Thursday 28 January 2010

Thinly-veiled fear of 'difference'?

The French government are debating whether to ban veils that cover the face, worn by some Muslim women, in public buildings.  As someone who's both a woman and person of faith (and a faith that isn't innocent when it comes to oppressing women) this is something I feel uncomfortable with.  I know that covering the face (head covering is a different issue, albeit one the French have already dabbled in, and something I suspect they'll go eventually further with if they carry the day on face covering) has roots in culture as much as in religion.  But I don't think that matters.

Women who wear the niquab (veil covering the face but not the eyes) and burka (which covers the whole face and body) in the West tend to do so out of choice.  Perhaps that choice is the result of the culture they grew up in, perhaps it is a genuine religious belief.  I don't feel I've got a right to tell them what to wear.  Especially I don't feel I have a right to tell them they can't wear something they believe they should.  I'm more inclined to defend their right to wear what they like.  Why should covering their face offend someone?

I understand the argument that wearing the veil limits and oppresses women.  But many, or most, women choose to wear it, not forced.  And even if some women are forced, how does banning them from facilities where they can get help help them?  Is it fair that these people are to be unable to claim benefits or get healthcare- doesn't that make them oppressed by the state?  If they feel they can't go outside because they can't cover up, I imagine some women will feel trapped in their homes.  How does that help them?

I don't like the idea that anyone can be deprived of services because of their beliefs (cultural or religious).  Majority may think it's ok, but for those who believe it's not, that's unfair.  I can't think offhand of a specific item of clothing or behaviour that is analogous with the veil or headscarf for Christians.  But if there was something I believed I should wear and the government were going to bring in a law forcing me not to wear it...I think I'd consider breaking the law.  I imagine that will happen with some French women too.

The French recommendations seem to fail to recognise that wearing the veil is for some women (I don't say all) a genuine religious choice, something which they feel they should do.  Perhaps it's partly fear of something different, something the older French generation don't understand.  Another commentator suggests they are lashing out against Muslims- and more generally, immigrants- in fear of terrorism.  If so, they're probably going to find it only makes things worse.

Monday 25 January 2010

Why, God? Trust.


I wrote earlier about some of my thoughts on suffering and why it happens.  It's such a big topic that even two posts doesn't do it justice.  But here's some more thoughts.

How do you explain natural disasters, things that just 'happen?'  Are they the result of choices too?  How?  Earthquakes and volcanoes, floods and hurricanes are all the result of living on a dynamic world- plate tectonics and weather are essential for life to exist.  But if God is all powerful, why did he design a world like this, with what you might consider a built-in flaw?  Couldn't he have done it some other way?


Then there's the idea that the world has to include bad things and suffering for us to know what is good, to know right and wrong - that there has to be bad for there to be good.  I suppose there is some merit in that, but it doesn't really answer the question.  Why would anyone design a world like that, if they cared about the people in it?  

So the biggest question is still why, if God cares about the world, he allows suffering to happen?  I think possibly the only answer is what we can learn from what God does about suffering.  He, as Jesus, came to Earth as a baby born to a poor family.  He went into the desert to suffer hunger and thirst.  He was criticised by the authorities, betrayed by his friend, beaten and mocked and finally killed in an incredibly cruel manner.  No one can say that God hasn't shared our sufferings.

I don't agree with the view of a God who just makes the world, winds the 'clockwork,'sets it running and sits back to watch.  The God I believe in didn't.  He stepped in to deal with the problem of suffering.  Couldn't he have done it another way, that didn't involve suffering himself?  I don't know.  But he chose to do it that way, to suffer with us, as one of us.


So the real answer to the question is that I don't know exactly why there has to be suffering.  But I trust that if there is suffering in the world, it must be there for a reason, even if it's not one I can understand.  And I don't believe that God is cruel and enjoys watching our suffering.  Otherwise why would he give the life of his own son, who he says he loves, to try to sort the problem out?

