilk are flawed in their analysis. The coalition against the Swiss minaret ban included people of all faiths and none, muslim and jew, protestant and catholic, orthodox and sikh. The one positive of the ban being proposed was the unfiying of these groups under one banner. It is unfortunate that those on the other side of the argument have sown that fear and bigotry still has the power to overcome the most progressive of coalitions.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have today issued new guidance to the House of Bishops lifting the restrictions on celebrating communion in one kind.
Their new guidance is as follows:
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have issued the following statement to the College of Bishops: Dear Bishop, In July, during the first wave of the Swine Flu pandemic we issued national advice with regard to the administration of Holy Communion. This advice was based on information and guidance received from the Department of Health which was geared to the situation at that time and the projected levels of risk suggested by the potential course of the pandemic. Since then the scientific understanding of the Swine Flu virus has advanced, further experience of the course of the epidemic has been gained, and the first stage of a vaccination programme, targeted at those most at risk from the virus, is nearing completion. Throughout this period, our advice has been driven by the interests of public health, particularly for the protection of the vulnerable. In the light of continuing consultation with the Department of Health, and with updated information on the course of the Swine Flu pandemic, we believe that we can now advise that the normal administration of Holy Communion ought to resume. This recommendation is subject to the guidelines issued in June (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/swineflu/communion.doc) which set out good hygiene practice for public worship and which allows for local discretion in the event of outbreaks of pandemic flu in particular centres of population. We shall also continue to monitor the situation. We wish to thank you for your patience and cooperation during this challenging period for both Church and Community. We are thankful that the pandemic has so far proved less severe than was feared. Please pass this on to your colleagues in the diocese. With every blessing, +Rowan Cantuar +Sentamu Ebor
These are exactly the kind of non-cheesy, non-embarrasing films which can be shared without feeling they are too preachy or heavy but which explore issues from a Gospel perspective. I've used this one a number of times in house groups and confirmation classes to introduce the topic of forgiveness.It's good stuff; powerful but accesible. Modern day parables.
My only issue with them is that they can be a little too American in their look and feel. The first in the series "rain" has a section which turns me right off due its overuse of the word "buddy". I begin to lose what he's saying and get hot under the collar about how he's saying it. On the whole though they are excellent.
But Where is the British version of this ? Do we really not have the creative abilities and people to do something like this on this side of the pond ?
We must support Gordon Brown's moral authority, and stop undermining it
Premium Article !
Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.
IN recent days, criticism of Gordon Brown has turned from a barrage to an all out assault. Leading the charge has been The Sun which, to use a phrase from the football manager's handbook, has decided to play the man and not the ball.
Seemingly fed up with the determination of the man to keep his head down and to steadily hold a course, the newspaper has decided to refrain from persuasion or diversionary tactics and simply to try and kick his legs out from under him.
In response to this onslaught, Gordon Brown has appeared to remain both stoic and steadfast. At his recent monthly news conference, the Prime Minister apologised fulsomely for any offence he may have caused to the grieving mother of Jamie Janes and maintained a solemnity which matched the mood of a nation on Armistice day.
Brown's response has a lot to teach us not only about his own character, but also how we might learn to support our leaders better during a time when our armed services are involved in combat operations abroad.
The chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts, Matthew Taylor, put it this way in a recent lecture on democratic values: "The problem with our democracy is less about the performance of politicians and more about the content of the democratic conversation.
"Proper processes of democratic deliberation would help us be less petulant, wiser and more responsible task masters for our beleaguered representatives."
Certainly the content of the democratic conversation has become breathtakingly abusive in its recent tone towards the Prime Minister. Legitimate questions of policy and strategy, on the economy and in matters of defence, have given way to a character assassination where the need for both more wisdom and less petulance has never been more apparent.
The ferocity of the personal criticism directed towards the Prime Minister has brought to the fore questions of moral authority in terms of Gordon Brown's character, a question which seems especially poignant given the continuing debate of this country's strategy in Afghanistan.
The question which lies beneath much of the criticism of Gordon Brown is simply whether he has sufficient moral authority to lead a country during a time of war?
Moral authority is not tested in political party manifestos, nor is it earned through democratic mandate. Rather it is something that comes through demonstrating the just nature of the action or course which one advocates, despite the heavy cost or burden that the pursuit of such a course may entail.
The actions of Tony Blair in intervening in the Balkans gained moral authority once the genocide in Srebrenica became known, while the shifting sands beneath the claims of weapons of mass destruction seriously undermined the moral authority for action in Iraq.
For many people, the cost of the conflict in Afghanistan, represented by the tolling bells and funeral corteges that pass through Wootton Bassett, now outweighs any conceivable benefit. But questions of moral authority require more than a cost-benefit analysis.
They require a broader consideration of what is just. The countless lives lost to the indignity of the apartheid system were not sufficient grounds for abandoning the opposition to it. Rather its horrors and blatant disregard of equal humanity provided the moral authority for Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela and others to finally triumph.
The lives of our Armed Forces lost to the conflict in Afghanistan must be counted alongside the almost daily loss of life through recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan.