The answer I give is that I trust God.  Not blind, unthinking trust, I think about it a lot.  Why do I trust God?  Because I believe he is trustworthy, from my own experience and that of others, and from the Bible.*  So my response to suffering is similar to that of the clergyman mentioned in the BBC article: to pray.  To tell God that I don't understand, and to ask for his reassurance.  And to ask for him to intervene in the world to alleviate the suffering.

As a footnote to this, see this WordLive session on the last plague on the Egyptians.

*To go into further detail on this would be opening up a whole other can of worms.  Later!

Thursday 21 January 2010

Why, God? Choices.


The terrible, disastrous earthquake in Haiti is much on people's minds at the moment.  And inevitably, when confronted with a situation like this the question of suffering arises again.  Why, people ask Christians, why does this God who you say is all powerful and loving, allow that to happen?  If he's all powerful he could stop it, if he was loving he'd want to stop it, so why doesn't he?  


The short and most honest answer is, we don't know.  We can come up with answers, but they all seem to leave me feeling not completely satisfied.  The BBC published an article where a philosopher addresses the arguments.  I think it's actually a decent summary of the arguments.  While I don't agree with his views on some of them, I think it's a good statement of how many people feel, and useful for the rest of us to understand that.  


I do believe in an all loving, all powerful, all knowing God.  But I do sometimes find that hard to reconcile with the world around us.  As well as the Haitian earthquake, several people I know are having to cope with the illness or death of family members at the moment.  I can understand that idea that suffering is often the result of people's choices- that someone who chooses to smoke might suffer ill health as a result, for example- but what about the people around them who suffer because of their choice, having to deal with their illness and perhaps being ill themselves as a result of passive smoke?  And then how do you explain natural disasters, things that just 'happen?' 


First there's the question of people's choices causing suffering.  It's a very simplistic view, echoed in Old Testament ideas (for example Job's friends assume he's having a bad time because he's sinned) but it's clear that it's not always the reason for suffering (Job hasn't sinned).  Those people who say whole nations are to blame for a natural disaster because of a supposed event in their past are on very dangerous ground and should probably keep their mouths firmly shut.  


That's not to say it's always wrong, though.  As in the example of the smoker above, our choices do have an effect on our lives.  Some actions bring their own consequence- like, for example, choosing to mess around on an icy path in shoes with no grip.  If you fall over and hurt yourself, that's probably your own fault.  If you make someone else fall over, that's your fault too, caused by your choice, even if they don't deserve it.


But, people ask, couldn't God have made people who didn't choose to do the wrong thing sometimes?  Well no, I don't think he could.  God made people to love him.  You can't force someone to love you, you can only invite it.  So they had to have a choice- to love God, to know him, to obey his will, or not.  If not, then they often end up hurting themselves and others, because the world is designed to work God's way.  And the road isn't smooth for those people who do love God and try to obey him- we make mistakes, other people trip us up because they are not going God's way.  Humanity's choice on a daily basis not to follow God means we all suffer.  


People are not good or bad.  They're just people, who sometimes do bad things and sometimes do good things, for many reasons.  I don't think you need to be godly to be a good, moral person.  As a wise old woman* said: "It's which way you face that matters."  It's our ability to choose that makes us human.  Without that we wouldn't be what we were made to be- people who choose to love God.


That's some of my thinking.  More later.




*Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchett's Witches Abroad.  

Monday 18 January 2010

What class am I?

Class seems to be reasserting itself as a topic of political debate after a decade of being told the class system is dead.  But what is class, these days?  What divides people?  Is it all about money?  If so, presumably the 'upper class' consists of high-earning, high profile figures like footballers, pop stars and TV celebrities, as well as top bankers and businessmen (and women, although probably fewer of them).  That's quite a variety, and suggests that there are many ways of rising to the top of society.


But further down perhaps it's not so clear.  Is class purely about money, or does the type of work you do, the education you have, how you choose to spend your money, play a part too?  When we say 'middle class' we often mean consumer choices more than mere household income.  Middle class brings up the image of someone who has a mortgage and a savings account, is part of a 'traditional' family,  works in an office or is part of a 'profession' as opposed to a 'trade'- doctors, lawyers, bank managers, teachers- sends their children to uni, reads 'literature,' drinks wine and goes to the theatre.  Working class brings up the image of grim concrete council estates, baseball caps and hoodies, listening to rap and dropping out of school at 16 to work in a shop- if you can get a job- or to have a child.  Yet these are both stereotypes, and while I guess there's some truth in them, it's not the whole truth.  


I've always been slightly confused in terms of class.  My mother is a teacher, her father was a printer with some connection to the civil service- middle class, but probably at the lower end.  My father and his father were office workers, again lower middle class.  Before that the family were skilled craftsmen- blacksmiths, shoemakers, wheelwrights- and were at the upper end of village society, but could still count as working class.  My father left school at or even before 16 to work on a farm, before moving into office work.  I doubt he ever considered that any of his children would go to university.  My mother had a scholarship to a private school before going to teacher training college.  Even though I have been to a good uni and am culturally 'middle class'  (I like Gilbert and Sullivan for goodness sake!  How middle class is that?) I'm still doing the same kind of work as my father did, and earning less money than many 'working class' people.  


There's one clip I seen several times now where John Prescott asks a girl what class she thinks she is, and she says "middle class."  He says that he (and probably most people) would have described her as working class, but her reply is that: "I don't work."  Perhaps in a recession that's led to the loss of jobs across all classes of society, from bankers to office workers to retail and manufacturing we can realise that the kind of job you have and the amount of money you earn isn't something that should pigeon hole you.  I'd like to think that.  I suspect we won't.  The difference is that if you've been struggling to make ends meet even when you're working, you've got nothing to fall back on when your job goes.

Wednesday 13 January 2010

Snow problem? It could be worse.

A few weeks of cold weather and we complain that the country is grinding to a halt, that we're a mere nine meals away from anarchy.  To be honest I'm getting rather fed up with all the moaning now.  Of course the snow's been a problem.  Some people have, sadly, died, and others have found live very difficult.  Travel has been difficult for many, businesses have lost money, pensioners and those on low incomes will be struggling with higher heating bills.  But as this BBC website article shows, for those without homes, those who are already at the bottom of society and struggling to survive the snow has had a far more serious effect.

Charities are trying to cope, to provide temporary shelter, food and warmth.  This is hugely important, and saves lives, but in itself it doesn't solve the problem.  It's a bit like giving first aid at an accident site; there might have been ways that what happened could have been prevented, if help had been available and accessible at the right time; and further care will be needed for a recovery to be made. Spending public money on schemes to get people off the streets and into homes and work isn't glamorous, but is important.

I'm no expert, but I imagine that the recession will have meant there are higher than average numbers of people sleeping rough as a result of job losses and family stress (often exacerbated by financial difficulties).  The inadequacies of the benefit system will probably not have helped.  At the same time let's be thankful that in this country we do have a welfare system, or the situation could be so much worse!

I think there's also a problem that we as a society value independence very highly.  We don't like the idea of having to be dependent on other people, so perhaps we're less sympathetic to those who are in need of help.  Since a large proportion of the population have had to 'tighten their belts' (most only metaphorically) recently I think there's been a lot of people saying 'we don't want to pay more in taxes, or for the government to spend more, even to help other people.'  While that's understandable it's also a bit selfish.  I imagine it's generally said by those people fortunate enough never to have been jobless for long periods of time, or who've never been made homeless because family tensions mean they have to leave home, but can't afford to get their own place.  We're quick to blame someone in this situation.