Each life is a victim of an ideology (purportedly Islamic but to many unrecognisably so) which denies basic standards to women, that makes apostates of innocent men and sentences to death those who seek to oppose its unbending will.
The apparent ease with which civilian casualties, regardless of their Islamic faith, are not only considered justified but actively targeted is a reminder of the callous inhumanity that our soldiers now actively oppose.
That they do with a selfless courage and bravery that stands in stark contrast to the moral cowardice of the Taliban should be a reminder of the just nature of the cause.
Gordon Brown's moral authority remains intact precisely because of the moral nature of that cause. It is not an authority that will be undermined by misspelt names or scribbled letters.
The moral compass to which Gordon Brown laid claim early on in the days of his premiership will need to remain fixed Eastwards as he holds firm to opposing the triumph of terror and hate.
Closer to home, he will also need to renew a military covenant with those whom he expects to pay the ultimate price so that he too does not become a victim of the shifting sands of inconsistency.
The consequences of losing this conflict will not only act as a recruiting sergeant to the fellow travellers of al-Qaida, but will also provide the Taliban with a domestic base from which to operate.
If such consequences are to be avoided, then Gordon Brown's moral authority needs to be re-asserted and not undermined as we each decide which side we are on.
THE coverage of Anton Du Beke, the Strictly Come Dancing star who stepped into a race row by telling his dance partner Laila Rouass that she looked like a "Paki", brought to mind some advice offered by PG Wodehouse in The Man Upstairs: "It is a good rule in life never to apologise. The right sort of people do not want apologies and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them." This case shows why Wodehouse got it wrong.
There was a long queue of people fully justified in demanding that Du Beke – or Anthony Beak to give him his real name – should apologise. At the front of the queue was Laila Rouass herself, whose initial reaction was reported by one of the 15 people in the room at the time of the incident. "Laila just stood there gobsmacked, as was everyone else. She just looked at him as if she couldn't quite believe what he'd said… she glared at Anton and just walked out – she was so upset. She just went to her dressing room, collected her stuff and went straight home. She felt totally humiliated."
When a national newspaper picked up the comments, Du Beke first denied having made them, but subsequently confessed and apologised. For her part Rouass showed a great deal of grace and a good deal more class than her dance partner by accepting his apology and saying that it was "time to move on".
Ironically it was the legendary host of Strictly, Bruce Forsyth, who gave added legs to the story on Wednesday, when he suggested the term used by Du Beke was no more than a nickname and that people getting worked up about it needed to rediscover their sense of humour. A similar line was taken by Godfrey Bloom, the MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, who said that being called a "Paki" was no different to being called a "Brummie".
As someone who has been called both of these names regularly throughout my life, I can assure Mr Bloom they are not at all the same. Being called a Brummie is a matter of pride for me. I am proud to come from England's second city, to have been born and brought up on its heritage-laden streets, to have been educated in its schools and universities and even to retain a small part of the local twang in my accent, which is so loved and derided in equal measure by those who lack it.
The term "Paki" is altogether a different matter. I remember hearing it for the first time in the Seventies when being warned about a group of skinheads called the "anti-Paki league" whose sole purpose was to beat up young men of Asian origin. Part of their uniform included the steel toe capped Doc Marten boot, which was to be used with vigour. Unfortunately that was not the only time I was to hear the word, but despite the decades that have passed it has retained the insulting bite that causes humiliation and anger every time it is directed at me.
When I was younger one of my coping strategies at being on the receiving end of the word was to politely inform the person using it that I was born in Birmingham and not Pakistan. That my parents came from India, not Pakistan, and that calling me a Paki was like suggesting that someone from Germany was Dutch. It was not only geographically inaccurate, it didn't even make sense.
Unfortunately, this strategy was short lived. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who shouts the word at you from a moving car, as happened on a number of occasions, or when you're heavily outnumbered and in severe danger of physical harm.
Perhaps more importantly, it totally misread the purpose of the term being employed in the first place. The people who called me a "Paki" did so for one reason: to degrade and insult in the deepest way possible.
It is a term that is designed to dehumanise, alienate and humiliate. It removes every part of my character, individuality and personhood and renders me nothing more than a skin colour – a colour that is different.
It is simply not possible to use the word "Paki" in a way that affirms or that results in a cheery jest. This is why both Bruce Forsyth and Godfrey Bloom got it so wrong when they suggest there is nothing offensive about the term. The word is nothing but offensive, as poisonous in its intent to degrade as the purest toxin.
Demanding that Anton du Beke takes full responsibility for his actions is not seeking mean advantage. It is a recognition that people who enjoy the benefits of the limelight and reap its rewards must also be responsible. In the case of public broadcasters they must also be accountable. This was the lesson of the Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand affair. It is a lesson that Anton Du Beke quickly needs to step to.
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
-
The Resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
Without it, the whole building collapses. If Jesus is not raised, we are
wasting our t...
Getting Started With Building Wealth
-
Investing can be a great way to build wealth over time, but it’s not
always easy to know where to start or what to do. There are some investment
tricks...
Canon Andrew White deserves a knighthood
-
He doesn't care about temporal honours, of course. You only have to hear
the 'Vicar of Baghdad' preach, or take a few minutes to watch the above
short fi...
Posts