Perhaps this problem of valuing independence is evidence that the old divisions in British politics between Left and Right are not quite dead after all.  The socialist idea of a welfare community sounds nice, but costs money.  Ahead of this year's election the Conservatives are starting to sound more like the Tory party of old, stating for example that children's success has nothing to do with wealth or poverty, but only parenting skills.  Given recent news stories complaining that opportunities to get into the top careers are mostly only available to the children of wealthy parents (the ability to undertake unpaid internships, for example) that sounds a bit hollow to me.  A lack of stability, bad parenting and material poverty are usually, or at least often, linked, surely.

Not that other parties, or anyone, has all the answers.  But like I think sometimes we can all forget the poverty on our own doorstep in favour of causes that are somehow 'cooler' like aid for famine struck African countries, or the victims of earthquakes and cyclones.  There is so much suffering in the world, so much that needs to be done.  Compared to all that perhaps needing to wear an extra jumper or the airport being closed isn't such a big deal.

Sunday 10 January 2010

2009

2009 hasn't been a bad year.  That's not to say there haven't been times when I've felt very down, times when I've been saddened, upset, angry, frustrated.  In fact, in many ways my life doesn't seem to have changed from where I was this time last year.  Much of what I wrote then is still true.  If anything, I think perhaps I feel a little further away from God just at the moment than I did then- and I'm not happy with that.  As every month, every year passes without any of the things I want- and feel God wants me to be like or do- coming closer it seems to get harder to trust, but I know I have to keep trying.

But 2009 was also a year with many 'ups.'  Time spent with friends, my first opportunities at principal parts in G&S (although that has caused a fair bit of stress, too- sorry directors!) holidays, passing my driving test, little things that make life worthwhile.  Knowing that some people care about me- even if I often forget and feel lonely.  And not least being grateful that even if my job isn't great, at least I have one.

In some ways the above is also a fair summary of the last ten years.  There were some times, some years when I felt really dreadful, as if everything was crashing around me, and I've frequently felt a failure.  And there were times when I began to discover true friendship and joy and freedom as I'd never know them before.  Times when I was scared even of things I knew how to do, and times when I was thrilled to try new experiences.  But although I've often felt lonely I've always known I'm not alone.  And that won't change.


And to round it off, here's some of my favourite posts from last year.  I got quite excited when I realised that I'd written exactly 100 posts in 2009!

Journeys
Equality of the sexes?  Not yet.
Rental Rant
Would women have caused the credit crunch?
Bannanas, Bibleman, and banging my head on a brick wall
The Dream of the Rood

Wednesday 6 January 2010

Things Lois Likes

I was going to do one of those 'review of the year' type posts, but I haven't got round to it yet- and then the server crashed at work!  So in the meantime here's a light-hearted list of Things Lois Likes.

Waterproof walking boots.  Now I know I said a while back that I like snow, but it's now been on the ground for three weeks solid.  Snow, slush, frozen slush, snow that's melted and frozen again, plain and black ice.  There are many days I'd have struggled to get to work without sliding all the way and getting feet wetter than the North Sea if I didn't have my nice cosy, dry walking boots with good tread.

Laptop, wireless internet and iPlayer.  I might have gone mad over Christmas at my parents' if it wasn't for my laptop.  I downloaded stuff to take with me and watch, I could write stuff, read stuff, play games, listen to music.  And when now I'm back in York, wireless internet access means I can sit in my nice warm bed and watch videos, or on the comfy sofa downstairs and check emails without having to be tied to a wire and computer desk.  Lovely!

Hot chocolate.  Just the thing for this time of year.  Or indeed any kind of chocolate.  Oh, and I must make some soup.

YouTube.  BBC Worldwide made my New Year weekend when I discovered some classic Dr Who serials had been put online.

Our Christmas tree.  Although sadly we've just taken it down.  It's even better because it has a knitted Dalek on top.

Snowmen.  Especially the one on the fountain in York city centre that is wearing a high-vis jacket, safety helmet and black wig.  But despite all this snow I haven't made one yet, or thrown a snowball at anyone.  I want my mischievous housemate back!